No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The Effects of Organizational Stress Sources on Quality of Work and Work Peace According to Provincial Managers of the Ministry of National EducationThe Effects of Organizational Stress Sources on Quality of Work and Work Peace According to Provincial Managers of the Ministry of National Education
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the effects of organizational stress sources on the quality of work life and work peace, according to the provincial administrators of the Ministry of National Education. The study utilizes a qualitative case study model, aiming to examine the perspectives of provincial organization managers working in Antalya during the 2022-2023 academic year with an in-depth and holistic approach. The research study group included ten provincial organization managers working in Antalya Data were gathered using an interview form. Five semi-structured questions on the interview form were devised based on expert opinion. The data were analyzed by descriptive and content analysis. According to the research results, the participants mentioned many factors , such as individual differences in terms of lifestyles and cultural backgrounds, political pressure, or anything related to the work environment can cause organizational stress. For this reason, if it is desired to ensure work peace and increase the quality of work life, the factors that may cause organizational stress should be eliminated first. This should be the primary task of top managers or leaders and the element that needs attention.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
What role does business play in peace-building and conflict reduction? This special issue tackles this complex question, exploring varied business efforts to bring peace through six rigorous qualitative cases in Myanmar, Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, Somaliland, Brazil, Guatemala and El Salvador. Three main findings cut across this issue. First, local context is paramount to success; there is no one universal formula that a regulator, business or peace practitioner aiming to advance a business agenda for peace can employ for operational success. Second, rather than compartmentalising ‘peace’ into projects that often carry ‘win-lose’ consequences for local communities, business-peace projects must first understand who they are empowering so that they do not unwittingly make the conflict worse. Third, investment and access are deeply intertwined in fragile and conflict-affected areas, and business-peace projects that simply try to improve business access typically exacerbate inequalities favouring elite actors. We close with a discussion on how to take the business and peace-building agenda forward with scholarship and policy, stressing that business-peace projects must be assessed at the societal and not project level if their impact is to be truly beneficial for a political economy of peaceful development.
The conjunction of business and peace is a growing global phenomenon, but conducted and researched over a vast array of fields and contextual settings. This article provides theoretical order for this disparate material, illustrating cutting-edge research and highlighting the most urgent knowledge gaps to fill. Extracting findings from the business community, international organizations, and the academic community, this article maps these findings into five assertions about how businesses impact upon peace: economic engagement facilitates a peace dividend; encouraging local development facilitates local capacities for peace; importing international norms improves democratic accountability; firms can constrain the drivers or root causes of conflict; and undertaking direct diplomatic efforts with conflict actors builds and/or makes peace. These assertions provide a framework for categorizing and testing prominent business-peace arguments. They also support preliminary arguments that businesses cannot expect to be rewarded as peacebuilders just because they undertake peacebuilding activities, that economic opening only brings as much peace as a local regime will allow, and that truly courageous business-peace choices are rarely made in fragile contexts. This framework can encourage more coherent scholarly findings and more effective business engagements within the complex and challenging realm of peacebuilding.
Purpose: Ever since the concept of Quality of Work Life (QWL) was first used over 30 years ago, a range of definitions and theoretical
constructs have succeeded each other with the aim of mitigating the many problems facing the concept. A historical overview
of the concept of QWL is presented here. Given the lack of consensus concerning the solutions that have been developed to
date, a new definition of QWL is suggested, inspired by the research on a related concept, general Quality of Life (QOL) which,
as the literature shows, has faced the same conceptualization and definition problems as QWL. Based on the suggested definition
of QOL, a definition of QWL is provided and the measuring instrument that results therefrom (the Quality of Working Life Systemic
Inventory – QWLSI) is presented. Finally, the solutions that this model and measuring instrument provide for the above-mentioned
problems are discussed.
The values that quality of work life (QWL) has brought to the workplace are in danger of being lost, say authors Nadler and Lawler; to avert this danger, they debunk several "definitions" of the concept that miss the point, give it a precise definition, and spell out ways to use it successfully. They delineate six factors that they believe separate more successful from less successful QWL efforts. The first success factor is a perception of need--that is, in successful efforts organization members actually perceive a problem. Second, the problem is salient to the organization. Third, a structure for participation is created. Fourth, rewards are provided both for the processes and for the outcomes of QWL activities. Fifth, multiple levels of management are involved. And, finally, QWL involves all organization members in a way that avoids "we-they" rivalries. With these factors in mind, the authors conclude that three major components of QWL efforts must be managed well if they are to succeed: (1) development of projects at different levels; (2) changes in management systems and structure; and (3) changes in senior management behavior--that is, if the QWL effort is to be credible to organization members, there must be some specific, tangible QWL activity in which senior managers participate.
Stress and Management, Ankara; Publications of the Public Administration Institute of Türkiye and the Middle East
- Y Ertekin
Davranış Bilimlerine Giriş ve Örgütlerde Davranış
- M Şimşek
- T Ş Akgemci
- A Çelik
Organizational Stress Sources and an Application on Managers, Istanbul
- I Artan
A Comparative Analysis of Job Satisfaction and Job Stress of Teachers Working in Public and Private High Schools
- N Özdayı
Stress in Work Life, Ankara
- I Pehlivan
Business Management, Istanbul
- T Koçel
Business Administration, Istanbul; Marmara University Nihad Sayan Publication and Assistance Foundation Publication
- O Yozgat