Sociocracy as a Human-Centered School Organization Model

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1 , 121 - 137 , 30.04.2026

Hale Betül Akıncı Tanyıldız , Emre Er

https://doi.org/10.38089/ekuad.2026.258

https://izlik.org/JA67RS38JC

Öz

Traditional school management models tend to concentrate decision-making power at the top, which limits stakeholder participation and weakens schools’ ability to adapt to changing conditions. Although the discourse on democratic education is widely supported, research shows that many schools rely on hierarchical structures that restrict the genuine sharing of power. This study examines sociocracy from an open systems perspective as a human-centered management model that offers an alternative to traditional school structures. In this context, the four core principles of sociocracy, consent decision-making, semi-autonomous circles, double-linking, and selection by consent are evaluated within the educational framework. By reviewing the extant literature, this research explores how sociocracy can enhance decision-making processes, foster collaborative cultures, and support schools in functioning as open systems. Case studies from educational settings demonstrate the model’s potential to increase teacher collaboration, strengthen student engagement, and align administration with pedagogical commitments. The discussion highlights how sociocracy addresses fundamental challenges in school management and bridges the gap between democratic ideals and organizational practices. The study concludes by summarizing the implications of sociocracy on educational stakeholders, emphasizing its value as a framework for developing more inclusive, resilient, and future-oriented schools.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sociocracy , Open systems theory , Decision-making in education , Educational administration , School governance

İnsan Odaklı Bir Okul Örgütlenme Modeli Olarak Sosyokrasi

https://izlik.org/JA67RS38JC

Öz

Geleneksel okul yönetim modelleri, karar alma gücünü tepede yoğunlaştırma eğilimindedir ve bu durum paydaş katılımını kısıtlayarak okulların değişen koşullara uyum sağlama kapasitelerini zayıflatmaktadır. Demokratik eğitim söylemi yaygın olarak desteklense de araştırmalar birçok okulun gerçek güç paylaşımını kısıtlayan hiyerarşik yapılara dayandığını göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, geleneksel okul yapılarına bir alternatif sunan insan merkezli bir yönetim modeli olarak sosyokrasiyi açık sistem perspektifinden incelemektedir. Bu kapsamda, sosyokrasinin dört temel ilkesi (rızaya dayalı karar alma, yarı özerk çemberler, çift bağlantı ve sosyokratik seçim) eğitim bağlamında değerlendirilmektedir. Bu çalışma, alan yazını inceleyerek, sosyokrasinin karar alma sürecini nasıl geliştirebileceğini, iş birlikçi kültürleri nasıl teşvik edebileceğini ve okulların açık sistemler olarak işlev görmesini nasıl destekleyebileceğini incelemektedir. Eğitim ortamlarından alınan örnek olaylar, modelin öğretmen iş birliğini artırma, öğrenci katılımını güçlendirme ve yönetimi pedagojik taahhütlerle uyumlu hale getirme potansiyelini göstermektedir. Tartışma, sosyokrasinin okul yönetimindeki temel zorlukları nasıl ele aldığını ve demokratik idealler ile örgütsel uygulamalar arasındaki boşluğu nasıl doldurduğunu vurgulamaktadır. Çalışma, sosyokrasinin eğitim paydaşları üzerindeki etkilerini özetlemekte ve daha kapsayıcı, dirençli ve geleceğe yönelik okullar geliştirme adına sunduğu çerçevenin altını çizerek sonuçlanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

sosyokrasi , açık sistem yaklaşımı , Eğitimde karar alma , okul yönetimi , Eğitim yönetimi

