The Development of the Praetorianistic Leadership Scale

Abstract

Praetorianism is when a person or group interferes with their liberties and takes them under control by considering the goodness or interests of another person or group. Praetorianistic leaders intend to have control over all aspects of their employees' lives. With this character, they can make business life unbearable. This study aims to develop a data collection tool that can be used regarding the level of praetorianistic leadership behaviors of managers. The main working group of the study consisted of 983 teachers working in public schools in Istanbul. Exploratory Factor Analysis was used to define the factors of the scale. Cronbach's Alpha and Compound Reliability coefficient were used to conclude reliability. The construct validity of the scale tested by two-stage hierarchical Confirmatory Factor Analysis. In the two-stage approach, first the measurement model and then the structured model were examined. In addition to these studies, the explained mean-variance of each subscale was calculated and the validity of the combination and decomposition of the model was determined. As a result, the Praetorianistic Leadership Scale was consisting of three dimensions (restrictive, directive, and authoritarianism). The scale is capable of measuring the perception of the praetorianistic leadership levels in managers. Besides, the scale is thought to make an important contribution to the literature of management sciences.

Keywords

• Praetorianism,Praetorianistic Leadership,Praetorianistic Leadership Scale,Validity,Reliability

Praetoryanist Liderlik Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi

Abstract

Praetoryanizm, bir kişi veya grubun, başka bir kişi veya bir grubun iyiliğini veya kendi çıkarlarını düşünerek onların özgürlüklerine müdahale etmesi ve onları kontrol altına almasıdır. Praetoryanist liderler, çalışanlarının hayatlarının her alanında kontrol sahibi olma niyetindedirler. Bu karakterle onlar, iş yaşamını çekilmez kılabilirler. Bu çalışmanın amacı yöneticilerin praetoryanist liderlik davranışlarına sahip olma düzeylerine ilişkin kullanılabilecek bir veri toplama aracı geliştirmektir. Araştırmanın ana çalışma grubu ise, İstanbul’daki resmi okullarda görev yapan 983 öğretmenden oluşmaktadır. Ölçeğin faktörlerini belirleyebilmek için Açımlayıcı Faktör analizi kullanılmıştır. Güvenilirliği belirleyebilmek için Cronbach’s Alfa ve Bileşik Güvenilirlik katsayısı kullanılmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliği, iki aşamalı hiyerarşik doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile test edilmiştir. İki aşamalı yaklaşımda, öncelikle ölçme modeli, ardından yapılandırılmış model incelenmiştir. Bu çalışmalara ek olarak her bir alt ölçeğin açıklanan ortalama varyansı hesaplanarak modelin birleşim ve ayrışım geçerliği de belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak Praetoryanist Liderlik Ölçeğinin, üç boyuttan oluştuğu (yönlendiricilik, kısıtlayıcılık, yetkecilik) belirlenmiştir. Ölçek yöneticilerdeki praetoryanist liderlik düzeylerine ilişkin algıyı ölçebilecek niteliktedir. Ayrıca ölçeğin yönetim bilimleri alanyazınına önemli bir katkı sunacağı düşünülmektedir. 

Keywords

• Praetoryanizm,Praetoryanist Liderlik,Praetoryanist Liderlik Ölçeği,Geçerlik,Güvenirlik

References

1. AFINOTAN, L. A. (2014). Praetorianism the Public Service: Analysis of the Impact and Consequences of Military Rule on Public Administration in Nigeria. Canadian Social Science, 10(2), 171.
2. AGYEMAN, O. (1988). Setbacks to Political Institutionalisation by Praetorianism in Africa. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 26(3), 403-435.
3. ALTMANN, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour, 49(3), 227-266.
4. ARCHER, C. I. (1990). The Royalist Army of New Spain, 1810-1821: Militarism, Praetorianism, or Protection of Interests?. Armed Forces & Society, 17(1), 99-116.
5. BALTACI, A. (2018a). Örgütsel Praetoryanizm: Kavramsal Temellerin Arkeolojisi. Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2), 497-522.
6. BALTACI, A. (2018b). Din Kültürü ve Ahlak Bilgisi Öğretmenlerinin Praetoryanist Davranış Biçimleri: İzmir Örneklemi. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(3), 434-451.
7. BALTACI, A. (2019). Praetorianistic Behavior Forms: An Investigation of School Principals. Bartin Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1), 103-137.
8. BEN-ELIEZER, U. (1997). Rethinking the Civil-Military Relations Paradigm: the inverse relation between militarism and praetorianism through the example of Israel. Comparative Political Studies, 30(3), 356-374.

