The examination of mediating role of distributed leadership in the relationship between school structure and accountability

Öz

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between school structure, distributed leadership and accountability of school administrators. Relational survey design was adopted in the study. 444 elementary school teachers working in Aziziye, Palandöken and Yakutiye in Erzurum participated in the study. In sample selection, stratified sampling method was used. In data collection, the Enabling School Structure Scale, the Distributed Leadership Scale and the Accountability Behavior Scale for School Administrators were used. The data were analyzed using SPSS 23.0 for preliminary statistical analyses, LISREL 8.80 for Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), and the PROCESS macro for SPSS v3.3 for mediation analyses. In data analysis, Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Analysis, Bootstrap Analysis, and SEM were used. Furthermore, a mediation analysis was conducted to investigate whether distributed leadership played a mediating role in the relationship between school structure and accountability. The results revealed that coercive bureaucracy had a negative effect on accountability and distributed leadership while enabling bureaucracy had a positive effect on accountability and distributed leadership. Furthermore, the analysis revealed a positive effect of distributed leadership on accountability. This study revealed the mediating role of distributed leadership in the effect of coercive and enabling bureaucracy on accountability. In other words, it was found that the coercive and enabling bureaucracy had direct and indirect effects on accountability. Finally, a number of recommendations were made to educators, policy makers and researchers based on these findings.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Distributed leadership
• School structure
• Coercive bureaucracy
• Enabling bureaucracy
• Accountability

References

1. Abelmann, C., Elmore, R., Even, J., Kenyon, S., & Marshall, J. (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer?. CPRE Policy Briefs. Aboudahr, S.M.F.M., & Jiali, L. (2019). The relationship between distributed leadership and teachers’ organizational commitment in Guangzhou city, China. J. Educ. Manage. Stud., 9(1), 1-5. http://jems.science-line.com
2. Adıgüzelli, Y. (2016). Examining the relationship between distributed leadership and organizational trust according to opinions of teachers. Education & Science, 41(185), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.6218
3. Adler, P.S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 61-89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393986
4. Akdemir, Ö.A., & Ayık, A. (2017). The impact of distributed leadership behaviors of school principals on the organizational commitment of teachers. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(12), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.051402
5. Alev, S. (2019). Kolaylaştırıcı okul yapısı ve örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [Examination of relationship between enabling school structure and organizational citizenship behaviors]. Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(17), 420-443. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.518009
6. Anderson, K. (2012). Examining relationships between enabling structures, academic optimism and student achievement [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Auburn University.
7. Anderson, K., Kochan, F., Kensler, L.A., & Reames, E.H. (2018). Academic optimism, enabling structures, and student achievement: Delving into relationships. Journal of school leadership, 28(4), 434-461.
8. Argon, T. (2015). Teacher and administrator views on school principals' accountability. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 925 944. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.4.2467

9. Argon, T., Uylas, S.D., & Yerlikaya, S. (2015). Perceptions of teachers related accountability practices ın Turkish national education sistem and organizational cynicism. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(2), 204 219. http://dx.doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2015.02.016
10. Arik, S. (2021). The predictive powers of organizational trust and justice on enabling school structure: A structural equation modelling approach. African Educational Research Journal, 9(2), 449-460. https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.92.21.044
11. Ataş Akdemir, Ö. (2016). Öğretmen algılarına göre okul yöneticilerinin dağıtımcı liderlik davranışlarının okulların akademik iyimserlikleri ile örgütsel bağlılık ve okul başarısıyla ilişkisi [The relationship of distributed leadership behaviours of school principals with schools' academic optimism and organizational commitment and school achievement according to teacher perceptions] [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Atatürk University.
12. Atılkan, N. (2019). Okul müdürünün dağıtımcı liderlik davranışları ile okulların etkililiği arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [Relationship between school rincipals's distributed leadership behaviors and school effecti̇veness] [Unpublished master thesis]. Karabük University.
13. Aucoin, P., & Heintzman, R. (2000). The Dialectics of Accountability for Performance in Public Management Reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852300661005
14. Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
15. Behn, R.D. (2003a). Rethinking accountability in education: How should who hold whom accountable for what? International Public Management Journal, 6(1), 43-73.
16. Behn, R.D. (2003b). Demokratik hesap verme sorumluluğu [Rethinking democratic accountability]. (Çev: Paradigma Tercüme Ltd. Şti). Arı Yayıncılık.
