Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
*
Asst. Prof., Bayburt University, FEAS.
Methodology
Within the scope of the purpose of the research, the re-
search model and hypotheses developed via the literature re-
view was subjected to the Path Analysis by using LISREL 8.54
statistical software package. In this research, the survey meth-
od was employed in gathering data. Cross-sectional data were
obtained via a previously developed research model and scale,
and were analyzed by quantitative methods. As the state bank
executives were given assurance of confidentiality the names of
the banks would not be disclosed, the relevant banks were rep-
resented by symbols. The state banks located in Ankara, which
were the universe of the survey, were composed of total 223
branches and about 800 personnel. Bank A had 54 branches,
Bank B, 91 branches and Bank C, 78 branches. Due to the
costly and time-consuming process of contacting all the state
bank branches located in Ankara, a 300-respondent sampling
from the relevant state banks was developed taking into ac-
count the location, accessibility and financial factors and the
questionnaire forms prepared were sent to the employees in-
cluded in the sampling. 250 questionnaire forms were re-
turned. Seven questionnaire forms that were not completely
filled out were left out of consideration. Hence, total 243 ques-
tionnaire forms were considered.
The Research Model
Nepotism and favoritism practices are also major concerns
in the banking sector (especially in state banks) as in all sectors
dependent on human involvement. In this study, which investi-
gated the effects of nepotism and favoritism on employees of
the state banks, a literature review was conducted and a re-
search model was developed. The model, which was con-
structed by using variables such as nepotism and favoritism in
the literature, human resources practices, job satisfaction and
intention to quit was added the variable of organizational
commitment which was predicted to be associated, though not
seen in the literature. In addition, some studies in the literature
have recommended the analysis of the organizational com-
196 TODAĐE’s Review of Public Administration
Preferential Organizational
Treatment Commitment
Nepotism
Favoritism
H4+
H2- H8+
H1- Job
H10- Satisfaction
H9-
H5+
H6+
Human Turnover
Resources Intention
Practices
H7-
The Effects of Nepotism and Favoritism on Employee Behaviors and 197
Human Resources Practices: A Research on Turkish Public Banks
tion to Quit” was taken from Babin and Boles’s (1998) study;
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was found to as 0.81.
In the questionnaire, 5-point Likert scale from 1=strongly
disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree to 5=strongly
agree was employed. The data were gathered by a research
team composed of students in the period of January-June
2010. More than half of the survey was conducted via face-to-
face interviews. The remaining were given to respondents to be
filled out at home and were collected the next day. Some of the
questions were translated from their English version into Turk-
ish. The reliability and comprehensibility of the Turkish version
of the questions were tested by University lecturers and English
teachers. Besides, demographic background of respondents
was presented.
The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, which is calculated in the
framework of irternal consistency that indicates the reliability
coefficient of the survey scale, was found to be (0.88). 37 ques-
tions included in the questionnaire form were subjected to the
descriptive analysis. At the end of the anaysis, the questions
were loadad on five variables. The variance explained by the
variables was found as 71.33%. In the factor analysis, 7 items
were loaded below the expected variables, i.e. below the 0.60
load value, the acceptable load value in the literature. Thus, the
said questions were not subjected to the subsequent analyses.
The items excluded from the survey were as follows: Nepotis
and Favoritism; “In this bank, employees, who are promoted or
rewarded because of family ties damage the organization” and
“Friends and acquaintances of bank executives are frustrated
by the fact that they never really know if they are promoted or
rewarded based on merit or personal reasons”; Human Re-
sources Practices: “My bank frequently uses “recruitment tests”
during employment”, “New employees go under regular skill
training programs in order to perform their jobs”, “Performance
evaluations involve the agreed objectives set by middle manag-
ers and goals of employees” and “In my bank, appointments
are based on job criteria”. The only statement on job satisfac-
The Effects of Nepotism and Favoritism on Employee Behaviors and 199
Human Resources Practices: A Research on Turkish Public Banks
Loadings
Standard
T Values
Factor 1: Preferential Treatment (Nepotism-Favoritism) 0.79 13.78
Employees of this bank always feel that they need someone they know or a 0.78 13.71
friend in a high-level position.
Supervisors are afraid of subordinates who are related to high-level executives. 0.71 12.91
I am always careful when speaking to family or relatives of bank executives. 0.69 11.98
Executives are more interested in keeping friends and acquaintances in good 0.67 11.62
positions than they are in those employees' performance or the organization's
profitability.
The expectations of executive relatives and acquaintances are given priority. 0.65 11.08
Banks permitting employment of executives' relatives have a hard time attracting 0.76 13.73
and retaining quality people who are not relatives.
Banks permitting employment of executives' relatives have a difficult time firing 0.69 12.04
or demoting them if they prove inadequate.
High-level executives of this bank have a hard time demoting or firing friends 0.69 12.05
and acquaintances.
Factor 2: Human Resources Practices
During the employment process the bank explains both thepositive and the neg- 0.61 10.88
ative aspects of the job.
My bank uses standardized interview methods during employment. 0.65 12.57
Personnel for this bank will go under educational programs at leastonce a year. 0.66 12.32
My bank does systematic analysis to identify what is missing in the educational 0.77 13.94
programs for the employees.
My bank takes service behavior, and its development as basis for the educational 0.79 14.38
programs.
My bank uses the results from the education programs to reacheducational tar- 0.67 11.65
gets.
My bank takes job-related criteria for promotions and appointments. 0.69 10.71
The emplıyees learn the performance evaluation results with an official notifica- 0.71 10.56
tion.
Factor 3: Job Satisfactionni
I consider my job rather unpleasant. 0.75 13.63
I am often bored with my job. 0.80 15.71
I feel fairly well statisfied with my present job. 0.83 16.24
I feel very tired at the end of the work day. 0.84 13.54
I am disappointed that I ever took this job. 0.81 16.31
Factor 4: Organizational Commitment
I would be happy to spend my remaining career in this benk. 0.77 13.98
I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own. 0.84 14.25
In this bank, I feel “part of the family”. 0.83 14.11
I have an emotional bond with this organization. 0.81 15.71
I feel a strong belonging to this organization. 0.75 13.39
I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization 0.86 12.75
The Effects of Nepotism and Favoritism on Employee Behaviors and 201
Human Resources Practices: A Research on Turkish Public Banks
Notes: Each item is measured on a five-point Likert scale. All correlations are signifi-
cant at 0.001 level.