Editorial Board

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

 

 

Loneliness in Workplace: The Dilemma of Identification with the Organization

 

 

 

H.Tezcan Uysal

Assoc. Prof.,

Department of Health Management,

Bilecik Şeyh Edebali University,

Bilecik, Turkey.

Email: h.tezcanuysal@hotmail.com

ORCID: 0000-0002-8962-7824

 

 

 

Fatma Yılmaz Kılıçkaya

Assoc. Prof.,

Department of Foreign Trade,

Erzincan  Binali  Yıldırım  University,

Erzincan, Turkey.

Email: ffatmaayilmaz@gmail.com

ORCID: 0000-0001-8065-7245

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

The goals of this study are to examine employees’ perceived levels of organizational identification (OI) in terms of their sense of workplace loneliness (WL), to determine whether there is a significant relationship between these concepts and, if any WL exists for an employee, to reveal its role in a workplace on the employees’ OI. A significant and negative relationship was found between WL and OI; a significant and negative relationship was found between the independent sub-variable, emotional deprivation, and OI. Also, a significant and positive relationship was found between social friendships and OI. It was found that a 1 unit increase in the emotional deprivation sub-dimension caused an increase of 0.111 units on OI, and a 1 unit increase in the social friendship sub-dimension caused an increase of 0.836 units on one’s OI.

Keywords: Work Behaviour, Workplace Loneliness, Organizational Identification, Business Life

 

Introduction

As a necessity of being a social species, humans are in constant communication with the people around them in their lives. People need to be together with other individuals in order to gain, develop and live with the qualities they have, and this is an important requirement for every person. Individuals experience a sense of loneliness when this need is not adequately met. People continue their lives within the framework of the relationships they have established with individuals involved in their social lives. Individuals primarily seek social relationships to meet their requirements to feel included and establish social connections in order to meet their belonging needs. Therefore, loneliness arises with one’s inability to meet their personal needs with the social network that they are a part of.

The majority of human life is spent working. Therefore, the workplace is a very rich area in terms of the emergence of positive and negative feelings and emotions which are at the center of human life. However, the feelings experienced at work have clearly been barely addressed and discussed in terms of organizational behavior (Muchinsky, 2000). Especially in today's world, where information and communication technologies are very developed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to establish real social relations due to an increasing use of the internet and virtual teams and increasing competition in businesses. As a result of all of this, WL has recently become a serious issue that has attracted attention and is understood to have devastating effects on employees’ working performances (Peng et al., 2017). In order to achieve positive results in business lives, to make a difference, to have features which will pass competitors, and also to work in harmony with colleagues, loneliness has become a necessity of the business world. OI studies have also increased for these reasons. The degree to which employees identify with their organizations, the positive or negative changes which occur before and after they connect to them, and the causes and consequences have been frequently investigated and discussed. Many studies on OI also show that there have been more positive changes in the behaviors of individuals who mostly identify with their organization, and it has been found that drives such as a desire to quit, job dissatisfaction, lack of motivation, and inefficiency are less common. In addition, an employee who identifies with their organization sees the successes or failures of their organization as their own success or failure and works with a higher motivation and desire to achieve their goals.

It was stated that employees who strongly identify with their organizations will be faithful to the values of their organizations and will do their best to raise its reputation and earnings. In this context, employees’ ability to relate with their organizations is considered to be an important element in achieving long-term personal efficiency and organizational efficiency (Yi and Uen, 2006:369). In addition to it being psychologically important for workers to feel loyal to their organizations, the concept of OI has been the subject of research in recent years in terms of its impact on the organizations’ financial performances because OI is observed as one of the leading determinants of sales success at both the individual and group levels (Millward and Postmes, 2010:335). OI is a concept that emphasizes how workers express their beliefs and experiences towards their whole organization (Hatch, 1997:275).

The concept of loneliness is generally considered a psychological condition which is caused by a decrease in the number of social relationships of an individual or a poor quality in their current relationships. Loneliness, which is suffered in business lives, is experienced only in a limited way within an individual’s workplace as a result of a general feeling of loneliness. Even if a person has extremely healthy relationships in their daily life and does not feel lonely, they may face some problems in developing social relations and receiving social support in their working environment. WL caused by one’s social environment is due to disconnections of social communication networks or a failure to become a member of a group.

Currently, people are at work for most of their lives and spend their time with colleagues. OI is actually at the heart of the reasons such as more efficient teamwork, decreased or eliminated environmental stress, and increased motivation. In this context, it is possible to say that the feeling of WL will negatively affect an employee’s OI. It is very important to minimize WL as well as increase OI in enterprises. The aim of the research carried out in this context is to examine whether there is a significant relationship between WL, which is an important problem of modern business lives, and employees’ identification with their organizations, to determine the direction and level of organizational loneliness perceived by employees in their workplaces if there is a significant relationship, and to examine the statistical difference of WL and OI according to demographic factors. This research is important in terms of examining WL, which is thought to have a negative impact on the integration of employees for the purposes of their organizations, in terms of detecting the necessary administrative behaviors for creating an optimal organizational atmosphere and in terms of contributing to the literature of organizational behavior.

Literature Review

Workplace Loneliness

Some social networks are developed within each organization. The concept of loneliness arises when individuals are unable to participate in these social networks or evaluate themselves as part of these social networks. A sense of loneliness outweighs the other feelings in individuals who do not participate in or are not interested in activities within the organization (Mercan et al., 2012). In the modern world, on the one hand, people are trying to improve the quality of business lives, while the highest efficiency and best performance are expected from those who work. Those who work can be driven to extreme stress, loneliness or competition in the face of these expectations (Wright, 2005). Loneliness can be defined as the perception of deprivation that people feel if their social needs are not being met and their social relations are not adequately established (Ernst and Cacioppo, 1999:1). According to another definition, loneliness is expressed in the form of a situation that occurs for individual reasons, and in the event of a negative difference between the expected and experienced relationships in businesses and a lack of power to change this situation (Wright et al., 2006:59-60). The feeling of loneliness experienced in business life differs from the general feeling of loneliness and can only be effective in a work environment. In other words, a person who has very healthy relationships in their daily life and does not experience a feeling of loneliness may have difficulties in establishing social relations and receiving social support in the work environment. This can cause them to experience feelings of exclusion and loneliness in their business life (Doğan et al., 2009:272). The concept of loneliness in organizational terms is a case of someone being on their own due to social deficiencies or inadequacies caused by their organization, along with an inadequate quality level of interpersonal communication (Wright et al., 2006). According to De Jong-Gierveld (1998), loneliness emerges as shortcomings in people's social lives and negative perceptions of their relationship were developed by them (De Jong-Gierveld, 1998). WL is characterized as an undesirable state of mind caused by a lack of interpersonal relationships and the inability of those who work to socialize (Ghadi, 2017:83). WL is considered to be more of a state of one distancing from their social environment, isolating themself and being on their own.

Two qualities thought to contribute to loneliness were identified. Lonely people approach interacting with their social circles in biased and overly cynical expectations. There are no basic social skill characteristics among lonely people, and this deficiency is an obstacle to them forming long-term friendships with other people (Burger, 2006:481). Weeks et al. (1980) listed cynicism, a fear of self-reflection, effort, misfortune, boredom, lack of physical attractiveness, people taking care of the group members they are in and not wanting to have intercourse with other people, lack of opportunities, and a reluctance towards interacting with other people and non-personal situations as the causes of loneliness. Structural features of one’s social network and environment (Kraus et al., 1993), personality (Kraus et al., 1993; Wright, 2005; Atak, 2009; Nayyar and Singh, 2011; Olenik-Shemesh and Zeidner, 2013; Teppers et al., 2013; Koçak and Yener, 2019), social climate (Wright, 2005; Erdil and Gülen Ertosun, 2011), social intelligence (Silman and Dogan, 2013), and organizational and social supports (Wright, 2005; Wright et al., 2006; Rhodes, 2014) are mentioned as antecedents of WL in the relevant summary, which may have a part in the occurrence of WL.

The first classification of the concept of loneliness has been carried out by Weiss (1973), and they approached it with the dimensions of emotional loneliness and social loneliness. Wright et al. (2006) approached WL in two dimensions - emotional deprivation and social friendships based on this typology of the general concept of loneliness. The emotional deprivation dimension exhibits the nature of an individual's relationships with colleagues, while the social friendship dimension exhibits its quantity (Çetin and Alacalar, 2016).