17. Bell, L., Bolam, R., & Cubillo, L. (2003). A systematic review of the impact of school headteachers and principals on student outcomes. EPPI-Centre.
18. Beycioğlu, K., & Aslan, B. (2010). Öğretmen liderliği ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Teacher leadership scale: A validity and reliability Study]. İlköğretim Online, 9(2), 764-775.
19. Bovée, C.L., & Till, J.V. (2012). Business in action (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
20. Bozkuş, K., Karacabey, M.F., & Özdere, M. (2019) Okulun kolaylaştırıcı örgütsel yapısı ı̇le örgütsel sessı̇zlı̇k ve ı̇ş tatmı̇nı̇ arasındakı̇ ı̇lı̇şkı̇ler [The relationships among enabling school structure, organizational silence and job satisfaction]. Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi: Teori ve Uygulama, 10(19), 107-129.
21. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.). Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.
22. Buluç, B. (2009). İlköğretim okullarında bürokratik okul yapısı ile okul müdürlerinin liderlik stilleri arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between bureaucratic school structure and leadership styles of school principals in primary schools]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(152), 71-86.
23. Cansoy, R., & Parlar, H. (2018). Examining the relationships among trust in administrator, distributed leadership and school academic optimism. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 24(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2018.001
24. Cemaloğlu, N. (2013). Liderlik [Leadership]. In S. Özdemir (Ed.), Eğitim yönetiminde kuram ve uygulama (p.131-183). Pegem Akademi.
25. Cerit, Y. (2012). Okulun bürokratik yapısı ile sınıf öğretmenlerinin profesyonel davranışları arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between bureaucratic school structure and classroom teachers’ professional behaviour]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 4(4), 497-521.
26. Cerit, Y., & Akgün, N. (2015). Okulun örgüt yapısı ile sınıf öğretmenlerinin proaktif davranışları arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between school organizational structure and classroom teachers’ proactive behaviors]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23(4), 1789-1802.
27. Chang, I.H. (2011). A study of the relationships between distributed leadership, teacher academic optimism and student achievement in Taiwanese elementary schools. School Leadership & Management, 31(5), 491 515. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.614945
28. Çakır, Ç. (2019). Dağıtılmış liderlik ile örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı arasındaki ilişkide örgütsel kimliğin rolü [The role of organizational identity on the relationship between distributed leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour]. Turkish Studies-Educational Sciences, 14(4), 1189-1209. https://doi.org/10.29228/TurkishStudies.23482
29. Çalık, T., & Tepe, N. (2019). Ortaokul öğretmenlerinin algılarına göre okul etkililiği ile kolaylaştırıcı okul yapısı ve akademik iyimserlik arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between school effectiveness and enabling school structure and academic optimism according to the middle school teachers perceptions]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 27(4), 1471-1480. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.3008
30. Çiçek, E. (2018). Eğitim kurumlarında dağıtımcı liderlik ve örgütsel güven arasındaki ilişki: Kayseri il merkezi örneği [The relationship between distributed leadership and organizational confidence in educational institutions: Kayseri province case] [Unpublished master thesis]. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University.
31. Çiçekli, A. (2016). Kamu yönetiminde hesap verebilirlik ve BİMER'in hesap verebilir yönetime etkisi: Van sağlık hizmetleri örneği [Accountability in public administration, the effect of BİMER on accountable goverment; the example of Van health service managements] [Unpublished master thesis]. Yüzüncü Yıl University.
32. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamalı [Multivariate statistics for the social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications]. Pegem Yayınları.
33. Çokyiğit, M. (2020). Ortaokulların bürokratik yapısının etkililiği örgütsel güven ve örgütsel destek düzeyi arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between effectiveness of the bureaucratic structure of secondary schools organizational trust and organizational support level] [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Gazi University.
34. Çomak, M. (2021). Okul yöneticilerinin dağıtımcı liderlik uygulama becerileri ile örgüt iklimi arasındaki ilişkiler [Relationships between distributed leadership practice skills of school administrators and organizational climate] [Unpublished master thesis]. Kırşehir Ahi Evran University.
