The organisational show: a new conceptualisation to explain school ineffectiveness

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether organisational show is a cause of school ineffectiveness according to the views of school administrators and teachers. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews with 12 teachers and 10 administrators working at different school levels in Turkey. Reducing tasks to taking photos, sharing on social media, appearing to maintain the physical order of the school, appearing to organise or participate in seminar programmes, preparing boards and exaggerated celebration of certain days and weeks are some of the tasks seen as a show. Some of the motivation sources of organisational show are: to appear in the photo, to give the impression of working hard, to protect the image of the school, to try to get an award, to receive pressure from higher units, to influence parents, to protect the position and to make advertisements to attract students to the school. Some of the concepts used to explain the ineffectiveness of the school are not serving the purpose, damaging the corporate culture, demotivating the administrators and wasting time.

Keywords

• Organisational show
• organisational ineffectiveness
• organisational image
• school principal
• teacher

Örgütsel şov: okul etkisizliğini açıklamak için yeni bir kavramsallaştırma

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, okul yöneticileri ve öğretmenlerin görüşlerine göre örgütsel gösterinin okul etkisizliğinin bir nedeni olup olmadığını araştırmaktır. Veriler, Türkiye'de farklı okul kademelerinde çalışan 12 öğretmen ve 10 idareci ile yüz yüze görüşmeler yoluyla toplanmıştır. Görevleri fotoğraf çekmeye, sosyal medyada paylaşmaya, okulun fiziksel düzenini sağlıyormuş gibi görünmeye, seminer programları düzenliyor veya katılıyormuş gibi görünmeye, panolar hazırlamaya ve belirli gün ve haftaları abartılı bir şekilde kutlamaya indirgemek, gösteri olarak görülen görevlerden bazılarıdır. Örgütsel gösterinin bazı motivasyon kaynakları şunlardır: Fotoğrafta görünmek, çok çalışıyormuş izlenimi vermek, okulun imajını korumak, ödül almaya çalışmak, üst birimlerden baskı görmek, velileri etkilemek, mevkiini korumak ve öğrencileri okula çekmek için reklam yapmak. Okulun etkisizliğini açıklamak için kullanılan kavramlardan bazıları ise amaca hizmet etmemek, kurum kültürünü zedelemek, yöneticileri demotive etmek ve zaman kaybıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Örgütsel şov
• örgütsel etkisizlik
• örgütsel imaj
• okul müdürü
• öğretmen

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, M. L. & Taylor, H. F. (2006). Sociology: Understanding a diverse society (4th Edition). Thomson Wadsworth.
2. Arslan, S., & Kahveci, H. (2025). Myths and ceremonies in schools: Analysis of school projects in terms of new institutional theory. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, Article 101726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101726
3. Arslan, H., Satıcı A. & Kuru M. (2007). Resmi ve özel ilköğretim okullarının kültür ve etkililik düzeylerinin karşılaştırılması. [A comparison of cultural and efficiency levels in state and private primary schools]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi [Educational Administration: Theory and Practice], 51, 371-394. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/108308
4. Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267-285. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.138
5. Ayal, O, & Kahveci, G. (2023). Öğretmenlerin örgütsel dalkavukluk ve kayırmacılık algılarının incelenmesi [Examining teachers' perceptions of organizational flattery and nepotism]. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [The Journal of Buca Faculty of Education], 55, 272-294.
6. Balcı, A. (2011). Etkili okul, okul geliştirme: Kuram uygulama ve araştırma. (5. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
7. Bozbayındır, F. (2020). An examination on the opinions of teachers regarding the use of impression management tactics. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi [Journal of Theoretical Educational Sciences], 13(1), 232-250. http://dx.doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.567225
8. Bozyiğit, Ü., & Kazak, E. (2024). Öğretmenlerin rol fazlası görev ve sorumluluk almak istememelerine ilişkin okul yöneticilerinin görüşleri. Ulusal Eğitim Akademisi Dergisi, 8(1), 82-107. https://doi.org/10.32960/uead.1423938