The emotional deprivation dimension refers to the qualitative aspects of business friendship relationships. These qualities include feeling alienated, isolated, disconnected and emotionally distant from others (Wright, 2005). According to Weiss (1973), emotional loneliness occurs when emotional attachment in intimate (close) relationships disappears. Hollow marriages, divorce, and death are among the causes of this kind of loneliness. Feelings such as anxiety, indescribable fears, hypersensitivities to small things, a tendency to misinterpret the affectionate or artful behavior of others, and paranoia are symptoms seen in people who are experiencing emotional loneliness (Perlman and Peplau, 1998:574). Emotional deprivation that can occur in one’s business life can be said to be an employee protecting themself against others, avoiding sharing their feelings and thoughts with others, and the idea that their colleagues will not understand them (Wright, 2005).

The social friendship dimension refers to a situation where an employee does not participate in a social communication network in their business or does not see themself as part of their network. A lack of communication in the social friendship sub-dimension of WL is regarded as an important factor (Asunakutlu, 2002:62). Social friendships express quantitated aspects of business-friendship relationships. These factors are spending time with colleagues at work, spending time with others, feeling part of a group, being in social environments frequently, and having trust-based relationships (Wright, 2005). Loneliness in the dimension of social friendships is defined as the feeling that arises as a result of a lack of social relations between individuals in a workplace or the inadequacy of individuals to accept themselves into a group within an organization. Due to the inadequacy of relationships with colleagues and the number of friends (Keser and Karaduman, 2014), it is known that an environment of friendship or workplace friendship increases communication, reduces work stress, helps employees perform their duties more efficiently, and helps in the process of organizational change. Therefore, organizations should encourage the formation of friendships and friendships between colleagues (Berman et al., 2002). Based on all of these statements, WL is defined as an individual's lack of emotional deprivation and social friendships in their work relationships (Wright, 2005).

When the literature regarding this matter is assessed, it is observed that an employee’s loneliness in their workplace is associated with different aspects, such as the organizational climate (Wright, 2005), their intention to leave (Chen et al., 2016; Erdirençelebi et al., 2020), personality traits (Levin and Stokes, 1986; Cheng and Furnham, 2002; Wiseman et al., 2006; Tezer and Arkar, 2013), organizational silence (Guo, 2020; Erdirençelebi et al., 2020), communication competence (Reinking and Bell, 1991), emotional exhaustion (Anand and Mishra, 2019), organizational trust level (Giderler et al., 2017; Özmen, 2020), job stress level (Fernet et al., 2016), interpersonal trust levels (Rotenberg, 1994), social support (Ginter et al., 1994; Van Baarsen, 2002; Bowling et al., 2004; Ponizovsky and Ritsner, 2004; Lunsky, 2004; Duru, 2008; Çetin and Alacalar, 2016), creativity level (Gafoor, 2020), alienation to work (Şantaş et al., 2016), social isolation levels (Steinberg et al., 1999), organizational commitment level (Mellor et al., 2008; Yılmaz, 2008; Çivitçi and Çivitçi, 2009; Yılmaz and Altınok, 2009; Ayazlar and Güzel, 2014), organizational support level (Çetin and Alacalar, 2016; Dönmez and Topaloğlu, 2020), job satisfaction level (Chan and Qiu., 2011; Dönmez and Topaloğlu, 2020) and their amount of organizational cynicism (Hoşgör and Cin, 2020).

 

Organizational Identification

For what seems to be the first time in the related literature, the concept of organizational identification has been used by Lasswell (1935:29) in political science as a sociological and psychological term, and Lasswell defined OI as the process in which the perception of similarity occurs, driven by the emotional connection that exists between the individual and other individuals. The concept of OI has been expressed by Tolman (1943) in his business-related summary as a personal experience related to his own group and his affiliations with it. Tajfel (1982) stated that an awareness of one’s membership to an organization and an association of awareness with prominent values are two elements necessary for identification. OI is the perception of belonging in which an individual feels whole while being with their organization and sees the successes or failures of their organization as their own successes or failures. In short, the perception of belonging that an individual feels towards an institution or organization (Mael and Ashforth 1992:103) is OI, which expresses a cognitive link between oneself and their identification with their organization (Dutton et al., 1994). According to Miller et al. (2000), OI is a comprehension of the distinctive characteristics adopted by the members of an organization and feeling in solidarity by providing behavioral and attitudinal support to their organization. According to Scott and Lane (2000), psychologically, one feels their organization as being a part of themself. According to Kogut and Zander (2005), OI is based on the rules and patterns which individuals use to coordinate their behavior. In the event of OI, the members of an organization contribute more personally to the benefit of their organization and represent their organization more willingly against the external environment (Schaubroeck et al., 2013:1152). When the definitions for the concept of OI are examined, it is observed to be conceptualized in general as loyalty (Tajfel 1978; 1982; Tompkins and Cheney, 1985; Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Van Dick, 2001), similarity (Hall et al., 1970; Dutton et al. 1994; Pratt, 2000; Scott and Lane, 2000; Van Dick, 2001; Brammer et al., 2015) and membership (Tolman, 1943; Tajfel, 1982; Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Rousseau, 1998; Van Dick, 2001; Gossett, 2002; Edwards, 2005).

After conceptualizing OI, it began to be encouraged within the framework of a social identity approach (Van Dick 2001:265-283). The Social Identity Theory basically assumes that an individual can have as much social identity as their number of group memberships, as well as a single personal identity, and that identifying with one group will not prevent the identification that they could feel with another group (Olkkonen and Lipponen, 2006:204). The two-way identification in question explains this assumption of social identity theory. In addition, in their studies, Dutton et al. (1994) drew attention to the necessity of the characteristics it places on an organization in order to understand an individual’s OI based on the Social Identity Theory. OI occurs when individuals put the characteristics of their organization among their personal characteristics and make definitions of their own (Dutton et al., 1994). OI occurs when employees define organizational values together with their own values (Brammer et al., 2015:327). With OI, people can see their activities on behalf of an organization as their own activities. Thus, the objectives of an organization become the objectives of an employee, and the individual is motivated to work more to achieve these goals (Edward, 2005:208).

In the relevant article, OI has been associated with many issues. These are organizational justice (Cheung and Law, 2008; Dwarf et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2015), personality traits (Aghaz and Hashemi, 2014), leadership traits (Eren and Titizoğlu, 2014; Carasco-Saul et al., 2015), cynicism (Polat and Meydan, 2010; Nartgün and Kalay, 2014), corporate social responsibilities (Kaplan, 2013), political behaviors (Başar and Basim, 2015), organizational loyalty (Ceylan and Özbal, 2008), organizational support (Özdemir, 2010; Turunç and Celik, 2010_a), organizational allegiance (Van Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006; Çakınberk et al., 2011), organizational identities (Croucher, 2006; Cheung and Law, 2008; Podnar, 2011), organizational socialization (Balci et al., 2012), job satisfaction (Karanika-Murray et al., 2015), organizational trust (Tokgöz and Seymen, 2013), and organizational cultures (Schrodt, 2002). The reason for the following hypotheses is based on the facts that the concept of WL has not been previously associated with OI, and thin WL is a subject that researchers are relatively not interested in. They do quite little (experimental) work on etiquette (Dogan et al., 2009:272; Ertosun and Erdil, 2012:469; Lam and Lau, 2012:4265) to identify the relationship between WL and OI. WL can have a negative impact on OI. Based on these theoretical reasons, H_1a was created. H_1b was created in consideration of the notion that a potential elimination of emotional attachment in intimate (close) relations within an organization will reduce its workers’ identification with their organization. In addition, H_1c was created on the assumption that, for employees who usually do not spend much time on creating/maintaining workplace friendships and instead commit themselves to their organizational goals and objectives, their OI perceptions will increase when they express their quantitated needs in the form of spending time with colleagues at work, spending time with each other, and being in social environments frequently.

H_1a: There is a significant relationship between WL and OI.

H_1b: OI decreases as emotional deprivation increases.

H_1c: OI increases as social friendships increases.

H_1d was created in consideration of the idea that male employees may experience more loneliness in their workplaces due to the fact that the social roles of men and women and the differences in their upbringing styles may result in men experiencing more loneliness and women having more friendships; men being reluctant to express their emotions and women having a higher level of expression than men. H_1e was created because it is thought that male employees will identify more with their organizations because there are many roles waiting for female employees and they have role conflicts.

H_1d: WL varies significantly by employees’ genders.

H_1e: OI varies significantly by employees’ genders.

H_1f was created because it is thought that employees may experience WL while they are subjected to more supervision in the public sector and do not have the flexibility to communicate with their friends at any time. H_1g was created because it is thought that employees in the private sector will identify more with their organizations due to the ability to obtain more wages, and increase their career opportunities.

H_1f: WL varies significantly between the sectors.

H_1g: OI varies significantly between the sectors.

Although there are studies in the relevant literature which have reached different conclusions about the relationship of employees’ ages with their loneliness levels, it can be suggested that it may be an important factor, especially with the effort and concern of loneliness rising in the first years of one’s profession, the necessity and stress of working intensively can cause more loneliness compared to the following years. In this context, H_1h was created because it is thought that younger employees may experience WL due to them being new to having work lives and being in the process of socially adapting to workplaces. H_1k was created because it is assumed that employees with advanced age levels work in their existing institutions for many years and that, over time, they have emotional ties to their institution and will identify more with their organizations.