35. Demirtaş, Z., Özdemir, T.Y., & Küçük, Ö. (2016). Okulların bürokratik yapısı, örgütsel sessizlik ve örgütsel sinizm arasındaki ilişki [Relationships between bureaucratic structure of schools, organizational silence and organizational cynicism]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 22(2), 193 216. https://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2016.008
36. Doğan, D. (2015). Türkiye’deki yükseköğretim kurumlarında hesap verebilirlik ve akademik özgürlük [Accountability and academic freedom in higher education institutions in Turkey] [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Eskişehir Osmangazi University.
37. Elmore, R.F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute.
38. Elmore, R.F. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 134-142.
39. Ereş, F., & Akyürek, M.İ. (2016). İlkokul müdürlerinin dağıtılmış liderlik davranışları ile öğretmenlerin iş doyumu algıları arasındaki ilişki [Relationship levels between distributed leadership behaviors of principals and the teachers’ perception of job satisfaction]. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(3), 427-449.
40. Figlio, D., & Loeb, S. (2011). School accountability. In Hanushek, E.A., Machin, S., & Woessmann, L. (Eds.), Handbooks in economics: Economics of education, (Vol. 3, pp. 383–421). Elsevier.
41. Flowchart Maker Online Diagram Software. https://www.draw.io//
42. Geist, J.R. (2002). Predictors of faculty trust in elementary schools: Enabling bureaucracy, teacher professionalism, and academic press [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Ohio State University.
43. Gray, J. (2016). Investigating the Role of Collective Trust, Collective Efficacy, and Enabling School Structures on Overall School Effectiveness. Education Leadership Review, 17(1), 114-128.
44. Halim, R.A., & Ahmad, H. (2016). Distributed leadership, contextual factor and teachers’ self-efficacy in Malaysia. Educational Leader (Pemimpin Pendidikan), 4, 31-38.
45. Harris, A. (2005). Crossing boundaries and breaking barriers: Distributing leadership in schools. Specialist Schools Trust.
46. Harrison, N.L.T. (2005). The impact of distributed leadership on teachers [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Indiana University.
47. Heck, R.H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 659–689. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209340042
48. Hermann, K.R. (2016). The Principal's role; distributed leadership [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Old Dominion University.
49. 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
50. Hoy, W.K., & Sweetland, S.R. (2000). School bureaucracies that work: Enabling, not coercive. Journal of School Leadership, 10(6), 525 541. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460001000603
51. 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.
52. Hoy, W.K., & Sweetland, S.R. (2007). Designing better schools: The meaning and nature of enabling school structures. In W. Hoy, & M. DiPaola (Eds.), Essential ideas for the reform of American schools (pp. 339-366). Information Age Publishing.
53. Hulpia, H., & Devos, G. (2010). How distributed leadership can make a difference in teachers’ organizational commitment? A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 565–575.
54. Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Rosseel, Y. (2009). The relationship between the perception of distributed leadership in secondary schools and teachers' and teacher leaders' job satisfaction and organizational commitment. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20(3), 291-317.
55. Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Van Keer, H. (2009). The influence of distributed leadership on teachers’ organizational commitment: A multilevel approach. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(1), 40-52.
56. Jacob, J.A. (2003). A study of school climate and enabling bureaucracy in select New York City public elementary schools [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. St. John's University.
57. Jacobs, G.E. (2010). The relationship between distributed leadership as practiced by principals and the organizational commitment of the teachers [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Georgia Southern University.
58. Jofreh, M., Mohammadi, F., & Yasini, A. (2012). Leadership distribution consequences in schools: A particular look at organizational citizenship behavior of teacher. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6(12), 259-268.
59. Kalman, M., & Gedikoğlu, T. (2014). Okul yöneticilerinin hesap verebilirliği ile örgütsel adalet arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [An investigation of the relationship between school administrators’ accountability and organizational justice]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(2), 115-128.
60. Kandemir, A., & Akgün, N. (2019). Ortaokul öğretmenlerinin hesap verebilirlik algıları ile yöneticilerinin hizmetkâr liderlik davranış düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki [Relationship between the accountability perceptions of secondary school teachers and their managers' level of servant leadership behavior]. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(4), 1637-1653. https://dx.doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2019..-541661
61. Karataş, İ.H. (2022). Türkiye’de okul yöneticiliğinin açmazları [The deadlocks of school management in Turkey]. Okul Yönetimi, 1(1), 9-18.
62. Karagöz, S. (2020). Anaokulu öğretmenlerinin hesap verebilirlik ve örgütsel sessizlik davranışları arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between accountability and organizational silence behaviors of kindergarten teachers] [Unpublished master thesis]. İstanbul Okan University.
