PDF EndNote BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Okullardaki Formal Yapı ve Bireysel Davranışlar Arasındaki İlişkiler Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması

Yıl 2013, Sayı 8, 3 - 16, 23.07.2016

Öz

Örgütlerde resmi yapı ve bireysel davranışlar arasındaki ilişkinin anlaşılması, örgüt kuramcılarının tartıştıkları en önemli konulardan birisidir. Önceleri standartlaştırma, bireysel davranışların kontrol edilmesi ve verimliliğin arttırılması konusunda etkili bir yöntem olarak ortaya konulmuşsa da, daha sonra bu yöntemin uygulamada bazı sınırlılıkları olduğu fark edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, çalışanların sadece resmi yapı tarafından oluşturulan kural ve süreçleri takip etmeleri mi yoksa kendi işleri üzerinde belli bir otoriteye sahip olmaları ve kurumlarındaki karar alma süreçlerine katılmaları mı gerektiği süre gelen bir tartışmadır. Okullar açısından bakıldığında ise öğretmenlerin kendi sınıflarındaki otoriteleri ve okuldaki diğer örgütsel süreçlerdeki rolleri, eğitim araştırmaları arasındaki en tartışmalı konulardandır. Bu kapsamda, mevcut ve özgün çalışmaları tarayarak okullardaki resmi yapı ve bireysel davranışlar arasındaki ilişkinin daha iyi anlaşılmasına katkı sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmanın sonuçları; öğretmenlerin kendi işlerinde belli bir otonomiye sahip olmalarının gerekliliği ile birlikte, öğretmen ve okul yöneticilerinin hem sınıf içi hem de sınıf dışı konularda ortak çalışmasının örgütsel etkililiğin sağlanması açısıdan hayati önem taşıdığını göstermektedir

Kaynakça

  • Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (1), 61-89.
  • Cha, Y. K., & Ham, S. H. (2012). Constructivist teaching and intra-school collaboration among teachers in South Korea: an uncertainty management perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13 (4), 635-647.
  • Demir, K. (2008). Transformational leadership and collective efficacy: The moderating roles of collaborative culture and teachers’ self-efficacy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 33, 93-112.
  • DiPaola, M. F., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Formalization, conflict, and change: constructive and destructive consequences in schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 15 (5), 238-244.
  • Geist, J. R. (2002). Predictors of faculty trust in elementary schools: Enabling bureaucracy, teacher professionalism, and academic press. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Ohio State University.
  • Gumus, S., Bulut, O., & Bellibas, M. S. (2013). The Relationship between principal leadership and teacher collaboration in turkish primary schools: A multilevel analysis. Education Research and Perspectives, 40, 1-29.
  • 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.
  • Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2000). School Bureaucracies That Work: Enabling, Not Coercive. Journal of School Leadership, 10 (6), 525-541. 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
  • March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations. MA: Blackwell. Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design of schools. In Cazden, C. (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Volume 16) (pp.353-389). Washington, DC: AERA.
  • Shedd, J. B., & Bacharach, S. B. (1991). Tangled hierarchies: Teachers as professionals and the management of schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Sinden, J. E., Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2004). An analysis of enabling school structure: Theoretical, empirical, and research considerations. Journal of Educational Administration, 42 (4), 462-478.
  • Sweetland, S. (2001). Authenticity and sense of power in enabling school structures: An empirical analysis. Education, 121 (3), 581-588.

A Literature Review on the Relationship between Formal Structure and Individual Behaviour in Schools

Yıl 2013, Sayı 8, 3 - 16, 23.07.2016

Öz

Understanding the relationship between formal structure and individual behavior in organizations is one of the central problems that organizational theorists have been discussing. Even though formalization was first introduced as an effective way to control individuals’ behaviors and improve their productivity, it was later realized that there were some limitations of its implementation. As a result, there has been a big argument over whether employees should just follow the rules and procedures and be controlled by formal structure or if they should have some authority over their own work and be involved in decision-making processes in their organizations. Similarly, teachers’ autonomy in their classrooms and their role in the organization processes of schools are among the most discussed topics in educational research. At this point, this study aims to contribute to the understanding of the relationship between formal structure and individual behaviors in schools by reviewing seminal research on this topic. Results of this review suggest that even though some discretion for teachers is inevitable in schools, it is vital for teachers and administrators to work together closely to deal with both inclassroom and out-of-classroom issues in order to improve organizational efficiency

Kaynakça

  • Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (1), 61-89.
  • Cha, Y. K., & Ham, S. H. (2012). Constructivist teaching and intra-school collaboration among teachers in South Korea: an uncertainty management perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13 (4), 635-647.
  • Demir, K. (2008). Transformational leadership and collective efficacy: The moderating roles of collaborative culture and teachers’ self-efficacy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 33, 93-112.
  • DiPaola, M. F., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Formalization, conflict, and change: constructive and destructive consequences in schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 15 (5), 238-244.
  • Geist, J. R. (2002). Predictors of faculty trust in elementary schools: Enabling bureaucracy, teacher professionalism, and academic press. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Ohio State University.
  • Gumus, S., Bulut, O., & Bellibas, M. S. (2013). The Relationship between principal leadership and teacher collaboration in turkish primary schools: A multilevel analysis. Education Research and Perspectives, 40, 1-29.
  • 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.
  • Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2000). School Bureaucracies That Work: Enabling, Not Coercive. Journal of School Leadership, 10 (6), 525-541. 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
  • March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations. MA: Blackwell. Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design of schools. In Cazden, C. (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Volume 16) (pp.353-389). Washington, DC: AERA.
  • Shedd, J. B., & Bacharach, S. B. (1991). Tangled hierarchies: Teachers as professionals and the management of schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Sinden, J. E., Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2004). An analysis of enabling school structure: Theoretical, empirical, and research considerations. Journal of Educational Administration, 42 (4), 462-478.
  • Sweetland, S. (2001). Authenticity and sense of power in enabling school structures: An empirical analysis. Education, 121 (3), 581-588.

Ayrıntılar

Diğer ID JA57MM24JB
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Sedat GÜMÜŞ Bu kişi benim
?

Yayımlanma Tarihi 23 Temmuz 2016
Başvuru Tarihi 23 Temmuz 2016
Kabul Tarihi
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2013, Cilt , Sayı 8

Kaynak Göster

APA Gümüş, S. (2016). Okullardaki Formal Yapı ve Bireysel Davranışlar Arasındaki İlişkiler Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması . Eğitim Ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi: Teori Ve Uygulama , (8) , 3-16 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/eibd/issue/22670/242098