H_1h: WL varies significantly by employees’ ages.

H_1k: OI varies significantly by employees’ ages.

As employees’ levels of education increase, it has been thought that they could experience loneliness in their workplaces because they see themselves as superior to other employees, and so H_1m was created. As employees’ levels of education increase, it has been thought that OI would decrease, and H_1n was created to reflect increases in employees’ knowledge and skill levels, which influence their desire to work in a better job.

H_1m: WL varies significantly by employees’ educational levels.

H_1n: OI varies significantly by their educational levels.

It can be said that employees’ satisfaction with their income levels is an indirect advantage which assists in relieving their loneliness. This concept is based on the argument that employees with high income levels can form more comfortable social and emotional friendships. H_1p and H_1r have been created on the assumption that as employees’ monthly income levels increase, employees could relate to their colleagues at the levels they desire and would be happier in this sense, and they would therefore experience less loneliness in their workplaces and more OI.

H_1p: WL varies significantly by employees’ monthly income levels.

H_1r: OI varies significantly by their monthly income levels.

H_1s was created because it is thought that the feeling of WL will decrease as employees' work experience increases and their experience gained in their specific job increases as a profession for many years or a certain period of time. H_1t was created because it is thought that employees can do their jobs better as their work experience increases, and that the level of identification towards both their work and organizations will increase over time.

H_1s: WL varies significantly by employees’ job experience.

H_1t: OI varies significantly by employees’ job experience.

The Research Methodology

The Population and Sample of this Research

The participant sample of this study all consisted of employees who work in the Düzce, Sakarya and Zonguldak provinces in Turkey. They were private sector and public sector employees. Convenience sampling methods among the non-probable sampling methods were used in the study. Data has been obtained from 532 private sector employees; however, a sample size of 515 persons has been obtained at an analyzable level. The research sample is not restricted to any sector or field of activity because WL is visible in every organization.

The Data Collection Method of the Research

The data to be used in the study has been obtained by applying a face-to-face survey method. The survey used to obtain data consists of 2 scales in the 5-way Likert structure, including WL and OI. In the study, a 16-point scale developed by Wright et al. (2006) and adapted to Turkish by Dogan et al. (2009) has been used to measure WL. A 6-point scale developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992) and adapted to Turkish by Tak and Aydemir (2004) has been used to measure OI.

The Research Model

The screening model’s dependent variable is OI, the main dependent variable is WL, and the independent sub-variables are emotional deprivation and social friendship.

Figure-1 A Conceptual Model of this Research

The Research Data Analysis

The data required to test the hypotheses proposed within the scope of this research has been evaluated using the SPSS 20.0 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) and AMOS 24.0 (Analysis of Moment Structures) programs. For the data set obtained from the scales used in this research, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (DFA), confidence analysis, corral analysis, multiple regression analysis, Independent Sample T test and One-Way ANOVA test have been applied.

 

Results

Descriptive statistics of the employees who participated in this research were given in Table 1. According to this table, 55.5% of the sample consisted of male employees and 44.5% were female employees. When the age distribution is examined, it is observed that 73% of the involved employees were between the ages of 21 and 40. It has been determined that 56.9% of the employees who participated in the study were university graduates. When the employees’ monthly income levels were examined, the majority, 60.4%, had a monthly income in the TRY 2001-4000 range, while 21.4% of the sample had a monthly income lower than the minimum wage. Considering the work experience periods in the table, it has been determined that 78.8% of the sample had more than 1 year of work experience. When examined from the point of view of the sector, it was determined that 76.3% of the sample was made up of private sector employees.

Table-1 The Descriptive Statistics

	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	286	55.5%
Female	229	44.5%
Age
Younger than 21	51	9.9%
21-40	376	73.0%
41-60	85	16.5%
Older than 60	3	0.6%
Education Status
Primary School	43	8.3%
High School	181	35.1%
Associate	172	33.4%
Undergraduate	107	20.8%
Post-Graduate	12	2.3%
Monthly Income Levels
Less than TRY 1000	20	3.9%
Between TRY 1001 - 2000	90	17.5%
Between TRY 2001 - 4000	311	60.4%
Between TRY 4001 - 6000	77	15.0%
TRY 6001 or more	17	3.3%
Work Experience
Less than 1 year	109	21.2%
1-3 years	184	35.7%
4-6 years	118	22.9%
7-9 years	41	8.0%
10 years and above	63	12.2%
Sector
Private	393	76.3%
Public	122	23.7%
* TRY= Turkish Liras

A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was applied to determine the structural validity of the scales used in this study, and the compliance values obtained as a result of the factor analysis conducted for the WL scale, which consists of two dimensions, and 15 items are presented in Table 2.

Table-2 The Workplace Loneliness Scale/Fit Values

Compliance Criteria	χ2	p	χ 2 / df	RMSEA	CFI	SRMR	NFI	GFI
Fit Values	107.071	0.000	2.894	0.06	0.973	0.03	0.960	0.964

When the compliance values in Table 2 are examined, it has been determined that the chi-square value is 107.071; the p value is 0.000; the RMSEA value is 0.06; the GFI value is 0.964; the chi-square/degree of freedom is 2.894; the SRMR value is 0.03; the CFI value is 0.973, and the NFI value is 0.960. The tested, standardized solution values for the WL scale are specified in Figure 2.

Figure-2 The Workplace Loneliness Scale/Standardized Analysis Values

During the Confirmatory Factor Analysis, five items have been removed from the scale, and the reliability analysis results for the revised WL scale and scale dimensions are presented in Table 3.

Table-3 The Workplace Loneliness Scale - A Reliability Analysis

	Cronbach's Alpha	N of Items
The Entirety of the Scale	0.719	11
·         Emotional Deprivation	0.866	7
·         Social Friendships	0.829	4

As a result of the analysis carried out, the Cronbach's Alpha coefficient is 0.866 units for the emotional deprivation amount, 0.829 units for the social friendship amount, and 0.719 units for the entire scale. According to these values obtained, it has been determined that all dimensions and scales have internal consistency.

Another scale used in this research is the OI scale. The compliance values obtained as a result of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis applied to this scale consisting of 6 items are presented in Table 4.

Table-4 The Organizational Identification Scale/Fit Values

Compliance Criteria	χ2	p	χ2 / df	RMSEA	CFI	SRMR	NFI	GFI
Fit Values	12.199	0.094	1.743	0.03	0.997	0.01	0.993	0.992

When the compliance values in Table 4 are examined, it has been determined that the chi-square value is 12.199; the p value is 0.094; the RMSEA value is 0.03; the GFI value is 0.992; the chi-square/degree of freedom is 1.743; the SRMR value is 0.01; the CFI value is 0.997 and the NFI value is 0.993. In Figure 3, the standardized solution values for this scale are specified.

Figure 3 The Organizational Identification Scale/Standardized Analysis Values

The results of the confidence analysis carried out for the OI scale after the Confirmer Factor Analysis are expressed in Table 5. As a result of the analysis, the Cronbach's Alpha coefficient was determined to be 0.907 units for the entire scale, and the scale has an internal consistency according to this obtained value.

Table-5 An Organizational Identification Scale - The Reliability Analysis

	Cronbach's Alpha	N of Items
The Entirety of the Scale	0.907	6

It has been determined that the fit values of the WL scale which are expressed in Table 2 and the fit values of the OI scale in Table 4 have been found to be in line, in accordance with the accuracy statistics. The structural reliability of these scales is acceptable (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003).

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk values which were determined as a result of the normality test conducted for the data obtained within the scope of this research are presented in Table 6. When interpreted by taking the Shapiro-Wilk values into account due to the sample size (n=515), it is observed that the data obtained from both scales and scale dimensions used in the research did not show a normal distribution. Therefore, the skewness and kurtosis values related to the relevant dimensions are also examined.

Table-6 The Normality Test Results

		Kolmogorov-Smirnov			Shapiro-Wilk
		Statistics	df	Sig.	Statistics	df	Sig.
The Workplace Loneliness Scale	The Entirety of the Scale	0.093	515	0.000	0.975	515	0.000
	Emotional Deprivation	0.080	515	0.000	0.969	515	0.000
	Social Friendships	0.184	515	0.000	0.926	515	0.000
The Organizational Identification Scale	The Entirety of the Scale	0.087	515	0.000	0.959	515	0.000

The skewness and kurtosis values of the data obtained from the scales are detailed in Table 7. When this table is examined, it has been determined that the skewness and kurtosis values of the data sets, which do not show a normal distribution according to the Shapiro-Wilk values, are between -2 and +2 units, and these data sets show a normal distribution according to the classification by George & Mallery (2003).

