Okulun Mekanik ve Organik Örgüt Yapısı ile Öğretmen Liderliği Arasındaki İlişki

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı sınıf öğretmenlerinin algılarına göre okulun mekanik ve organik örgüt yapısı ile öğretmen liderliği arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Çalışmada ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın verileri 2021-2022 eğitim öğretim yılında Bolu Merkez ilçede bulunan 15 devlet ilkokulunda görev yapan 274 sınıf öğretmeninden elde edilmiştir. Araştırmanın verileri Freund ve Drach-Zanavy (2007) tarafından geliştirilen, Conley ve You (2014) tarafından okul örgütlerine uyarlanan ve Cerit (2015) tarafından Türkçe’ye uyarlanan “Mekanik ve Organik Örgüt Yapısı Ölçeği” ve Beycioğlu ve Aslan (2010) tarafından geliştirilen “Öğretmen Liderliği Ölçeği” kullanılarak elde edilmiştir. Verilerin analizinde aritmetik ortalama ve standart sapma, Pearson Korelasyon testi ve çoklu regresyon testi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada sınıf öğretmenlerinin, okullarının mekanik örgüt yapısından daha çok organik örgüt yapısına sahip olduğunu düşündükleri ortaya çıkmıştır. Öğretmenler kurumsal gelişmenin sağlanabilmesiyle ilişkili liderlik davranışlarını yüksek düzeyde, kendileri ve meslektaşlarının mesleki gelişimlerini gerçekleştirmeye ve meslektaşlarla iş birliği yapmaya ilişkin liderlik davranışlarını ise çok yüksek düzeyde yerine getirdikleri görüşünde oldukları bulunmuştur. Öğretmen liderliği ile mekanik okul yapısı arasında negatif ve orta düzeyde, öğretmen liderliği ile organik okul yapısı arasında pozitif ve orta düzeyde anlamlı ilişki tespit edilmiştir. Mekanik okul yapısı sınıf öğretmenlerinin öğretmen liderliğine ilişkin algısının negatif ve anlamlı, organik okul yapısı sınıf öğretmenlerinin öğretmen liderliğine ilişkin algısının pozitif ve anlamlı yordayıcısı olduğu bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğretmen liderliği
• örgüt yapısı
• mekanik yapı
• organik yapı
• okul yapısı.

The Relationship Between The Mechanical and Organic Organizational Structure of The School and Teacher Leadership

Öz

The purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between the mechanical and organic organizational structure of the school and teacher leadership according to the perceptions of the classroom teachers. The participants of this study consisted 274 classroom teachers at 15 primary schools in Bolu in the 2021-2022 academic year. The data in the research were collected by using Mechanical and Organic Organizational Structure Scale developed by Freund and Drach-Zanavy (2007) and adapted to school organizations by Conley and You (2014), and adapted into Turkish by Cerit (2015), and teacher leadership was measured using Teacher Leadership Scale developed by Beycioğlu and Aslan (2010). Arithmetic mean, standard deviation, Pearson Correlation and multiple regression tests were used in the analysis of the data. In the research, it was revealed that the classroom teachers thought that their schools had an organic organizational structure rather than a mechanical organizational structure. There was a negative and moderate relationship between teacher leadership and mechanical school structure, and a positive and moderate relationship between teacher leadership and organic school structure. It was found that mechanic school structure classroom teachers' perception of teacher leadership was a negative and significant predictor, while organic school structure classroom teachers' perception of teacher leadership was a positive and significant predictor.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Teacher leadership
• organizational structure
• mechanical structure
• organic structure
• school structure

Kaynakça

1. Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 61-89. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393986
2. Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.295
3. Angelle, P. S., & DeHart, C. A. (2016). Comparison and evaluation of four models of teacher leadership. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 1(1), 85-118. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2016.1.4
4. Asgari, A., Silong, A. D., Ahmad, A., & Samah, B. A. (2008). The relationship between transformational leadership behaviors, organizational justice, leader-member exchange, perceived organizational support, trust in management and organizational citizenship behaviors. European Journal of Scientific Research, 23(2), 227-242.
5. Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make the difference. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104-1310.
6. Beachum, F., & Dentith, A. M. (2004, September). Teacher leaders creating cultures of school renewal and transformation. The Educational Forum, 68 (3), 276-286. Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720408984639
7. Bellibaş, M. Ş., Gümüş, S., & Kılınç, A. Ç. (2020). Principals supporting teacher leadership: The effects of learning‐centred leadership on teacher leadership practices with the mediating role of teacher agency. European Journal of Education, 55(2), 200-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12387
8. Beycioğlu, K. (2009). İlköğretim okullarında öğretmenlerin sergiledikleri liderlik rollerine ilişkin bir değerlendirme (Hatay ili örneği). [Doktora tezi, İnönü Üniversitesi]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/