9. BLAND, J. M., & ALTMAN, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. Bmj, 314(7080), 572-589.
10. BOWMAN, K. S. (2010). Militarization, democracy, and development: The perils of praetorianism in Latin America. Penn State Press.
11. CORTINA, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-115.
12. DECALO, S. (1975). Praetorianism, Corporate Grievances and Idiosyncratic Factors in Military Hierarchies. Journal of African Studies, 2(2), 247.
13. DE KLEIJN, G. (2009). C. Licinius Mucianus, Leader in Time of Crisis. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, (H. 3), 311-324.
14. DI TELLA, T. (2017). History of political parties in twentieth-century Latin America. New York: Routledge.
15. EGRETEAU, R. (2016). Embedding praetorianism: soldiers, state, and constitutions in postcolonial Myanmar. In Politics and constitutions in Southeast Asia (pp. 131-153). Routledge.
16. FERGUSON, Y. H. (2017). Competing Identities and Turkey’s Future. European Review, 25(1), 81-95.
17. FORNELL, C. & LARCKER, D. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
18. FOX, R. J. (1983). Confirmatory factor analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
19. HAKIM, M. (2016). Soeharto and the Politicization of Indonesian Islam (1968-1998). Journal of Indonesian Islam, 10(2), 159-180.
20. HALEEM, I. (2003). Ethnic and sectarian violence and the propensity towards praetorianism in Pakistan. Third World Quarterly, 24(3), 463-477.
21. HEN-TOV, E., & GONZALEZ, N. (2011). The militarization of post-Khomeini Iran: praetorianism 2.0. The Washington Quarterly, 34(1), 45-59.
22. HERSPRING, D. R. (1992). Civil—military relations in post-communist Eastern Europe: The potential for praetorianism. Studies in Comparative Communism, 25(2), 99-122.
23. HOYLE, R. H. (2000). Confirmatory factor analysis. Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling, 465-497.
24. HUSSAIN, A. (1976). Ethnicity, national identity and praetorianism: the case of Pakistan. Asian Survey, 16(10), 918-930.
25. KLINE, P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge.
26. MAHMUD, T. (1993). Praetorianism and common law in post-colonial settings: judicial responses to constitutional breakdowns in Pakistan. Utah L. Rev., 1225.
27. MCLAUCHLIN, T. (2010). Loyalty strategies and military defection in rebellion. Comparative Politics, 42(3), 333-350.
28. PERI, Y. (2017). Civilian Control during a Protracted War.”. Politics and Society in Israel: Studies in Israeli Society Vol, 3.
29. PERLMUTTER, A. (1994). Arafat's Police State. Foreign Aff., 73, 8.
30. PERUZZOTTI, E. (2004). From praetorianism to democratic institutionalization: Argentina's difficult transition to civilian rule. Journal of Global South Studies, 21(1), 97.
31. PION-BERLIN, D., & TRINKUNAS, H. (2010). Civilian praetorianism and military shirking during constitutional crises in Latin America. Comparative Politics, 42(4), 395-411.
32. RAYKOV, T. (1998). Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Applied psychological measurement, 22(4), 375-385.
33. RODRIGUEZ, A., REISE, S. P., & HAVILAND, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological methods, 21(2), 137.
34. RIZVI, A. J. (2015). Civil-Military-Islamist Relations: An Opinion on Democracy, Islamist Militancy and Praetorianism in Pakistan.
35. SHAH, A. (2008). Praetorianism and terrorism. Journal of Democracy, 19(4), 16-25.
36. SIJTSMA, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107.
37. SYAMSUDDIN, M. D. (1993). Political stability and leadership succession in Indonesia. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 12-23.
38. ŞEKER, S.D., (2011), Türkiye’nin İnsani Gelişme Endeksi ve Endeks Sıralamasının Analizi, DPT-SSKGM: Ankara.
39. TABACHNICK, B. G., & FIDELL, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate analysis. California State University Northridge: Harper Collins College Publishers.
40. TEDDLIE, C., & YU, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1), 77-100.
41. UZGEL, I. (2003). Between Praetorianism and Democracy: The Role of the Military in Turkish Foreign Policy. Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, 34, 177-212.