Table-7 The Normality Tests - The Kurtosis and Skewness Values

		Statistics	Std. Error
The Workplace Loneliness Scale	Skewness	-0.487	0.108
	Kurtosis	-0.234	0.215
·         Emotional Deprivation	Skewness	-0.545	0.108
	Kurtosis	0.181	0.215
·         Social Friendships	Skewness	0.865	0.108
	Kurtosis	0.742	0.215
The Organizational Identification Scale	Skewness	0.456	0.108
	Kurtosis	-0.246	0.215

Table 8 shows the results of the Pearson correlation analysis of the research’s variables. According to this table, a negative and low-level significant relationship has been found between the main independent variable, WL, and the dependent variable, OI. A negative and moderately significant relationship has been established between the sub-independent value, emotional deprivation, and OI, and a positive and moderately significant relationship was found between social friendships and OI.

Table-8 The Correlation Analysis Results

			Organizational  Identification
Workplace Loneliness		Correlation	-0.202
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000
The Workplace Loneliness Dimensions	Emotional Deprivation	Correlation	-0.419
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000
	Social Friendships	Correlation	0.545
		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000

Table 9 shows the ANOVA results of multiple regression analysis aimed at OI with the WL dimensions. As a result of the regression analysis performed, it has been found that the regression model to be established expresses statistical significance.

Table-9 A Regression Analysis - ANOVA

Organizational Identification	Sum of the squares		Mean square	F	Sig.
	Regression	6125.787	3062.893	113.680	0.000
	Residual	13794.881	26.943
	Total	19920.668

The results of the analysis performed are expressed in Table 10. When this table is examined, it has been determined that 30.5% of the change in OI is explained by changes in emotional deprivation and the social friendships dimension of WL. Accordingly, the value of productivity at work can be formulated:

"OI = 12.180 - (0.111 x Emotional Deprivation) + (0.836 x Social Friendships)"

According to the formula obtained as a result of a regression analysis, it was determined that a 1-unit increase in the emotional deprivation dimension caused a decrease of 0.111 units on OI, and a 1-unit increase in employees’ social friendship amounts caused an increase of 0.836 units on OI.

Table-10 A Regression Analysis - Model

		Β	t	Sig.	R2	Adjusted R2
Organizational Identification	Constant	12.180	6.432	0.000	0.308	0.305
	Emotional Deprivation	-0.111	-2.776	0.006
	Social Friendships	0.836	9.871	0.000

In Table 11, the relationship between WL and OI and the employees’ genders were investigated. When this table is examined, it is determined that the significance values obtained as a result of both tests are greater than 0.05 units, and that the OI and WL do not differ significantly according to the employees’ genders.

Table-11 Workplace Loneliness & Organizational Identification – The Gender Component

The Independent-Sample T Test				Levene's Test for the Equality of Variances		T-test for the Equality of Means
				F	Sig.	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	The Mean Difference	The Std. Error Difference
Organizational Identification	Gender	Mean	Equal variances assumed	1.040	0.308	0.860	513	0.390	0.47502	0.55218
	Male	15.8986
	Female	15.4236	Equal variances not assumed			0.866	499.3	0.387	0.47502	0.54864
Workplace Loneliness	Gender	Mean	Equal variances assumed	7.310	0.007	1.164	513	0.245	0.60021	0.51568
	Male	42.2378
	Female	41.6376	Equal variances not assumed			1.145	452.6	0.253	0.60021	0.52404

In Table 12, the relationship between WL and OI and the sector in which the participants worked is examined. When this table is examined, the significance values obtained as a result of both tests have been found to be lower than 0.05 units. Accordingly, it has been determined that WL and OI statistically significantly vary between the sectors, OI for the private sector employees was higher than for the public sector employees, and, at the same time, the amount of WL was lower for the private sector employees than for the public sector employees.

Table-12 Workplace Loneliness & Organizational Identification – The Studied Sectors

Independent-Sample T Test				Levene's Test for Equality of Variances		The T-test for Equality of Means
				F	Sig.	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference
Organizational Identification	Sector	Mean	Equal variances assumed	0.261	0.610	2.745	513	0.006	1.76006	0.64114
	Private	16.1043
	Public	14.3443	Equal variances not assumed			2.841	213.412	0.005	1.76006	0.61962
Workplace Loneliness	Sector	Mean	Equal variances assumed	4.268	0.039	-2.011	513	0.045	-1.20896	0.60113
	Private	41.6845
	Public	42.8934	Equal variances not assumed			-2.153	226.633	0.032	-1.20896	0.56156

In Table 13, the relationship between WL and OI and the employees’ ages was analyzed. When this table is examined, as a result of both analyses, it was determined that the significance value is greater than 0.05 units, and that WL and OI do not differ significantly according to the employees’ ages.

Table-13 Workplace Loneliness & Organizational Identification – Age

One-Way ANOVA		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	F	Sig.
Organizational Identification	Younger than 21	51	16.0000	5.46992	0.76594	1.019	0.384
	21-40	376	15.8883	6.33663	0.32679
	41-60	85	14.6118	6.18773	0.67115
	Older than 60	3	15.6667	4.04145	2.33333
Workplace Loneliness	Younger than 21	51	42.1373	6.12216	0.85727	0.986	0.399
	21-40	376	41.9495	5.86652	0.30254
	41-60	85	42.1647	5.34711	0.57998
	Older than 60	3	36.3333	7.50555	4.33333

In Table 14, the relationship between WL and OI and the employees’ training statuses is analyzed. When this table is examined, as a result of both analyses, it has been determined that the significance value is lower than 0.05 units. Accordingly, it has been determined that WL and OI values vary significantly according to employees’ education levels. However, a Post-Hoc analysis was carried out in order to determine which educational situations these differences are significant for.

Table-14 Workplace Loneliness & Organizational Identification - The Educational Statuses

One-Way ANOVA		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	F	Sig.
Organizational Identification	Primary School	43	18.4419	6.14237	0.93670	5.940	0.000
	High School	181	16.2818	6.43110	0.47802
	Associate	172	15.6163	5.85930	0.44677
	Undergraduate	107	14.2150	6.02671	0.58262
	Post-Graduate	12	11.0000	5.08116	1.46680
Workplace Loneliness	Primary School	43	39.5116	5.65421	0.86226	3.513	0.008
	High School	181	42.1271	6.09010	0.45267
	Associate	172	41.6221	6.12083	0.46671
	Undergraduate	107	42.9813	4.61536	0.44618
	Post-Graduate	12	44.4167	4.71860	1.36214

The homogeneity test results performed to determine the technique to be selected in the Post-Hoc analysis are presented in Table 15.

Table-15 The Homogeneity Test of Variances

	Levene Statistic	df1	df2	Sig.
Organizational Identification	0.495	4	510	0.739
Workplace Loneliness	4.099	4	510	0.003

When the results in Table 15 are examined, it is observed that the variance belonging to OI is homogeneous, while the variance belonging to WL is not homogeneous. However, considering that the distributions in the groups are not equal, the Scheffe test for OI was preferred in the post-Hoc analysis, and the Tamhane's T2 was preferred for WL. When examined in detail, it was determined that the difference of OI according to the employees’ educational statuses was significant between the primary education, undergraduate and postgraduate degree holders; the level of OI was higher for the primary education than the undergraduate degree holders, and much more than the acceptable, the master’s degree holders and the identification with employees’ organizations decreased as their levels of education increased. It was determined that the difference of WL according to one’s educational situation is significant only between the primary school and undergraduate degree holders, and WL was higher for the undergraduate degree holders compared to the primary school graduates.

In Table 16, the relationship between WL and OI and the employees’ monthly income levels was analyzed. When this table is examined, as a result of both analyses, it is determined that the significance value was greater than 0.05 units. Accordingly, it was determined that WL and OI do not differ significantly according to employees’ monthly income levels.

Table-16 Workplace Loneliness & Organizational Identification – Employees’ Monthly Income Levels

The One-Way ANOVA Test		N	Mean	Std. Dev.	Std. Error	F	Sig.
Organizational Identification	Less than TRY 1000	20	17.8500	4.88041	1.09129	2.894	0.055
	Between TRY 1001 - 2000	90	15.0333	5.40796	0.57005
	Between TRY 2001 - 4000	311	16.2058	6.36138	0.36072
	Between TRY 4001 - 6000	77	14.0909	6.46281	0.73651
	TRY 6001 or more	17	14.3529	6.63270	1.60866
Workplace Loneliness	Less than TRY 1000	20	39.5500	5.57697	1.24705	1.580	0.178
	Between TRY 1001 - 2000	90	41.6667	5.63696	0.59419
	Between TRY 2001 - 4000	311	42.1286	6.04255	0.34264
	Between TRY 4001 - 6000	77	41.8442	5.32636	0.60700
	TRY 6001 or more	17	44.1176	4.24091	1.02857

The homogeneity test results performed to determine the technique to be selected in the Post-Hoc analysis are presented in Table 17.