63. Karaoğlan, Ö. (2019). Okulların bürokratik yapısı, örgütsel sessizlik ve örgütsel sinizm arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between the bureaucratic structure of the schools, organizational silence and organizational cynicism] [Unpublished master thesis]. Pamukkale University.
64. Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi [Scientific research method]. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
65. Kılınç, A.Ç., Koşar, S., Er, E., & Öğdem, Z. (2016). The relationship between bureaucratic school structures and teacher self-efficacy. McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGill, 51(1), 615-634. https://doi.org/10.7202/1037362ar
66. Kim, H.S. (2005). Organizational structure and internal communication as antecedents of employeeorganization relationships in the context of organizational justice: A multilevel analysis [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland.
67. Koçak, S., & Nartgün, Ş.S. (2018). Öğretmenlerin okul hesap verebilirliğine ilişkin görüşlerini belirlemeye yönelik nitel çalışma [Qualitative study to determine teachers’ views on school accountability]. In M. Koçali (Ed.), 9. Uluslararası Eğitim Yönetimi Forumu (p. 235-254). Türkiye: Antalya.
68. Kondo, S. (2002). Fostering dialogue to strengthen good governance. Public sector transparency and accountability: Making it happen, 7-11.
69. Koohi, A., Hashemi, A., Minaei, A., & Dehghan, A. (2019). The relation between empowering structure in schools with teachers career satisfaction and schools efficiency in elementary schools in Qarchak. Career and Organizational Counseling, 11(40), 99-114.
70. Koster, G.L. (2016). Relationship between school structure and collective student trust in teachers [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Oklahoma State University.
71. Kurt, T. (2016). Öğretmen liderliğini açıklamaya yönelik bir model: Dağıtımcı liderlik, örgütsel öğrenme ve öğretmenlerin öz yeterlik algısının öğretmen liderliğine etkisi [A model to explain teacher leadership: The effects of distributed leadership, organizational learning and teachers' sense of self-efficacy on teacher leadership]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 41(183), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.5081
72. Leithwood, K. (2001). Educational accountability and school leadership. National College of School Leadership. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.495.5426&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
73. Maile, S. (2002). Accountability: An essential aspect of school governance. South African Journal of Education, 22(4), 326-331.
74. Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Straus, T., & Sacks, R. (2008). The relationship between distributed leadership and teachers' academic optimism. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 214-228. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810863271
75. Mayerson, D.R. (2010). The relationship between school climate, trust, enabling structures, and perceived school effectiveness [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. St. John's University.
76. Mayrowetz, D. (2008). Making sense of distributed leadership: Exploring the multiple usages of the concept in the field. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 424-435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07309480
77. McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W.K. (2006). Principal leadership: Creating a culture of academic optimism to improve achievement for all students. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(3), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760600805816
78. Messick, P.P. (2012). Examining relationships among enabling school structures, academic optimism, and organizational citizenship behaviors [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Auburn University.
79. Meydan, C.H., & Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi AMOS uygulamaları [Structural equation modeling AMOS applications]. Detay Yayıncılık.
80. Miskel, C. (1979). Demographic characteristics, faculty attitudes and school structure. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of The American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, California, April 8-12.
81. Miskel, C.G., Fevurly, R., & Stewart, J. (1979). Organizational Structures and Processes, Perceived School Effectiveness, Loyalty, and Job Satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 15(3), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013131X7901500308
82. Mitani, H. (2018). Principals’ working conditions, job stress, and turnover behaviors under NCLB accountability pressure. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(5), 822-862. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X1878587
83. Mitchell, R.M. (2019). Enabling school structure & transformational school leadership: Promoting increased organizational citizenship and professional teacher behavior. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 18(4), 614 627. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2018.1475577
84. Nathaniel, P., Pendergast, L.L., Segool, N., Saeki, E., & Ryan, S. (2016). The influence of test-based accountability policies on school climate and teacher stress across four states. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 492 502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.013
85. Oldaç, Y.İ., & Kondakçı, Y. (2020). Multilevel analysis of the relationship between school-level variables and student achievement. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 48(4), 762-780. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219827303
86. Ordu, A., & Tanrıöğen, A. (2013). İlköğretim okullarında örgütsel yapı ile örgüt sağlığı arasındaki ilişkiler [The relationships between organizational structure and organizational health in primary schools]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(33), 93-106.
