Vol. 7 No. 5 (2019): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

SYCOPHANCY AS A FACTOR THAT CORRODES MERIT IN ACADEMIC LIFE

PDF (Turkish)
  • Mustafa F. ÖZBİLGİN,
  • Berk KÜÇÜKALTAN,
  • Arzu AÇAR
Mustafa F. ÖZBİLGİN
Prof. Dr., Brunel University, London Brunel Business School
Berk KÜÇÜKALTAN
Assist. Prof. Dr., Trakya University; University of Bradford, School of Management
Arzu AÇAR
Dr.

Published 2019-12-25

Keywords

  • Merit in Academic Life, Abductive Approach, Sycophancy
  • Akademik Yaşamda Liyakat, Dışaçekimsel Yaklaşım, Yağcılık

How to Cite

SYCOPHANCY AS A FACTOR THAT CORRODES MERIT IN ACADEMIC LIFE. (2019). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(5), 2828-2850. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v7i5.1361

How to Cite

SYCOPHANCY AS A FACTOR THAT CORRODES MERIT IN ACADEMIC LIFE. (2019). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(5), 2828-2850. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v7i5.1361

Abstract

Merit is an important value for sustainability, quality, and competitiveness of institutions. In a context of meritocracy, it is often assumed that sycophancy, flattery or ingratiation would not exist, since sycophancy corrodes the merit system. In this study, the higher education institutions, which are regarded as the pioneers of the merit system, are taken as the focal point and the reasons, processes, and results of the sycophancy in the academic life are investigated through a qualitative analysis. Findings from 88 participants indicate that in addition to its widespread and culturally accepted practice among all stakeholders, sycophancy is structurally ignored and even tacitly condoned in academic life. The real life stories and the dimensions of sycophancy that are presented in paper contribute to the theory of sycophancy. In addition to this, the study also aims to serve as a reference for decision-makers in their fight against sycophancy in the modernisation of higher education.

PDF (Turkish)

References

  1. Acar, O. K. ve Akman, E. (2019). Türkiye’de Kamu Personel Politikalarının Süreç Modeli Çerçevesinde Analizi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(27), 203-217.
  2. Açar Eskici, A. (2018). Örgütlerde Bireyler Arası Rekabetin Dinamikleri. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Antalya, Türkiye.
  3. Appelbaum, S. H. ve Hughes, B. (1998). Ingratiation as a political tactic: Effects within the organization. Management Decision, 36(2), 85-95.
  4. Atalay, M. ve Açar, A. (2016). “Örgütlerde Yaranma Davranışının Lider-Üye Etkileşimi Perspektifinden İncelenmesi”. 24. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Kongre Kitabı. 29-31 Mayıs 2016, İstanbul, s. 330-334.
  5. Aycan, Z. (2001) Paternalizm: Özgün yönetim ve liderlik anlayışına ilişkin üç görgül çalışma, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 11-31.
  6. Bağlama, S. H. (2018). The Resurrection of the Spectre: A Marxist Analysis of Race, Class and Alienation in the Post-war British Novel. Berlin: Peter Lang.
  7. Becker, G. S. (2009). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. University of Chicago press.
  8. Bohra, K.A. ve Pandey, J. (1984). Ingratiation toward Strangers, Friends, and Bosses. The Journal of Social Psychology, 122(2), 217-222.
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice (Vol. 16). Cambridge University Press.
  10. Chan, E. ve Sengupta, J. (2013). Observing Flattery: A Social Comparison Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 740-758.
  11. Cook, J. A. ve Fonow, M. M. (1986). Knowledge and women’s interests: Issues of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. Sociological Inquiry, 56(1), 2-29.
  12. D’Amico, D. J. (2018). The law and economics of sycophancy. Constitutional Political Economy, 29(4), 424-439.
  13. Deluga, R. J. ve Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in leader-member exchanges. Group & Organization Management, 19(1), 67-86.
  14. Guest, G., Bunce, A. ve Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods, 18(1), 59-82.
  15. Jones, E. E. (1965). Conformity as a tactic of ingratiation. Science, 149(3680), 144-150.
  16. Kanbak, A. (2015). Üniversite öğrencilerinin çevresel tutum ve davranışları: Farklı değişkenler açısından Kocaeli üniversitesi örneği. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (30), 77-90.
  17. Kim, C. H. ve Choi, Y. B. (2017). How meritocracy is defined today?: contemporary aspects of meritocracy. Economics & Sociology, 10(1), 112.
  18. Kipnis, D. ve Vanderveer, R. (1971). Ingratiation and the use of power. Journal of personality and social psychology, 17(3), 280.
  19. Liden, R. C. ve Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 572-587.
  20. Oyman Bozkurt, N. (2017). Yükseköğretim Kurumlarındaki Güç İlişkilerinin Alan Kuramı Bağlamında İncelenmesi. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 50(4). 33-82.
  21. Özbilgin, M. F. (2006). 13 Relational methods in organization studies: a review of the field. in O. Kyriakidou and M. Ozbilgin (eds), Relational perspectives in organizational studies: A research companion, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
  22. Ozbilgin, M. F. ve Yalkin, C. (2019). Hegemonic dividend and workforce diversity: The case of ‘biat’ and meritocracy in nation branding in Turkey. Journal of Management & Organization, 1-11.
  23. Özbilgin, M. ve Erbil, C. (2019). Yönetim Çalışmaları Alanındaki Kısır Yöntem ve Yaklaşım İkilemlerini Dışaçekimsel ve Geçmişsel Yaklaşımlar ve Eleştirel Gerçekçilikle Yöntem Yelpazesine Dönüştürmek. Yönetim ve Çalışma Dergisi, 3(1), 1-24.
  24. Özbilgin, M. ve Slutskaya, N. (2017). Consequences of neo-liberal politics on equality and diversity at work in Britain: Is resistance futile?. In Management and diversity: Thematic approaches (319-334). Emerald Publishing Limited.
  25. Özkan-Canbolat, E., Beraha, A., Çeliksoy, E. ve Türker, Y. (2010). Türk Liderlik Profili: Türk Siyasi Liderleri Üzerine Niteliksel Bir Çalışma. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 2(2), 37-45.
  26. Park, S. H., Westphal, J. D. ve Stern, I. (2011). Set up for a fall the insidious effects of flattery and opinion conformity toward corporate leaders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2), 257-302.
  27. Patton, M. Q. (1987). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
  28. Ralston, D. A. (1985). Employee Ingratiation: The Role of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 477-487.
  29. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. ve Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. 5th edn. Harlow: Prentice Hall and an imprint of Pearson Education.
  30. Silbermann, A. (2000). Grovelling and other vices: The sociology of sycophancy. London: A&C Black.
  31. Singh, V., Kumra, S. ve Vinnicombe, S. (2002). Gender and impression management: Playing the promotion game. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(1), 77-89.
  32. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 30(4), 526-537.
  33. Tütüncü, Ö. ve Akgündüz, Y. (2014). Seyahat Acentelerinde Otantik Liderliğin Çalışanların Yalakalık Eğilimlerine Etkisi. Anatolia: Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 25(2), 167-175.
  34. Umeogu, B. ve Ifeoma, O. (2012). Sycophancy and Objective Journalism. Advances in Applied Sociology, 2(03), 159.
  35. Wulani, F. and Lindawati, T. (2018). The Coworker’s Impression Management, LMX And Interpersonal Deviance: The Moderating Effect Of A Fellow Employee’s LMX. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 22(1), 1-14.
  36. Young, M. (1958). The rise of the meritocracy. Penguin. Qualitative Research in Education, 1(2), 133.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.