Table-17 The Homogeneity Test of Variances

	Levene Statistic	df1	df2	Sig.
Organizational Identification	1.474	4	510	0.209

When the result in Table 17 is examined, it is observed that the variance belonging to OI is homogeneous. However, considering that the distributions in the groups are not equal, the Scheffe test has been preferred in post-Hoc analysis. As a result of this test, the significance value has been found to be greater than 0.05 units among all groups. Therefore, it has been determined that the difference of OI according to the employees’ monthly income levels is not due to their groups, but from within their groups (between groups= 442.1 units & within groups= 19478.5 units).

In Table 18, the relationship between the duration of work experience and WL and the participants’ OI has been analyzed. When this table is examined, as a result of both analyses, it has been determined that the significance value is greater than 0.05 units, and accordingly, OI and WL do not vary significantly according to the duration of the employees' work experience.

Table-18 Workplace Loneliness & Organizational Identification – Employees’ Work Experience

One-Way ANOVA		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	F	Sig.
Organizational Identification	Less than 1 year	109	16.6972	5.73247	0.54907	2.345	0.054
	1-3 years	184	16.1033	6.08368	0.44849
	4-6 years	118	14.9746	6.62740	0.61010
	7-9 years	41	15.6098	6.78925	1.06030
	10 years and above	63	14.1111	6.03247	0.76002
Workplace Loneliness	Less than 1 year	109	42.4312	5.63614	0.53984	1.491	0.204
	1-3 years	184	41.3370	5.60206	0.41299
	4-6 years	118	42.0508	6.74676	0.62109
	7-9 years	41	41.4878	5.41351	0.84545
	10 years and above	63	43.1905	4.95417	0.62417

 

Conclusions and Recommendations

According to the current research results, a negative and low-level significant relationship has been found between WL and OI. A negative and moderately significant relationship deprivation has been established between emotional deprivation and OI, which are independent sub-variables, and a positive and moderately significant relationship was found between social friendships and OI. Accordingly, H_1a, H_1b and H_1c have been evaluated and accepted. It has been determined that WL and OI did not differ significantly according to the employees' genders, ages, monthly incomes or work experience levels, and accordingly, H_1d, H_1e, H_1h, H_1k, H_1p, H_1r, H_1s, and H_1t have been rejected. It has been determined that WL and OI differed statistically significantly between the sectors - the OI levels for the private sector employees were higher than for the public sector employees, and at the same time, the levels of WL were lower among the private sector employees than the public sector employees. Thus, H_1f and H_1g have been accepted. WL was found to be higher among the undergraduate degree holders compared to the primary school graduates. As the employees’ levels of education increased, it was determined that their senses of identification with their organizations decreased. Accordingly, H_1m and H_1n have been determined and accepted.

Those who do not adequately perform in their businesses due to WL will find themselves caught up in the sense of failure, and the idea of inadequacy will cause their work insatiability to be lost (Wright, 2005). Employees who experience WL will be less satisfied with their work. As a result of the inability to share important information due to the inability to exchange sufficient information among the employees who are alone in their organizations, there will be a decrease in their work performances (Demirbaş and Hashit, 2016:139-140). In many respects, the most direct and satisfactory solution for loneliness is to establish new relationships with people or to develop existing relationships. Rokach (2013) noted that there are strategies of participants who identify themselves as alone for dealing with loneliness, such as acceptance and thinking, self-improvement and understanding, having a social support network, distancing and rejection, religion and faith, and increased effectiveness.

Loneliness in a business life is a topic that is more raised with negative connotations, and according to the results of this conducted research, WL has been found to negatively affect the attitudes and behaviors of the employees towards their work and organizations. As one’s WL perception increases, their levels of positive attitudes and behaviors decrease, such as in their role performances (Lam and Lau, 2012), subjective well-being (Erdil and Gülen Ertosun, 2011; Bakioğlu and Korumaz, 2014; Yurcu and Kocakula, 2015), emotional intelligence levels (Mercan et al., 2013), business performance levels (Akçit and Barutçu, 2017; Amarat et al., 2018), creativity levels (Peng et al., 2017), job and life satisfaction levels (Wright, 2005; Mellor et al., 2008; Yilmaz and Altinok, 2009; Akduru and Semerciöz, 2017; Cindiloglu, 2017), psychological capital (Mercan et al., 2013), emotional attachment levels (Özçelik and Barsade, 2011), work stress levels (Aykan et al., 2019), organizational commitment levels (Wright, 2005; Ertosun and Erdil, 2012; Ayazlar and Güzel, 2014), organizational communication levels (Koçer et al., 2018), leader-member interaction levels (Cindiloglu, 2017), and organizational citizenship levels (Lam and Lau, 2012). As one’s WL perception decreases, their levels of negative attitudes and behaviors decrease, such as burnout (Aşık, 2016), climate of organizational fear (Wright, 2005), workaholism (Karakaya et al., 2015), job satisfaction levels (Wright, 2005), intention to quit (Gülen Ertosun and Erdil, 2014), and abusive management (Ay, 2015). One of the situations that can occur in cases of WL is a decrease in OI. It is thought that the current study will contribute to the relevant literature in terms of revealing the relationship between WL and OI. Kramer et al. (1996) noted that OI increases the sense of trust in employees and prepares the basis for the formation of cooperation understanding and stated that there is a motivating factor for employees in achieving organizational goals.

The researches in the relevant literature provides common conclusions that OI positively affects organizations and individuals (Knippenberg and Schie 2000; Ashforth and Mael in 1989; Dutton et al. 1994; İşcan, 2006; Chreim 2002; Brown, 1969; Knight and Haslam, 2010; Tokgöz and Seymen 2013). It is observed that OI is positively related with leader-member interactions (Loi et al., 2014; Katrinli et al., 2008; Sollitto et al., 2016; Sökmen, 2020), job satisfaction levels (Knight and Haslam, 2010; Sycamore et al., 2016; Akbas and Cetin, 2015; Sökmen, 2020; Van Knippenberg and Van Schie, 2000), organizational commitment levels (Ertürk et al., 2005; Van Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006), organizational support levels (Van Knippenberg et al., 2007; Alparslan et al., 2014; He et al., 2014; Cho and Treadway, 2016), organizational images (Dutton et al., 1994), organizational citizenship behaviors (Karabey and Iscan, 2007; Tokgöz and Seymen, 2013), psychological resilience levels (Finished et al., 2013), organizational identities (Olkkonen and Lipponen, 2006; Cheung and Law, 2008; Koçak, 2019), job loyalty levels (Chughtai and Buckley, 2003; He et al., 2013; Ötken and Erben, 2010; Karanika-Murray et al., 2015), organizational justice (Cüce et al., 2013), corporate social responsibilities (Brammer et al., 2015), and corporate reputations (Keh and Xie, 2009; Öz and Bulutlar, 2009; Podnar, 2011; Öncer and Yıldız, 2012). The sources also conclude that OI is negatively related with the intention to leave (Mael and Ashforth, 1995; Abrams et al., 1998; Cole and Bruch, 2006; Van Knippenberg et al., 2007; Sycamore et al., 2016; Turunç and Celik, 2010_a; Long, 2018), perceptions of political behavior (Başar and Filizöz, 2015; Erkutlu and Chafra, 2016), levels of alienation feelings (Çalışkan and Pekkan, 2017; Demir, 2020), stress levels (Turunç and Çelik, 2010_b), and cynicism levels (Polat and Meydan, 2010). OI is a bridge between an organization and employees, making it easier for employees to cope with uncertainty by increasing their commitment to their organizations. Therefore, it is important for organizations to take some measures on WL when they find that they have a negative impact on their workers’ OI. In this context, employees should receive support from management in order to form strong friendships and achieve social rapprochement (Ay, 2015:1119), social integration, a sense of belonging, appreciation, respect, and mentoring/coaching requirements should be met within an organization’s (Yakut and Certel, 2016:172) picnics, birthday celebrations, etc.. Such activities should be organized, and effective communication channels should be provided within organizations by ensuring that employees are protected against loneliness (Erdirençelebi and Ertürk, 2018).

References

Abrams, D., Ando, K. and Hinkle, S. (1998). Psychological attachment to the group: Cross-cultural differences in organizational ıdentification and subjective norms as predictors of workers' turnover ıntentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(10), 1027-1039.

Aghaz, A. and Hashemi, A. (2014). Investigating the impact of personality traits on expanded model of organizational identification. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(3), 148.

Akbaş, T. and Çetin, A. (2015). İş tatmini ve kişi-örgüt uyumunun örgütsel özdeşleşmeye etkisi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 16(1), 81-101.

