Uncertainty Management among School Administrators and Its Relationship with Proactive Behaviour: Evidence from Public Schools

Öz

This study examines school administrators’ uncertainty management and its relationship with proactive behaviour in public schools. Using a predictive correlational design, data were collected from 368 principals and vice principals working in public primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary schools in Ankara, Türkiye. The Uncertainty Management Scale and the Proactive Manager Scale were used, and the data were analysed through descriptive statistics, group comparisons, Pearson correlation, and stepwise multiple regression. The findings showed that administrators reported relatively high levels of uncertainty management, although their tolerance for uncertainty was moderate. Uncertainty management did not differ significantly by gender, educational status, school type, or managerial seniority, whereas principals reported significantly higher levels than vice principals. Proactive behaviour was positively and significantly associated with uncertainty management and emerged as its strongest predictor. Administrative position also made a significant contribution to the predictive model. The study contributes to educational leadership literature by conceptualising proactive behaviour as an adaptive leadership resource through which school administrators may navigate uncertainty within centralised and policy-intensive educational systems.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• uncertainty management
• proactive behaviour
• school administrators
• educational organizations

Okul Yöneticilerinde Belirsizlik Yönetimi ve Proaktif Davranışla İlişkisi: Devlet Okullarından Bulgular

Öz

Bu çalışma, devlet okullarında görev yapan okul yöneticilerinin belirsizlik yönetimi düzeylerini ve bunun proaktif davranışla ilişkisini incelemektedir. Yordayıcı korelasyonel desende yürütülen araştırmanın verileri, Ankara’daki devlet ilkokulu, ortaokulu ve liselerinde görev yapan 368 okul müdürü ve müdür yardımcısından toplanmıştır. Araştırmada Belirsizlik Yönetimi Ölçeği ile Proaktif Yönetici Ölçeği kullanılmış; veriler betimsel istatistikler, grup karşılaştırmaları, Pearson korelasyon analizi ve aşamalı çoklu regresyon analizi ile çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, okul yöneticilerinin belirsizlik yönetimi düzeylerinin görece yüksek, belirsizliğe tolerans düzeylerinin ise orta düzeyde olduğunu göstermiştir. Belirsizlik yönetimi; cinsiyet, eğitim durumu, okul türü ve yöneticilik kıdemine göre anlamlı biçimde farklılaşmazken, okul müdürlerinin puanlarının müdür yardımcılarından anlamlı düzeyde daha yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir. Proaktif davranışın belirsizlik yönetimiyle pozitif ve anlamlı düzeyde ilişkili olduğu ve belirsizlik yönetiminin en güçlü yordayıcısı olarak öne çıktığı görülmüştür. Yönetsel pozisyonun da yordayıcı modele anlamlı katkı sağladığı belirlenmiştir. Araştırma, proaktif davranışı okul yöneticilerinin merkeziyetçi ve politika yoğun eğitim sistemlerinde belirsizliği yönetmelerine ve bu koşullarda hareket edebilmelerine olanak sağlayan uyarlanabilir bir liderlik kaynağı olarak kavramsallaştırması bakımından eğitim liderliği alanyazınına katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• belirsizlik yönetimi
• proaktif davranış
• okul yöneticileri
• eğitim örgütleri

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, B. S., Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (2009). Understanding the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and strategic learning capability: An empirical investigation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(3), 218–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.72
2. Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking: The instrumental use of the information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1985.tb00181.x
3. Atalay Mazlum, A. (2019). Belirsizlik yönetimi ve proaktif davranışlar ile ilişkisi [The relationship between uncertainty management and proactive behaviours] [Doctoral dissertation, Ankara University]. YÖK National Thesis Center.
4. Bellibaş, M. Ş., & Gümüş, S. (2019). A systematic review of educational leadership and management research in Turkey: Content analysis of topics, conceptual models, and methods. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(6), 731–747. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2019-0004
5. Belschak, F. D., Den Hartog, D. N., & Fay, D. (2010). Exploring positive, negative and context-dependent aspects of proactive behaviours at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910X501143
6. Berger, C. R. (1986). Uncertain outcome values in predicted relationships: Uncertainty reduction theory then and now. Human Communication Research, 13(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00093.x
7. Berkes, F. (2007). Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: Lessons from resilience thinking. Natural Hazards, 41(2), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-9036-7
8. Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 567–598). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12170-019