Kaynakça

• Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., & West, M. (2013). Developing equitable education systems. Routledge.
• Antonio, D. M. S., & Gamage, D. T. (2007). Building trust among educational stakeholders through participatory school administration, leadership and management. Management in Education, 21(1), 15-22.
• Apple, M. W. (2001). Comparing neo-liberal projects and inequality in education. Comparative education, 37(4), 409-423.
• Ardakoç, İ., & Görgü, E. (2023). Eğitim kooperatifi okulları üzerine nitel bir çalışma. Yaşadıkça Eğitim, 37(1), 269-293.
• Aron, L. Y. (2003). Towards a typology of alternative education programs: A Compilation of elements from the literature. Urban Inst., Washington, DC.
• Aydın, M. (2014) Eğitim yönetimi. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
• Ayyıldız, A. (2022). Alternatif eğitim konusunda yapılmış lisansüstü eğitim tezlerinin incelenmesi. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(3), 877-886.
• Bakan, İ. (2013). Çağdaş yönetim yaklaşımları. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları
• Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Routledge.
• Başaran, İ. (2008). Örgütsel davranış ve insanın üretim gücü. Ankara: Siyasal Basım Yayın Dağıtım.
• Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of general psychology, 1(3), 311-320.
• Buergelt, P., Nicolaides, A., Buck, J., Welch, M., Kokkos, A., Owen, R., Koulaouzides, G., & Wilson, M. (2021). Governance in complex and dynamic global contexts: Importance and characteristics that facilitate transformation through adult education. In J. Walker, G. Maestrini, & S. Smythe (Eds.), Proceedings of the Adult Education in Global Times: An International Research Conference. University of British Columbia.
• Burns, N., & Grove, S. K. (2009). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence. (6th ed.). Saunders Elsevier.
• Bursalıoğlu, Z. (2002). Eğitim yönetiminde teori ve uygulama. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık
• Buck, J., & Endenburg, G. (2010). The creative forces of self-organization. sociocratic center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
• Buck, J., & Villines, S. (2007). We the people: Consenting to a deeper democracy: A guide to sociocratic principles and methods. Sociocracy. info.
• Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: What do we know?. School leadership & management, 34(5), 553-571.
• Brasof, M. (2015). Student voice and school governance: Distributing leadership to youth and adults. Routledge.
• Bryk, Anthony & Sebring, Penny & Allensworth, Elaine & Luppescu, Stuart & Easton, John. (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Bibliovault OAI Repository, the University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226078014.001.0001
• Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge University Press.
• Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of high‐quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 26(1), 81-98.
• Cole, G.A. (1993). Management: Theory and Practice, DP Publications Ltd. London
• Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes and development (pp. 43–77). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Czekaj, J., Walczak, M., & Ziebicki, B. (2020). Towards the sociocratic organization model. Przegląd Organizacji, 10, 13-19.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Devos, G., Tuytens, M., & Hulpia, H. (2014). Teachers’ organizational commitment: Examining the mediating effects of distributed leadership. American Journal of Education, 120(2), 205-231.
• Eckstein, J. (2016, May). Sociocracy: An organization model for large-scale agile development. In Proceedings of the Scientific Workshop Proceedings of XP2016 (pp. 1-5).
• Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human relations, 18(1), 21-32.
• Er, E., & Eskiciöz, S. (2026). Place, people, system, self: an ecological approach to the early leadership experiences of first-time principals. Management in Education, 08920206261423401.
• Erakkuş, Ö. (2015). Alternatif okul yaklaşımlarında din ve değerler eğitimi. [Doktora tezi, Uludağ Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
• Eroğlu, Ş. G., & Alga, E. (2017). Örgütsel muhalefetin örgütsel değişim üzerindeki etkisi: hizmet sektörü örgütlerinde bir araştırma. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 3(3), 140-158. https://doi.org/10.29131/uiibd.349482
• Fielding, M. (2012). Student voice: patterns of partnership and the demands of deep democracy. Connect, (197), 10-15.
• Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press, New York.
• Gök, S., & Akar, H. (2023). Being a pioneering alternative school in Türkiye: values, pedagogical practices, and challenges. Egitim ve Bilim, 48(216).
• Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information & libraries journal, 26(2), 91-108.
• Guerrero, S., Valenciano-Valcárcel, J., & Rodríguez, A. (2024). Unveiling alternative schools: A systematic review of cognitive and social-emotional development in different educational approaches. Children and Youth Services Review, 158, 107480.
• Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2015). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.
• Harris, A. (2013). Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities, and potential. Corwin press.
• Herdman, E. A. (2006). Derleme makale yazımında, konferans ve bildiri sunumu hazırlamada pratik bilgiler, Hemşirelikte Eğitim ve Araştırma Dergisi, 3(1), 2-4.
• Hodgetts, R.M. (1975). Management: Theory Process and Practice, W.B. Sounders Company, London.
• Ianni, F. (2010). A Case Study of Two Alternative Schools on Long Island, New York. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, PO Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
• İçli, M. (2024). Çocuk Katılımını Benimsemiş Okullarda Okul Öncesi Çocukların ve Öğretmenlerin Çocuk Katılımına İlişkin Görüşleri. [Yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi].
• Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). Wiley.