Akçit, V. and Barutçu, E. (2017). The relationship between performance and loneliness at workplace: A study on academicians. European Scientific Journal, 13(10), 235-243.

Akduru, H. E. and Semerciöz, F. (2017). Kamu kuruluşlarında örgütsel dedikodu ve iş yeri yalnızlığına dair bir araştırma. International Journal of Management Economics & Business, 13, 106-119.

Alparslan, A. M., Can, A. and Oktar, Ö. F. (2014). Algılanan örgütsel desteğin yardım etme davranışına etkisinde örgütsel özdeşleşmenin aracılık rolü: Hastane çalışanları üzerine bir araştırma. Is, Guc: The Journal of Industrial Relations & Human Resources, 16(2).

Amarat, M., Akbolat, M., Ünal, Ö. and Güneş Karakaya, B. (2019). The mediating role of work alienation in the effect of workplace loneliness on nurses’ performance. Journal of nursing management, 27(3), 553-559.

Anand, P. and Mishra, S. K. (2019). Linking core self-evaluation and emotional exhaustion with workplace loneliness: does high LMX make the consequence worse?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-26.

Ashforth, B. E. and Mael, F. (1989). Social ıdentity theory and the organization. Academy and Management Review 14(1), 20-39.

Asunakutlu, T. (2002). Örgütsel güvenin oluşturulmasına ilişkin unsurlar ve bir değerlendirme. Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9, 55-67.

Aşık, N. A. (2016). İş yerinde yalnızlığın tükenmişlik üzerine etkisi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 4(3), 366-384.

Atak, H. (2009). Big five traits and loneliness among Turkish emerging adults. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 3, 771-775.

Ay, F. A. (2015). İstismarcı yönetim, iş yeri yalnızlığı ve örgütsel sinizm arasındaki ilişkiler: Sağlık çalışanlarına yönelik bir çalışma. Uluslararası Sosyal Araşƨrmalar Dergisi, 8(41), 1116-1126.

Ayazlar, G. and Güzel, B. (2014). The effect of loneliness in the workplace on organizational commitment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 131, 319-325.

Aykan, E., Karakuş, G. and Karakoç, H. (2019). İş yaşamında yalnızlık algısı ve iş stresinin örgütsel bağlılık üzerindeki etkisi: Erciyes Üniversitesi idari personeli örneği. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1), 41-61.

Bakioğlu, A. and Korumaz, M. (2014). Öğretmenlerin okulda yalnızlıklarının kariyer evrelerine göre incelenmesi. Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 39, 25-54.

Balcı, A., Baltacı, A., Fidan, T., Cereci, C. and Uğur, A. (2012). Örgütsel sosyalleşmenin, örgütsel özdeşleşme ve örgütsel vatandaşlıkla ilişkisi: ilköğretim okulu yöneticileri üzerinde bir araştırma. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 47-74.

Başar, U. and Basım, N. (2015). Effects of organizational identification on job satisfaction: Moderating role of organizational politics, Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 22(2), 663-683.

Başar, U. and Filizöz, B. (2015). Can ethical leaders heal the wounds? An empirical research. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 8(15), 199-218.

Berman, E. M., West, J. P. and Richter, Jr, M. N. (2002). Workplace relations: Friendship patterns and consequences (according to managers). Public Administration Review, 62(2), 217-230.

Bitmiş, M., Sökmen, A. and Turgut, H. (2013). Psikolojik dayanıklılığın tükenmişlik üzerine etkisi: Örgütsel özdeşleşmenin aracılık rolü. Gazi Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi, 15(2), 27.

Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Johnson, A. L., Semmer, N. K., Hendricks, E. A. and Webster, H. A. (2004). Explaining potential antecedents of workplace social support: Reciprocity or attractiveness? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(4), 339-350.

Brammer, S., He, H. and Mellahi, K. (2015). Corporate social responsibility, employee organizational identification, and creative effort: The moderating impact of corporate ability. Group and Organization Management, 40(3), 323- 352.

Brown, M. E. (1969). Identification and some conditions of organizational ınvolvement. Administrative Science Querterly 14(3), 346-355.

Burger, M.J. (2006) Kişilik. İnan Deniz Erguvan Sarıoğlu (çev.). İstanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları.

Carasco-Saul, M., Kim, W. and Kim, T. (2015). Leadership and employee engagement: Proposing research agendas through a review of literature. Human Resource Development Review, 14(1), 38-63.

Ceylan, A. and Özbal, S. (2008). Özdeşleşme yoluyla sadakat oluşturma üzerine üniversite mezunları arasında yapılan bir çalışma. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 81-110.

Chan, S. H. and Qiu, H. H. (2011). Loneliness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment of migrant workers: Empirical evidence from China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(5), 1109-1127.

Chen, S. Y., Wu, W. C., Chang, C. S., Lin, C. T., Kung, J. Y., Weng, H. C. and Lee, S. I. (2015). Organizational justice, trust, and identification and their effects on organizational commitment in hospital nursing staff. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1), 1-17.

Chen, Y., Wen, Z., Peng, J. and Liu, X. (2016). Leader-follower congruence in loneliness, LMX and turnover intention. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(4), 864-879.

Cheng, H. and Furnham, A. (2002). Personality, peer relations, and self-confidence as predictors of happiness and loneliness. Journal of Adolescence, 25 (3), 327-339.

Cheung, M. F. and Law, M. C. (2008). Relationships of organizational justice and organizational identification: The mediating effects of perceived organizational support in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Business Review, 14(2), 213-231.

Cho, J. and Treadway, D. C. (2016). Organizational identification and perceived organizational support as mediators of the procedural justice–citizenship behaviour relationship: A cross-cultural constructive replication. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(5), 631-653.

Chreim, S. (2002). Influencing organizational identification during major change: A communication-based perspective. Human relations, 55(9), 1117-1137.

Chughtai, A. A. and Buckley, F. (2009). Linking trust in the principal to school outcomes: The mediating role of organizational ıdentification and work engagement. International Journal of Educational Management, 23, 574-589.

Cindiloğlu, M., Polatcı, S., Özçalık, F. and Gültekin, Z. (2017). İşyeri yalnızlığının iş ve yaşam tatminine etkisi: Lider-üye etkileşiminin aracılık rolü. Ege Academic Review, 17(2), 191-200.

Cole, M. S. and Bruch, H. (2006). Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: Does organizational hierarchy matter?. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 27(5), 585-605.

Croucher, S. M., Thornton, T. and Eckstein, J. M. (2006). Organization identity, culture and student motivation among intercollegiate forensics competitors. National Forensic Journal, 24(1), 1-15.

Cüce, H., Güney, S. and Tayfur, Ö. (2013). Örgütsel adalet algılarının örgütsel özdeşleşme üzerindeki etkisini belirlemeye yönelik bir araştırma. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(1), 1-30.

Çakınberk, A. Derin, N. and Demirel, E. T. (2011). Örgütsel özdeşleşmenin örgütsel bağlılıkla biçimlenmesi: Malatya ve Tunceli özel eğitim kurumları örneği. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 89-121.

Çalışkan, A. and Pekkan, N. Ü. (2017). Psikolojik sermayenin işe yabancılaşmaya etkisinde örgütsel desteğin aracılık rolü. İş ve İnsan Dergisi, 4(1), 17-33.

Çetin, A. and Alacalar, A. (2016). İş yaşamında yalnızlığı yordamada kişilik özellikleri ile algılanan sosyal ve örgütsel desteğin rolü. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 12(27), 193-216.

Çınar, O., Karcıoğlu, F. and Akdaş, K. (2016). İş yaşamında iş tatmini, örgütsel özdeşleme ve işten ayrılma niyeti ilişkisi: Erzurum’da bir kamu kurumu örneği. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(3), 121-136.

Çivitçi, N. and Çivitçi, A. (2009). Self-esteem as mediator and moderator of the relationship between loneliness and life satisfaction in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 954-958.

De Jong Gierveld, J. (1998). A review of loneliness: Concept and definitions, determinants and consequences. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 8(1), 73-80.

Demir, S. (2020). Örgütsel destek, örgütsel özdeşleşme ve işe yabancılaşma arasındaki yapısal ilişkiler (Osmaniye İli Örneği). Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(2), 288-300.

Demirbaş, B. and Haşit, G. (2016). İş yerinde yalnızlık ve işten ayrılma niyetine etkisi: Akademisyenler üzerine bir uygulama. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(1), 137-158.

Doğan, T., Çetin, B. and Sungur, M. Z. (2009). İş yaşamında yalnızlık ölçeği Türkçe formunun geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 10, 271-277.

Dönmez, F. G. and Topaloğlu, C. (2020). Otel çalışanlarında algılanan örgütsel destek, iş yeri yalnızlığı ve iş tatmini ilişkisi. İş ve İnsan Dergisi, 7(2), 311-324.