9. Boccia, A. M., Jr. (2009). An empirical analysis of environmental uncertainty, real options decision patterns and firm performance [Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst]. ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. https://doi.org/10.7275/zp4g-3q65
10. Brashers, D. E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of Communication, 51(3), 477–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02892.x
11. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2015). Araştırma yöntemleri: Desen ve analiz [Research methods: Design and analysis] (A. Aypay, Trans. Ed.). Anı Yayıncılık.
12. Clampitt, P. G., & Williams, M. L. (2004). Communicating about organizational uncertainty. In D. Tourish & O. Hargie (Eds.), Key issues in organizational communication (pp. 37–59). Routledge.
13. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600304
14. DeLeo, J. M. (1993). Receiver operating characteristic laboratory (ROCLAB): Software for developing decision strategies that account for uncertainty. In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Uncertainty Modeling and Analysis (pp. 318–325). IEEE Computer Society Press. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISUMA.1993.366750
15. Deniz, Ü. (2025). Understanding professional zone of acceptance for teacher–leader interactions: A dynamic framework. International Journal of Educational Management, 39(7), 1629–1646. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-11-2024-0727
16. Deniz, Ü., & Erdener, M. A. (2020). Levels of school administrators exhibiting instructional supervision behaviors: Teachers’ perspectives. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 5(4), 1038–1081. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2020.4.3
17. Engel, Y., & Etzion, O. (2011). Towards proactive event-driven computing. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Conference on Distributed Event-Based Systems (pp. 125–136). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2002259.2002279
18. Fidan, T., & Balcı, A. (2016). Principal proactivity: School principals’ proactive behavior forms and their levels of display. In Ş. Ş. Erçetin (Ed.), Applied chaos and complexity theory in education (pp. 29–58). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0460-3.ch003
19. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
20. Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(2), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00639.x
21. Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. L. (Eds.). (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Goerdel, H. T. (2006). Taking initiative: Proactive management and organizational performance in networked environments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui051
23. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002
24. Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.01128.x
25. Greco, V., & Roger, D. (2001). Coping with uncertainty: The construction and validation of a new measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(4), 519–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00156-2
26. Grote, G. (2009). Management of uncertainty: Theory and application in the design of systems and organizations. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-373-0
27. He, L., Huang, G. H., Lu, H. W., & Zeng, G. M. (2008). Optimization of surfactant-enhanced aquifer remediation for a laboratory BTEX system under parameter uncertainty. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(6), 2009–2014. https://doi.org/10.1021/es071106y
28. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
29. Jairaman, J., Sakiman, Z., & Li, L. S. (2017). Sunway Medical Laboratory quality control plans based on Six Sigma, risk management and uncertainty. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine, 37(1), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2016.09.013
30. Karakose, T., Ozdogru, M., & Malkoc, N. (2024). Leading sustainable school improvement: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research on problems and challenges faced by school leaders. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1449174. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1449174
31. Karasar, N. (2002). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi [Scientific research method] (11th ed.). Nobel Yayınları.
32. Kosenko, K. (2014). Uncertainty management theory. In T. L. Thompson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of health communication (Vol. 3, pp. 1426–1427). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483346427.n564
33. Krackhardt, D., & Stern, R. N. (1988). Informal networks and organizational crises: An experimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786835
34. Küçükkömürler, S. (2017). Belirsizliğin psikolojik etkileri [Psychological effects of uncertainty]. Nesne Psikoloji Dergisi, 5(10), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.7816/nesne-05-10-07
35. Lin, R.-J., Chen, R.-H., & Nguyen, T.-H. (2011). Green supply chain management performance in automobile manufacturing industry under uncertainty. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 25, 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.544
36. Livingston, S. M. (1997). School administrators’ perceptions of environmental turbulence and organizational response [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Houston.
37. Lomic, P. V. (2001). Improved decision making and management of uncertainty when using Iwao’s sequential sampling plan in insect pest management [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto]. Library and Archives Canada.
38. Magoutas, B., Stojanovic, N., Bousdekis, A., Apostolou, D., Mentzas, G., & Stojanovic, L. (2014). Anticipation-driven architecture for proactive enterprise decision making. In Joint Proceedings of the CAiSE 2014 Forum and CAiSE 2014 Doctoral Consortium (pp. 121–128). CEUR-WS.
39. Mann, A. (2011). Managing uncertainty during organization design decision-making processes: The moderating effects of different types of uncertainty [Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University].
40. McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379628
41. Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2014). A replication of Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension across nationally representative samples from Europe. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14(2), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595814521600
42. Mowles, C. (2015). Managing in uncertainty: Complexity and the paradoxes of everyday organizational life. Routledge.
43. Nikolaidis, E., Mourelatos, Z. P., & Pandey, V. (2011). Design decisions under uncertainty with limited information. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b10769
44. Nordholm, D., Jarl, M., & Wermke, W. (2025). School leader autonomy: A systematic review. Educational Administration Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X251349562
45. Roulston, M. S., Bolton, G. E., Kleit, A. N., & Sears-Collins, A. L. (2006). A laboratory study of the benefits of including uncertainty information in weather forecasts. Weather and Forecasting, 21(1), 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF887.1
46. Ruch, K. E. (1993). Factors influencing performance in manufacturing work systems: An examination of causal relationships of organizational structure and situational workplace variables on proactive management behavior [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Pennsylvania State University.
47. Song, Y. (2008). Leadership behaviors and human resource development in public sector organizations under conditions of organizational uncertainty: Comparative organizational study between U.S. and Korea (Publication No. 3327476) [Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
48. Sun, J., Day, C., Zhang, R., Zhang, H., Huang, T., & Lin, J. (2024). Successful school principalship: A meta-synthesis of 20 years of international case studies. Education Sciences, 14(9), Article 929. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090929
49. Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.06.003
50. Thompson, J. D. (2017). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315125930
51. Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 1–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80003-X
52. Victor, B., & Blackburn, R. S. (1987). Determinants and consequences of task uncertainty: A laboratory and field investigation. Journal of Management Studies, 24(4), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1987.tb00452.x
53. Walker, W. E., Harremoës, P., Rotmans, J., van der Sluijs, J. P., van Asselt, M. B. A., Janssen, P., & Krayer von Krauss, M. P. (2003). Defining uncertainty: A conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integrated Assessment, 4(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1076/iaij.4.1.5.16466
54. Westgard, J. O. (2010). Managing quality vs. measuring uncertainty in the medical laboratory. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 48(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2010.024
55. White, G. H., & Farrance, I. (2004). Uncertainty of measurement in quantitative medical testing: A laboratory implementation guide. The Clinical Biochemist Reviews, 25(4), S1–S24.
56. Zadeh, L. A. (1983). The role of fuzzy logic in the management of uncertainty in expert systems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1–3), 199–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(83)80081-5