87. Orhan, M. (2022). Okul yapısı ile hesap verebilirlik arasındaki ilişkide dağıtımcı liderliğin aracılık rolünün incelenmesi [The examination of mediating role of distributed leadership in the relationship between school structure and accountability] [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Fırat University.
88. Özdemir, S., & Kılınç, A.Ç. (2014). The relationship between bureaucratic school structure and teachers' level of academic optimism/Bürokratik okul yapısı ile öğretmenlerin akademik iyimserlik düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between bureaucratic school structure and teachers' level of academic optimism]. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 10(1), 1-23.
89. Özen, Y., & Gül, A. (2007). Sosyal ve eğitim bilimleri araştırmalarında evren-örneklem sorunu [Populatıon-sampling issue on social and educational research studies]. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (15), 394-422.
90. Özer, N., & Beycioğlu, K. (2013). Paylaşılan liderlik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları [The development, validity and reliability study of distributed leadership scale]. İlköğretim Online, 12(1), 77-86.
91. Özer, N., & Dönmez, B. (2013). Kolaylaştırıcı okul yapısı ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun psikometrik özelliklerinin yeniden değerlendirilmesi [Reassesing the psychometric properties of the turkish version of enabling school structure scale]. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 3(4), 57-68.
92. Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
93. Rabindarang, S., Bing, K.W., & Yin, K.Y. (2014). The influence of distributed leadership on job stress in technical and vocational education. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(1), 490 499. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v4-i1/555
94. Rockoff, J.E., & Turner, L.J. (2010). Short-run impacts of accountability on school quality. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2(4), 119-147.
95. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluatingthe fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodnessof-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
96. 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. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410544071
97. Smylie, M.A., Mayrowetz, D., Murphy, J., & Louis, K.S. (2007). Trust and the Development of Distributed Leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 17(4), 469–503.
98. Stapleman, J. (2000). Standards-based accountability systems [policy brief]. Mid-continent Research for Education and Leaming.
99. Stecher, B., & Kirby, S.N. (Eds.). (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors. Rand Publication.
100. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar [Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts and applications]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
101. Şişman, M. (2019). Türk eğitim sistemi ve okul yönetimi [Turkish education system and school administration] (11. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
102. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Edition). Pearson Education.
103. Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi [Measurement of attitudes and data analysis with SPSS]. Nobel Yayıncılık.
104. Turner, J.B. (2018). Organizational justıce and enabling school structure as predictors of organizational citizenship behavior [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Alabama.
105. Wahab, J.A., Hamid, A.H.A., Zainal, S., & Rafik, M.F.M. (2013). The relationship between headteachers' distributed leadership practices and teachers' motivation in national primary schools. Asian Social Science, 9(16), 161-167. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n16p161
106. Watts, D.M. (2009). Enabling school structure, mindfulness, and teacher empowerment: Test of a theory [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Alabama.
107. Woods, P.A., & Gronn, P. (2009). Nurturing democracy: The contribution of distributed leadership to a democratic organizational landscape. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37, 430–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209334597
108. Yağ, T. (2019). Okul yöneticilerinin yönetim tarzları ile hesap verebilirlik yönelimleri arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between management styles of school administrators' and accountability orientations] [Unpublished master thesis]. Kırşehir Ahi Evran University.
109. Yetim, Z. (2015). İlköğretim kurumlarında dağıtımcı liderlik ile örgütsel bağlılık arasındaki ilişki (Seydikemer örneği) [The relation between the distributed leadership and organizational commitment in the elementary educational institutions (The case of Seydikemer)] [Unpublished master thesis]. İstanbul Aydın University.
110. Yılmaz, D. (2014). Dağıtılmış liderliğin örgütsel güven ile algılanan örgütsel destek ve okul başarısıyla ilişkisi [The relationship between distributed leadership, organizational trust, perceived organizational support and school success] [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Eskişehir Osmangazi University.
111. Yiğit, B. (2017). Yöneticilerin hesap verebilirlik uygulamalarının çalışanların örgütsel bağlılık davranışlarıyla ilişkisinin incelenmesi- Eğitim kurumları örneği [Examining the relation between accountability practices of directors and the organizational commitment behaviors of the employees: A case study on educational institutions] [Unpublished master thesis]. Türk Hava Kurumu University.