Duru, E. (2008). Yalnızlığı yordamada sosyal destek ve sosyal bağlılığın rolü. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 24 (61),15-24.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M. and Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative science quarterly, 239-263.

Edwards, M. R. (2005). Organizational identification: A conceptual and operational review. International journal of management reviews, 7(4), 207-230.

Erdil, O. and Gülen Ertosun, Ö. (2011). The relationship between social climate and loneliness in the workplace and effects on employee. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24. 505–525.

Erdirençelebi, M. and Ertürk, E. (2018). Çalışanların örgütsel yalnızlık algısının iş tatmini ve işten ayrılma niyeti üzerine etkileri. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 17(2), 603-618.

Erdirençelebi, M., Ertürk, E. and Çini, M. A. (2020). Örgütsel yalnızlık ile işten ayrılma niyeti ilişkisinde örgütsel sessizliğin aracılık etkisi. Sosyal Ekonomik Arastırmalar Dergisi, (39), 32-52.

Eren, M. Ş. and Titizoğlu, Ö. Ç. (2014). dönüşümcü ve etkileşimci liderlik tarzlarının örgütsel özdeşleşme ve iş tatmini üzerindeki etkileri. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 14(27), 275-303.

Erkutlu, H. and Chafra, J.l (2016). Impact of behavioral ıntegrity on organizational ıdentification: The moderating roles of power distance and organizational politics. Management Research Review, 39(6), 672-691.

Ernst, J. M. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1999). Lonely hearts: Psychological perspectives on loneliness. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 8, 1-22.

Eroğluer, K. and Yılmaz, Ö. (2015). Etik liderlik davranışlarının algılanan örgüt iklimi üzerine etkisine yönelik bir uygulama: İş yaşamında yalnızlık duygusunun aracılık etkisi. Journal of Business Research Turk, 7(1), 280-308.

Ertosun, Ö. G. and Erdil, O. (2012). The effects of loneliness on employees’ commitment and intention to leave. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 41, 469-476.

Ertürk, A. Demircan, N. and Ceylan, A. (2005). The effects of organizational communication and commitment on organizational identification: A sectoral comparison. Boğaziçi Journal, 19(1-2), 81-98.

Fernet, C., Torrès, O., Austin, S. and St-Pierre, J. (2016). The psychological costs of owning and managing an SME: Linking job stressors, occupational loneliness, entrepreneurial orientation, and burnout. Burnout Research, 3(2), 45-53.

Gafoor, S. A. (2020). Workplace loneliness and employee creativity from a positive perspective. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), 9(6), 244-262.

George, D. and Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon

Ghadi, M. Y. (2017). The impact of workplace spirituality on voluntary turnover intentions through loneliness in work. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 33(1), 81-110.

Giderler, C., Mürsel, G. and Giderler, M.,E. (2017). The correlatıon between organızatıonal trust and lonelıness at work-lıfe: A research on employees at a fırm in Turkey. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Thought, 6(1), 141–148.

Ginter, E., Glauser, A. and Richmond, B. O. (1994). Loneliness, social support, and anxiety among two south pacific cultures. Psychological Reports, 74(3), 875-879.

Gossett, L. (2002). Kept at arm's length: Questioning the organizational desirability of member identification. Communication Monographs, 69(4), 385-404.

Guo, L. (2020). The effect of workplace loneliness on silence behavior. Psychology, 11, 467-479.

Hall, D. T., Schneider, B. and Nygren, H. T. (1970). Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative science quarterly, 176-190.

Hatch, M. J. (1997). Irony and the social construction of contradiction in the humor of a management team. Organization Science, 8(3), 275-288.

He, H., Pham, H. Q., Baruch, Y. and Zhu, W. (2014). Perceived organizational support and organizational identification: Joint moderating effects of employee exchange ideology and employee investment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(20), 2772-2795.

He, H., Zhu, W. and Zheng, X. (2013). Procedural Justice and Employee Engagement: Roles of Organizational Identification and Moral Identity Centrality. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 681-695.

Hoşgör, H. and Cin, S. (2020). İşyeri yalnızlığı ile örgütsel sinizm ilişkisi: Bir eğitim ve araştırma hastanesinde uygulama. Turkish Studies, 15(5), 2449-2461.

İşcan, Ö. F. (2006). Dönüştürücü/etkileşimci liderlik algısı ve örgütsel özdeşleşme ilişkisinde bireysel farklılıkların rolü. Akdeniz İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi (11), 160-177.

Kaplan, M. (2013). Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk Algılamalarının Örgütsel Özdeşleşme Üzerindeki Etkisi. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 26, 77-97.

Karabey, C. N. and İşcan, Ö. F. (2007). Örgütsel özdeşleşme, örgütsel imaj ve örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı ilişkisi: Bir uygulama. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 21(2), 231-241.

Karakaya, A., Büyükyılmaz, O. and Ay, F. A. (2015). İşyeri yalnızlığının işkoliklik üzerindeki etkisi: kardemir aş'de bir araştırma. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(3), 79-100.

Karanika-Murray, M. Duncan, N. Pontes, H. M. and Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Organizational Identification, Work Engagement, and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(8), 1019-1033.

Katrinli, A., Atabay, G., Gunay, G. and Guneri, B. (2008). Leader–member exchange, organizational identification and the mediating role of job involvement for nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 64(4), 354-362.

Keh, H. T. and Xie, Y. (2009). Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: The roles of trust, identification and commitment. Industrial Marketing Management, 38, 732-742.

Keser, A. and Karaduman, M. (2014). İş yaşamında yalnızlık algısının örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı ile ilişkisi ve öğretmenler üzerinde bir araştırma. HAK-İŞ Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, 3(7), 178-197.

Knight, C. and Haslam, S. A. (2010). Your place or mine? Organizational identification and comfort as mediators of relationships between the managerial control of workspace and employees' satisfaction and well‐being. British Journal of Management, 21(3), 717-735.

Koçak, D. (2019). Örgütsel adalet ile örgütsel özdeşleşme arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(18), 1001- 1024.

Koçak, Ö. E. and Yener, S. (2019). Lidere güven algısının iş yeri yalnızlığı üzerindeki etkisinde psikolojik rahatlık algısının aracı rolü. Journal of Management & Economics, 26(3), 937-954.

Koçer, C., Yeşil, E. and Yürüyen, H. (2018). Sanallık algısının, iş yeri yalnızlığı ve örgütsel iletişim üzerindeki etkisi. Uluslararası Turizm, Ekonomi ve İşletme Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(2), 561-577.

Kogut, B. and Zander, U.(2005). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science 7(5), 502-518.

Kramer, R. M., Brewer, M. B. and Hanna, B. A. (1996). Collective trust and collective action. Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, 357-389.

Kraus, L.A., Davis, M.H., Bazzini, D., Church, M. and Kirchman, C.M. (1993). Personal and social influences on loneliness: The mediating effect of social provisions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56 (1), 37-53.

Lam, L. W. and Lau, D. C. (2012). Feeling lonely at work: Investigating the consequences of unsatisfactory workplace relationships. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(20), 4265-4282.

Lasswell, H. (1935).World politics and personal ınsecurity. Illinois: McGraw-Hill Boko Company.

Levin, I. and Stokes, J. P. (1986). An examination of the relation of individual difference variables to loneliness. Journal of Personality, 54(4), 717-733.

Loi, R., Chan, K. W. and Lam, L. W. (2014). Leader–member exchange, organizational identification, and job satisfaction: A social identity perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational psychology, 87(1), 42- 61.

Lunsky, Y. (2004). Suicidality in a clinical and community sample of adults with mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25(3), 231-243.

Mael, F. A. and Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel psychology, 48(2), 309-333.

Mael, F. and Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational ıdentification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.

Mellor, D., Stokes, M., Firth, L., Hayashi, Y. and Cummins, R. (2008). Need for belonging, relationship satisfaction, loneliness, and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 213-218.

Mercan N., Demirci K., Özler D. E. and Oyur E. (2013). İş yaşamında yalnızlık, duygusal zeka ve psikolojik sermaye arasındaki ilişkiler üzerine bir araştırma. Sakarya Üniversitesi, 1. Örgütsel Davranış Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı.

Mercan, N., Oyur, E., Alamur, B., Gül, S. and Bengül, S. (2012). İşyeri yalnızlığı ve sosyal fobi arasındaki ilişkiye yönelik bir araştırma. Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(1), 213-226.

Miller, V. D., Allen, M. Casey, M. K. and Johnson, J. R., (2000). Reconsidering the Organizational Identification Questionnaire. Management Communication Quarterly 13(4), 626-658.

Millward, L. J. and Postmes, T. (2010). Who we are affects how we do: The financial benefits of organizational identification. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 327-339.