9. Caplan, R. D. (1971). Organizational stress and ındividual strain: A social psychological study of risk factors in coronary heart disease among administrators, engineers, and scientists [Unpublished doctoral dissertation thesis]. The University of Michigan.
10. Chahal, H. S. & Poonam, B. (2015). The ımpact of employee sycophantic behaviour on organisation environment: A conceptual study of hospitality sector in India. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 6(3), 117-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2151-6200.1000117
11. Coverman, S. (1989). Role overload, role conflict, and stress: Addressing Consequences of multiple role demands. Social Forces, 67(4), 965-982. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579710
12. Crane, E. & Crane, F. G. (2002). Usage and effectiveness of ımpression management strategies in organizational settings. Journal of Group Psychotherapy Psychodrama and Sociometry, 55(1), 25-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JGPP.55.1.25-34
13. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publishers.
14. Cropley, A. (2002). Qualitative research methods. An introduction for students of psychology and education. Riga, Latvia. Zinatne.
15. Curtis, I. (2018). The state of technology in education report. https://snazlan.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/the_state_of_technology_in_education_report.pdf
16. Dâmaso, M., & Lima, J. Á. D. (2019). Marketing the school? How local context shapes school marketing practices. Journal of School Choice, 14(1), 26-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2019.1616993
17. Davies, G., Chun, R., Rui, V. & Stuart, R. (2003). Reputation paradigm. İstanbul: ArGe Counselling Publications.
18. DeConinck, J. B. (2015). Outcomes of ethical leadership among salespeople. Journal of business research, 68(5), 1086-1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.10.011
19. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif. Sage Publishers.
20. DiMartino, C., & Jessen, S. B. (2014). School brand management: the policies, practices, and perceptions of branding and marketing in New York city’s public high schools. Urban Education, 51(5), 447-475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914543112
21. Dounas-Frazer, D. R., Ríos, L., & Lewandowski, H. J. (2019). Preliminary model for student ownership of projects. Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 141-146. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.01690
22. Enginar, R. & Elma, C. (2023). Öğretmenlerin izlenim yönetimi taktikleri, örgütsel muhalefet düzeyleri ile öznel iyi oluş durumları arasındaki ilişki. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(2), 505-525. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.1183268
23. Federman, M. (2006). Essay: Towards an effective theory of organizational effectiveness.
24. Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work–family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145-167. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.1577
25. Fuller, J. B., Marler, L., Hester, K., Frey, L. & Relyea, C. (2006). Construed external image and organizational identification: A test of the moderating influence of need for self-esteem. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(6), 701-716. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.146.6.701-716
26. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self – Determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
27. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
28. Gray, E. R. & Balmer J. M. T. (2000). Corporate ıdentity and corporate communications: Creating a competitive advantage. Industrial and Commercial Training, 32(7), 256-261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197850010379811
29. Griffith, J. (2004). Ineffective schools as organizational reactions to stress. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 257–287. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SPOE.0000037505.03707.fd
30. Gümüştekin, Y. & Öztemiz, A. (2005). Örgütlerde stresin verimlilik ve performansla etkileşimi [Productivity and performance interaction with stres of organizations]. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(1), 271-288.
31. Henri, J. (2004). Performance Measurement and organizational effectiveness: Bridging The Gap. Managerial Finance, 30(6), 93-123.
32. Henry, E. A. (2011). Is The ınfluence of organizational culture on organizational effectiveness universal? An examination of the relationship in the electronic media (radio) service sector in the English speaking caribbean. Nova Southeastern University.
33. Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A. & Ferris, G. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A Metaanalysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 89-106. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4093798
34. Irish National Teachers' Organisation. (2023, February 7). INTO survey exposes teacher burnout. https://www.into.ie/2023/02/07/into-survey-exposes-teacher-burnout/
35. Judge, H. (1995). The images of teachers. Oxford Review of Education, 21(3), 253-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498950210301
36. Kazak, E. (2019). The impact of drudgery jobs and procedures on quality and performance. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 25(4), 692-744.
37. Kesim, B., & Alabaş, R. (2024). Social media use in primary and secondary education institutions as a communication tool in the framework of school culture. International Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 12(1), 255–297. https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1371227
38. Kılıçoğlu, G., Yılmaz Kılıçoğlu, D., & Karadağ, E. (2017). Do schools fail to “walk their talk”? Development and validation of a scale measuring organizational hypocrisy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 18(1), 52‑82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1371762
39. Kıral, E. & Dilmaç, Ö. E. D. (2021). Okul yöneticileri ve öğretmenlerin dalkavukluk davranışına ilişkin görüşleri [School administrators and teachers opinions about sycophancy behavior]. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi [Journal of Research in Education and Teaching], 10(4), 104-119.
40. Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1977). Örgütlerin toplumsal psikolojisi. Çev.(H. Can-Y. Bayar). Ankara: Doğan Basımevi, TODAİE.
41. Keskin, E. & Karaca, A. (2025). Perception of the corporate image of a public university by employees. Turkish Research Journal of Academic Social Science, 8(1), 70-78.
42. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34-47.
43. Lev, S., & Koslowsky, M. (2012). On-the-job embeddedness as a mediator between conscientiousness and school teachers' contextual performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(1), 57-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.535656
44. Marshall, G. (1999). Sosyoloji sözlüğü. (çev. Osman Akınhay, Derya Kömürcü). Bilim ve Sanat Press.
45. Merki, K. M., Emmerich, M., & Holmeier, M. (2015). Further development of educational effectiveness theory in a multilevel context: from theory to methodology and from empirical evidence back to theory. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(1), 4-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.938930
46. Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and ıntegrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991-1007.
47. Muiruri, Z. K. (2023). Organizational politics and employees performance: A theoretical review. Open Journal of Business and Management, 11, 1387-1401. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2023.114076
48. Näring, G., Vlerick, P. & Van de Ven, B. (2012). Emotion work and emotional exhaustion in teachers: The job and ındividual perspective. Educational Studies, 38(1), 63-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2011.567026
49. National Education Union. (2023). State of education 2023: Workload and wellbeing. Retrieved from https://neu.org.uk/latest/press-releases/state-education-2023-workload-and-wellbeing Okunna, C. S. (1995). Ethics of mass communication. New Generation Books.
50. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775-802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x
51. Palacio, A. B., Meneses, G. D., & Pérez, P. J. P. (2002). The configuration of The university ımage and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 486-505. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210440311
52. Parnell, W. A. (2010). Image of the teacher in educational leadership. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 5(3), 1-17.
53. Purkey, C. S. & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A Review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 452-457. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/461325
54. Rengi, Ö., & Bozkurt, B. (2024). Okul yöneticilerinin motivasyonunu etkileyen faktörler. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 7(1), 249-272. http://doi.org/10.33400/kuje.1406699
55. Rogers, B. A., Sezer, O., & Klein, N. (2023). Too naïve to lead: When leaders fall for flattery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(6), 1394-1419. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000433
56. Rosenthal, S. A. & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617-633.
57. Shoko, S., & Dzimiri, W. (2028). Impression management tactics employed by primary school heads to ınfluence management and leadership decisions in schools: a survey of two districts in Zimbabwe. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 5(5), 252-261.
58. Skallerud, K. (2011). School reputation and its relation to parents' satisfaction and loyalty. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(7), 671-686. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172081
59. Somech, A. & Oplatka, I. (2009). Coping with school violence through the lens of teachers’ role breadth: The impact of participative management and job autonomy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 424–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X09334278
60. Söğüt, E. (2020). Okulda karşılaşılan etkisiz süreçler ve rol belirsizliği [Ineffective Processes and Role Ambiguity Encountered in School] [Master Thesis]. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversity, Konya.
61. Srivastava, A. P. & Dhar, R. L. (2015). Training comprehensiveness: Construct development and relation with role behaviour. European Journal of Training and Development, 39(7), 641–662.
62. Sternberg, R. J., Lin, S., & Nguyen, E. C. K. (2025). Are “extracurricular” activities really extracurricular? The activities that matter least in school are the ones that best teach real-world critical and creative thinking. Journal of Intelligence, 13(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence13010001
63. Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2015). Karma yöntem araştırmalarının temelleri. (Trnsl. Yüksel Dede ve Selçuk Beşir Demir). Ankara: Anı Press.
64. Uğurlu, C. T., & Ceylan, N. (2013). Öğretmenlerin okullarına ilişkin örgütsel imaj algılarının bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(2), 301-322.
65. Umeogu, B. & Ojiakor I. (2012). Sycophancy and objective journalism. Advances and Applied Sociology, 2(3), 159-166.
66. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(3), 377–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-006-9034-5
67. Wang, F., Hauseman, C, & Pollock, K. (2022). “I am here for the students”: Principals’ perception of accountability amid work intensification. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 34, 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-021-09368-6
68. Yan, M., Xie, Y., Zhao, J., Zhang, Y., Bashir, M. & Liu, Y. (2020). How ingratiation links to counterproductive work behaviors: The roles of emotional exhaustion and power distance orientation. Front. Psychol, 11, 2238. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02238
69. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences] (12th ed.). Seçkin Press.
70. Yıldız, S., & Şeker, S. (2025). Sharing or not sharing: Teacher influencers as a new actor from the perspective of educators in Türkiye. Ordu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 15(3), 1786-1814. https://doi.org/10.48146/odusobiad.1719261