Investigation of School Administrators’ Assumptions Regarding Management Practices Based on X-Y Theory

Abstract

The main goal of this research is to develop a measurement tool that will determine the beliefs that guide school administrators' practices based on X and Y theory, and the relationships between of level of these beliefs and other variables that school administrators use in management practices. The theory was tested with the scale developed in the research. Furthermore, the levels of school administrators' beliefs, which are assumed to guide their practices based on X and Y theory, were revealed in the research using data obtained during the scale development study; it was determined whether the demographic variables of school administrators differed according to the subscale (X and Y subscale) scores. Relational and causal comparison strategies were used in this quantitatively constructed investigation. Research data were collected from three sample groups in the Erzurum sample. It has been determined that there is a significant difference in the X theory subscale score in favour of school administrators working in primary school. The study concluded that, based on X-Y theory, the assumptions of school administrators that shape management practices can be determined by the School Administrators' Beliefs for the Nature of Human Scale.

Keywords

• McGregor’s theory
• classical management theories
• human relations approach
• x-y theories
• belief in human nature

References

1. Almeida, F. A. S., Caetano, K. T. M., & Duarte, M. (2018). ApThe approach McGregor's X and Y Theory Associated with the Adaptive or Non-Adaptive Culture Construct of Kotter and Heskett: An Empirical Study in Goiás, Brazil.
2. Ayral, T. (2020). Okul müdürlerinin yönetim felsefeleri ile okulların şeffaflık düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Denizli.
3. Aydin, O. T. (2012). The impact of Theory X, Theory Y and Theory Z on research performance: An empirical study from a Turkish University. International Journal of Advances in Management and Economics, 1(5), 24-30.
4. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (17. bs.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
5. Creswell John, W. (2012). Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Daulat Purnama.
6. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (Vol. 2). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
7. Çöllü, E. F., & Öztürk, Y. E. (2006). Örgütlerde İnançlar-Tutumlar Tutumların Ölçüm Yöntemleri Ve Uygulama Örnekleri Bu Yöntemlerin Değerlendirilmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 9(1-2), 373-404.
8. Drucker, P. 2008. The Practice of Management; New York: Harper and Brothers

9. Daneshfard, K., & Rad, S. S. (2020). Philosophical analysis of theory x and y. Journal of Management and Accounting Studies, 8(2).
10. Eren, E. (2006). Örgütsel davranış ve yönetim psikolojisi (9. Baskı). İstanbul: Beta.
11. Fiman, B.G. (1973). “An investigation of the relationships among supervisory attitudes, behaviours, and outputs: an examination of McGregor’s Theory Y”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 95-105.
12. Fornell, C., & Larcker, DF (1981). Ölçülemez değişkenli yapısal denklem modellerinin değerlendirilmesi ve ölçüm hatası. Pazarlama araştırması dergisi, 18 (1), 39-50.
13. Gannon, D., & Boguszak, A. (2013). Douglas McGregor’s theory x and theory y. CRIS-Bulletin of the Centre for Research and Interdisciplinary Study, 2, 85-93.
14. Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15. Gürbüz, S. (2019). Amos ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
16. Jones, J. E., & Pfeiffer, J. W. (1972). Supervisory attitudes: The X-Y Scale. In J. W. Pfeiffer & J. E. Jones (Eds.), The 1972 annual handbook for group facilitators (pp. 65-68). San Diego, CA: University Associates.
17. Kopelman, R. E., Prottas, D. J., & Davis, A. L. (2008). Douglas McGregor's Theory X and Y: Toward a construct-valid measure. Journal of Managerial Issues, 255-271.
18. Kopelman, R. E., Prottas, D. J., & Falk, D. W. (2009). Construct validation of a theory X/Y behaviour scale. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(2), 120–135.
19. Lodico, M.G., Spaulding, D.T., & Voegtle, K.H. (2006). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
20. Madero-Gómez, S. M., & Rodríguez-Delgado, D. R. (2018). Relación entre las teorías X y Y de McGregor, las formas de retribuir y la satisfacción de las personas en sutrabajo. CienciaUAT, 13(1), 95-107.
21. Mattaliano, A. P. (1982). Theory X or Theory Y-What Is Your Style?. NASSP Bulletin, 66(456), 37-40.
22. McGregor, D. (1970). Örgütün İnsan İlişkileri Yönü. (Çev. Doğan Energin). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi. Ankara.
23. Michaelsen, L.K. (1973), “Leader orientation, leader behaviour, group effectiveness and situational favorability: an empirical extension of the contingency model”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 226-45.
24. Miles, R.E. (1964), “Conflicting elements in managerial ideologies”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 77-91.
25. Mulaik S. A., James L. R., Van Alstine J., Bennett N., Lind S., Stilwell C. D. Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin. 1989;105(3):430–445. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.430.
26. Neuliep, J. W. (1987). The influence of Theory X and Theory Y management styles on the selection of compliance-gaining strategies. Communication Research Reports, 4, 14-19.
27. Neuliep, J. W. (1996). The influence of Theory X and Y management style on the perception of ethical behaviour in organizations. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 301-311.
28. Pine, H. (2018). The Relationship Between the Big Five Personality Traits and Theory X and Y: An Exploratory Study (Doctoral dissertation).
29. Sabanci, A. (2008). School Principals' Assumptions about Human Nature: Implications for Leadership in Turkey. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36(4), 511-529.
30. Sabuncuoğlu, Z., & Tüz, M. (2016). Örgütsel Davranış (6. Baskı). Bursa: Alfa Aktüel Yayınları.
31. Seçer, İ. (2013). SPSS ve LISREL ile pratik veri analizi. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
32. Spautz, M.E. (1975), “A new scale for Theories X and Y”, Australian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 127-41.
33. Sullivan, J. S. (2017). The Relationship Between Mcgregor's Leadership Theory and Happiness Among Higher Educational Leaders. Florida Atlantic University.
34. Tabacnhinch, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2015). Çok değişkenli istatistiklerin kullanımı (M. Baloğlu, Çev.). Ankara: Nobel Akademi.
35. Taş, S. (2011). Management philosophies of primary school principals. Education, 131(3), 565-580.
36. Teleometrics International, Inc (1995), Managerial Philosophy Scale, Teleometrics International, Waco, TX.
37. Tezbaşaran, A. A.(2008). Likert tipi ölçek hazırlama kılavuzu, Türk Psikologlar Derneği, Mersin.
38. Touma, J. (2021). Theories X and Y in Combination for Effective Change during Economic Crisis. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 9(01), 20.
39. Usta, M . (2017). Yönetim Anlayışları Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi. Mukaddime, 8(2), 267-285. DOI: 10.19059/mukaddime.341450