Muchinsky, P. M. (2000). Emotions in the workplace: The neglect of organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 21(7), 801-805.

Nartgün, Ş. and Kalay, M. (2014). Öğretmenlerin örgütsel destek, örgütsel özdeşleşme ile örgütsel sinizm düzeylerine ilişkin görüşleri. Electronic Turkish Studies, 9(2), 1361-1376.

Nayyar, S. and Sing, B. (2011). Personality corralates of loneliness. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 163-168.

Olenik-Shemesh, D. and Zeidner, M. (2013).Personality predictors of school loneliness in adolescent students. Psychology Research, 3(10),5 79-589.

Olkkonen, M. E. and Lipponen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 100(2), 202-215.

Öncer, A. Z. and Yıldız, M. L. (2012). The impact of ethical climate on relationship between corporate reputation and organizational identification. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 714-723.

Ötken, A. B. and Erben, G. S. (2010). Investigating the relationship between organizational ıdentification and work engagement and the role of supervisor support. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 93-118.

Öz, E. Ü. and Bulutlar, F. (2009). Algılanan kurumsal itibar ve kurumdan ayrılma niyeti arasındaki ilişkide bir ara değişken olarak özdeşleşmenin rolü. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 35-52.

Özçelik, H. and Barsade, S. G. (2018). No employee an island: Workplace loneliness and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2343-2366.

Özdemir, A. (2010). Örgütsel özdeşleşmenin algılanan örgütsel destek, cinsiyet ve kıdem değişkenlerine göre incelenmesi. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 14(1), 237-250.

Özmen, M. (2020). İşyerinde yalnızlığı etkileyen örgütsel güven unsurlarının cinsiyete göre değişimi: Havalimanı çalışanları üzerine bir araştırma. İş ve İnsan Dergisi, 7(1), 77-88.

Peng, J., Chen, Y., Xia, Y. and Ran, Y. (2017). Workplace loneliness, leader-member exchange and creativity: The cross-level moderating role of leader compassion. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 510-515.

Perlman, D. and Peplau, L. A. (1998). Loneliness. Encyclopedia of mental health, 2, 571-581.

Podnar, K. (2011). Perceived External Prestige, Organizational Identification and Organizational Commitment: An Empirical Examination. Teorjain praksa Let, 48(6), 1611-1627.

Polat, M. and Meydan, C. H. (2010). Örgütsel özdeşleşmenin sinizm ve işten ayrılma niyeti ile ilişkisi üzerine bir araştırma. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(1), 145-172.

Ponizovsky, A. M. and Ritsner, M. S. (2004). Patterns of loneliness in an immigrant population. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 45(5), 408-414.

Pratt, M. G. (1998). Central questions in organizational identification. Identity in organizations, 24(3), 171-207.

Reinking, K. and Bell, R. A. (1991). Relationships among loneliness, communication competence, and career success in a state bureaucracy: a field study of the lonely at the top maxim. Communication Quarterly, 39, 358-373.

Rhodes, J.L. (2014). Loneliness: How superficial relationships, identity gaps, and social support contribute to feelings of loneliness at Pepperdine University Pepperdine. Journal of Communication Research, 2 (1), 1-16.

Rokach, A. (Ed.). (2013). Loneliness updated: Recent research on loneliness and how it affects our live Routledge, USA, 50-51.

Rotenberg, K. J. (1994). Loneliness and interpersonal trust. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13(2), 152-173.

Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 217-233.

Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A. C. and Hannah, S. T. (2013). Developing trust with peers and leaders: Impacts on organizational identification and performance during entry. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1148-1168.

Schrodt, P. (2002). The relationship between organizational identification and organizational culture: Employee perceptions of culture and identification in a retail sales organization. Communication studies, 53(2), 189-202.

Scott, S. G. and Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43-62.

Silman, F. and Doğan, T. ( 2013). Social intelligence as a predictor of loneliness in the workplace. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16, 36, 1–6.

Sollitto, M., Martin, M. M., Dusic, S., Gibbons, K. E. and Wagenhouser, A. (2016). Assessing the supervisorsubordinate relationship involving part-time employees. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(1), 74-96.

Sökmen, A. (2020). Lider üye etkileşimi, iş tatmini ve örgütsel özdeşleşme ilişkisi: Ankara’daki otel işletmelerinde ampirik bir araştırma. Journal of Tourism and Gastronomy Studies, 8(3), 2132-2143.

Steinberg, A. G., Sullivan, V. J. and Montoya, L. A. (1999). Loneliness and social isolation in the work place for deaf individuals during the transition years: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 30(1), 22-30.

Şantaş, G., Işık, O. and Demir, A. (2016). The effect of loneliness at work; work stress on work alienation and work alienation on employees’ performance in Turkish health care institution. South Asian Journal of Management Sciences, 10(2), 30-38.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual review of psychology, 33(1), 1-39.

Tak, B. and Aydemir, B. A. (2004). Örgütsel özdeşleşme üzerine iki görgül çalışma. 12. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi, Uludağ Üniversitesi, Bursa.

Teppers, E., Klimstra, T.A., Van Damme, C., Luyckx, K., Vanhalst, J. and Goossens, L. (2013). Personality traits, loneliness, and attitudes toward aloneness in adolescence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(8), 1045–1063.

Tezer, N. and Arkar, H. (2013). Sosyal ilişkilerde kişilik özellikleri etkili mi? Sosyal ağ, yalnızlık ve algılanan sosyal desteğin aracı etki olarak incelenmesi. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry, 14, 46-52.

Tokgöz, E. and Seymen, O. A. (2013). Örgütsel güven, örgütsel özdeşleşme ve örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı arasındaki ilişki: Bir devlet hastanesinde araştırma. Öneri Dergisi, 10(39), 61-76.

Tolman, E. C. (1943). Identification and the postwar world. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(2), 141.

Tompkins, P. K. and Cheney, G. (1985). Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations. Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions, 13, 179-210.

Turunç, Ö. and Çelik, M. (2010_a). Algılanan örgütsel desteğin çalışanların iş-aile, aile-iş çatışması, örgütsel özdeşleşme ve işten ayrılma niyetine etkisi: Savunma sektöründe bir araştırma. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(1), 209-232.

Turunç, Ö. and Çelik, M. (2010_b). Çalışanların algıladıkları örgütsel destek ve iş stresinin örgütsel özdeşleşme ve iş performansına etkisi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(2), 183-206.

Uzun, T. (2018). Öğretmenlerin algıladığı örgütsel destek ile örgütsel özdeşleşme ve işten ayrılma niyeti arasındaki ilişki: Örgütsel güvenin aracı rolü. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(18), 133-155.

Van Baarsen, B. (2002). Theories on coping with loss the impact of social support and selfesteem on adjustment to emotional and social loneliness following a partner’s death in later life. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(1), 33-42.

Van Dick, R. (2001). Identification in Organizational Contexts: Linking Theory and Research from Social and Organizational Psychology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 265-283.

Van Knippenberg, D. and Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: Self‐definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 27(5), 571-584.

Van Knippenberg, D. and Van Schie, Els C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137-147.

Van Knippenberg, D., Dick, R. V. and Tavares, S. (2007). Social Identity and Social Exchange: Identification, Support and Withdrawal From the Job. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(3), 457-477.

Weeks, D. G., Michela, J. L., Peplau, L. A. and Bragg, M. E. (1980). Relation between loneliness and depression: A structural equation analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(6), 1238-1245.

Weiss, R. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Wiseman, H., Mayseless, O. and Sharabany, R. (2006). Why are they lonely? Perceived quality of early relationships with parents, attachment, personality predispositions and loneliness in first-year university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(2), 237-248.

Wright, S. L. (2005). Organizational climate, social support and loneliness in the workplace. Research on Emotion in Organizations, 1(1), 123-142.

Wright, S. L., Burt, C. D. B. and Strongman, K. T. (2006). Loneliness in the workplace: Construct definition and scale development. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 3(2), 59-68.

Yakut, S. and Certel, H. (2016). Öğretmenlerde yalnızlık düzeyinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi, Birey ve Toplum, 6(11), 169-193.

Yılmaz, E. (2008). Organizational commitment and loneliness and life satisfaction levels of school principals. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 36(8), 1085-1096.

Yılmaz, E. and Altınok, V. (2009). Okul yöneticilerinin yalnızlık ve yaşam doyum düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi,15(3), 451-470.

Yi, X. and Uen, J. F. (2006). Relationship between organizational socialization and organization identification of professionals: Moderating effects of personal work experience and growth need strength. The journal of American Academy of Business, 10(1), 362-371.

Yurcu, G. and Kocakula, Ö. (2015). Konaklama işletmelerinde çalışan yalnızlığının öznel iyi oluş üzerine etkisi. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(1), 30-41.