• King, D., & Griffin, M. (2024). Governing for the common good: the possibilities of sociocracy in nonprofit organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 35(6), 1046-1057.
• Kleiner, B., Porch, R., & Farris, E. (2002). Public Alternative Schools and Programs for Students At Risk of. Education Statistics Quarterly, 42.
• Koşar, D., Kilinç, A. Ç., Koşar, S., Er, E., & Öğdem, Z. (2016). The relationship between teachers’ perceptions of organizational culture and school capacity for change. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 6(2), 39-59.
• Lange, C. M., & Sletten, S. J. (2002). Alternative education: A brief history and synthesis. Alexandria, VA: Project Forum at National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
• Lehr, C. A., Moreau, R. A., Lange, C. M., & Lanners, E. J. (2004). Alternative Schools. Findings From a National Survey of the States. Research Report 2. Institute on Community Integration (NJ1).
• Lehr, C. A., Tan, C. S., & Ysseldyke, J. (2008). Alternative Schools: A Synthesis of State-Level Policy and Research. Remedial and Special Education, 30(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508315645 (Original work published 2009)
• Leithwood, K. (2021). A review of evidence about equitable school leadership. Education sciences, 11(8), 377.
• Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). Transformational leadership. The essentials of school leadership, 31, 43.
• Mager, U., & Nowak, P. (2012). Effects of student participation in decision making at school. A systematic review and synthesis of empirical research. Educational research review, 7(1), 38-61.
• Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.203
• Mulford, B. (2003). School leaders: Changing roles and impact on teacher and school effectiveness (pp. 1-58). Education and Training Policy Division, OECD.
• Nagata, Y. (2007). Alternative education: Global perspectives relevant to the Asia-Pacific region (Vol. 10). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
• Neufeld, A. (2015). Successful Alternatives to Traditional School Structure: A Literature Review. BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, 7(2), 85-93.
• Ohrt, J., Wymer, B., Guest, J., Hipp, C., Wallace, D., & Deaton, J. (2020). A pilot feasibility study of an adapted social and emotional learning intervention in an alternative school. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 65(1), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2020.1818179
• Oplatka, I. (2010). Eğitim yönetiminin mirası: akademik bir alanın tarihi analizi (Çev. S. Turan). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Owen, R. & Buck, J. (2020). Creating the conditions for reflective team practices: examining sociocracy as a self-organizing governance model that promotes transformative learning. Reflective Practice. 21. 786-802. 10.1080/14623943.2020.1821630.
• Osorio, M. & Shread, C. (2021). Sociocracy in Schools: a research by Wondering School. Holistic Education Review, 1(2). Retrieved from https://her.journals.publicknowledgeproject.org/index.php/her/article/view/1455
• Parsons, T. (1970). On building social system theory: A personal history. Daedalus, 826-881.
• Rau, T. J., & Koch-Gonzalez, J. (2018). Many voices one song: Shared power with sociocracy. Sociocracy for All. Amherst, MA (USA).
• Renkema, E., Mulder, A., & Barnard, M. (2019). Dutch Cooperation Schools as Democratic Communities: A Constructive Perspective from Dewey’s View on Democracy in Education. Religious Education, 114(1), 57-68.
• Robertson, B. J. (2015). Holacracy: the new management system for a rapidly changing world. First edition. Henry Holt and Company.
• Romme, A. G. L. (1995). The sociocratic model of organizing. Strategic Change, 4(4), 209–215.
• Romme, A. G. L., & Endenburg, G. (2006). Construction principles and design rules in the case of circular design. Organization science, 17(2), 287-297.
• Saxena, A. and Jagota, R. (2016), “Could sociocracy be the way to MSME governance?” Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 9(2).
• Schleicher, A. (2018). World Class: How to Build a 21st-Century School System. 10.1787/9789264300002-en.
• Senge, P.M. (2006) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday (A Division of Random House), New York, 7.
• Shagholi, R., Hussin, S., Siraj, S., Naimie, Z., Assadzadeh, F., & Moayedi, F. (2010). Current thinking and future view: participatory management a dynamic system for developing organizational commitment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 250-254.
• Sliwka, A., & Yee, B. (2015). From alternative education to the mainstream: Approaches in Canada and Germany to preparing learners to live in a changing world. European Journal of Education, 50(2), 175- 183. doi:10.1111/ejed.12122
• Smith, D. L. (2003). A case study of two alternative schools: Understanding their contributions toward educational reform (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University).
• Somech, A. (2010). Participative decision making in schools: A mediating-moderating analytical framework for understanding school and teacher outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 174-209.
• Spoto, S. (2014). Teaching against hierarchies: An anarchist approach. Journal of Feminist Scholarship, 7(7), 78-92.
• Tamer, M. G. (2011). Okulların demokratik ve katılımcı öğrenim ortamlarına dönüştürülmesi (Demokratik Okul Yönetimi). Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 41(192), 7-25.
• Taylor, A., & McCluskey, G. (2024). ‘Alternative’education provision: a mapping and critique. Oxford Review of Education, 50(6), 798-816.
• Toprakçı, E. & Karabulut, Y. O. (2024). Okul örgüt şemasının sistem kuramı bağlamında incelenmesi [Bildiri] ESSA IV. International Eurasian Symposium, on Social Sciences and Arts- 12-13 July 2024, İstanbul, ISBN: ISBN: 978-605-73444-8-9. Bildiri Kitabı, ss. 74-90.
• Weick, K. E. (2012). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. In The Roots of Logistics (pp. 389-410). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Yalçınkaya, M. (2002). Açık sistem teorisi ve okula uygulanması. G.Ü. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 103-116.