9. Beycioglu, K. & Aslan, B. (2010). Öğretmen liderliği ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. İlköğretim Online, 9 (2) , 2-13.
10. Buluç, B. (2009). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin algılarına göre okul müdürlerinin liderlik stilleri İle örgütsel bağlılık arasındaki ilişki. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 57(57), 5-34.
11. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). Mechanistic and organic systems. Classics of organizational theory (1th ed.). Routledge.
12. Cerit, Y. (2015). Mekanik okul yapısı ile öğretmenlerin performansları arasındaki ilişki: Rol belirsizliğinin arabulucu etkisi. Electronic Turkish Studies, 10(3), 237-250. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.7378
13. Cerit, Y., & Akgün, N. (2015). Okulun örgüt yapısı ile sınıf öğretmenlerinin proaktif davranışları arasındaki ilişki. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23(4), 1789-1802.
14. Conley, S., & You, S. (2014). Role stress revisited: Job structuring antecedents, work outcomes, and moderating effects of locus of control. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(2), 184-206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213499264
15. Courtright, J. A., Fairhurst, G. T., & Rogers, L. E. (1989). Interaction patterns in organic and mechanistic system. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 773-802. https://doi.org/10.5465/256568
16. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). The influence of organization structure on the utility of an entrepreneurial top management style. Journal of Management Studies, 25(3), 217-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00033.x
17. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1990). New venture strategic posture, structure, and performance: An industry life cycle analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(2), 123-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(90)90004-D
18. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879101600102
19. Criswell, B. A., Rushton, G. T., Nachtigall, D., Staggs, S., Alemdar, M., & Capelli, C. (2018). Strengthening the vision: Examining the understanding of a framework for teacher leadership development by experienced science teachers. Science Education, 102, 1265–1287. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21472
20. Çakan, H. (2019). Okullardaki bürokrasi ile öğretmen liderliği arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi: İstanbul ili Arnavutköy ilçesi örneği [Yüksek lisans tezi]. İstanbul Üniversitesi.
21. Daft, R. L., Murphy, J., & Willmott, H. (2010). Organization theory and design (10th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
22. Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice. Alexandria VA: ASCD. Darling-Hammond, L., & Rothman, R. (2011). Teacher and leader effectiveness in high-performing education systems. Alliance for Excellent Education.
23. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute.
24. Freund, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2007). Organizational (role structuring) and personal (organizational commitment and job involvement) factors: Do they predict interprofessional team effectiveness?. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 21(3), 319-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820701283918
25. Frost, D. (2012). From professional development to system change: Teacher leadership and innovation. Professional Development in Education, 38(2), 205-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.657861
26. Frost, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership: Towards a research agenda. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 479-498. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122078
27. Frost, D., & Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher leadership: Rationale, strategy and impact. School Leadership & Management, 23(2), 173-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243032000091940
28. Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). 7 redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317-375. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903047327
29. Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision and the development of adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017263
30. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
31. Hairon, S. (2017). Teacher leadership in Singapore: The next wave of effective leadership. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 2(2), 170-194. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2017.2.3
32. Hao, Q., Kasper, H. & Muehlbacher, J. (2012), "How does organizational structure influence performance through learning and innovation in Austria and China". Chinese Management Studies, 6(1), 36-52. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506141211213717
33. Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2003). Teacher leadership: Principles and practice. London, UK: National College for School Leadership.
34. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2019). Teacher leadership and educational change. School Leadership & Management, 39(2), 123-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1574964
35. Hunzicker, J. (2012). Professional development and job-embedded collaboration: how teachers learn to exercise leadership. Professional Development in Education, 38 (2), 267-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.657870
36. Hurt, M. H. (2015). Investigating the intersection of school structure and teacher leadership: A mixed-methods study. [Master’s thesis, The Ohio State University].
37. Hoy, W.K. (2003), "An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures: Some theoretical, research and practical considerations", Journal of Educational Administration, 41(1), 87-109. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230310457457
38. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2010). Eğitim yönetimi: Teori, araştırma ve uygulama (Çev. S. Turan, 7. baskı). Nobel.
39. Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(3), 296-321. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969334
40. Jogaratnam, G. & Ching‐Yick Tse, E. (2006), "Entrepreneurial orientation and the structuring of organizations: Performance evidence from the Asian hotel industry", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(6), 454-468. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110610681502
41. Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. (19. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
42. Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2009). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders. Corwin Press.
43. Kılınç, A. Ç. (2014). Examining the relationship between teacher leadership and school climate. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(5), 1729-1742.
44. Kılınç, A. Ç., Cemaloğlu, N., & Savaş, G. (2015). The relationship between teacher leadership, teacher professionalism, and perceived stress. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 58, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2015.58.5
45. Koçel, T. (2018). İşletme yöneticiliği (15. baskı). Beta Basım Yayım.
46. Lai, E., & Cheung, D. (2015). Enacting teacher leadership: The role of teachers in bringing about change. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(5), 673–692. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214535742
47. Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvent. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
48. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2005). Teachers as leaders. In The Educational Forum, 69 (2), 151-162. Taylor & Francis Group.
49. McShane, S., & Glinow, M. A. V. (2017). Organizational behavior. (8th ed.)McGraw-Hill Education.
50. Mertler, C. A. & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation (3rd ed.). Pyrczak.
51. Messick, P. P. (2012). Examining relationships among enabling school structures, academic optimism and organizational citizenship behaviors [Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University].
52. Morris, P. (1990). Bureaucracy, professionalization and school centred innovation strategies. International Review of Education, 36(1), 21-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01874975
53. Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Corwin Press.
54. Nappi, J. S. (2014). The teacher leader: Improving schools by building social capital through shared leadership. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 80(4).
55. Nguyen, D., Harris, A., & Ng, D. (2019). A review of the empirical research on teacher leadership (2003–2017): Evidence, patterns and implications. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(1), 60-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2018-0023
56. Öqvist, A., & Malmström, M. (2016). Teachers’ leadership: A maker or a breaker of students’ educational motivation. School Leadership & Management, 36(4), 365-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1247039
57. Pang, N. S. K., & Miao, Z. (2017, July). The Roles of Teacher Leadership in Shanghai Education Success [Paper presentation]. Bulgarian Comparative Education Society, Bulgaria.
58. Parlar, H., & Cansoy, R. (2017). The effect of bureaucratic school structure on teacher leadership culture: A mixed study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(6), 2175–2201. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.6.0150
59. Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 38-54.
60. Price, H.E. & Moolenaar, N.M. (2015), "Principal-teacher relationships: foregrounding the international importance of principals’ social relationships for school learning climates", Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1). https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-11-2014-0134
61. Rosenblatt, Z., & Shimoni, O. (2001). Teacher accountability: An experimental field study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15(4), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015457732452
62. Rowan, B. (1990). Chapter 7: Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design of schools. Review of Research in Education, 16(1), 353–389. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X016001353
63. Schott, C., H. V. Roekel, H., & Tummers, L. G. (2020). Teacher leadership: A systematic review, methodological quality assessment and conceptual framework. Educational Research Review, 31, 100352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100352
64. Shen, J., Wu, H., Reeves, P., Zheng, Y., Ryan, L., & Anderson, D. (2020). The association between teacher leadership and student achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 31, 100357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100357
65. Smylie, M. A., & Denny, J. W. (1990). Teacher leadership: Tensions and ambiguities in organizational perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(3), 235–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X90026003003
66. Van der Vyver, C. P., Fuller, M.P. & Khumalo, J. B. (2021). Teacher leadership in the South African context: Areas, attributes, and cultural responsiveness. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 6(1), 127-162. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2021.1.5
67. Yılmaz, A. İ. (2018). Okullardaki bürokratik yapı ve öğretmen liderliği arasındaki ilişki. [Doktora tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
68. York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003255
69. York‐Barr, J., Sommerness, J., Duke, K., & Ghere, G. (2005). Special educators in inclusive education programmes: Reframing their work as teacher leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(2), 193-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360311042000339374