An Analysis of the Relationship between School Managers’ Change Leadership Style and Multi-Factorial Leadership Styles from the Views of Teachers

Abstract

The aim of this study has been to identify school managers’ leadership styles and levels in terms of teachers’ perceptions. The focus of the study includes primary, secondary and high schools in Şahinbey and Şehitkamil districts of Gaziantep. In the study, the selection of the sample, which consists of 228 teachers, was carried out by using the disproportionate cluster sampling method. The data have been collected via change leadership scale and multi-factorial leadership scale. For analysis of data Pearson Correlation coefficients have been used. According to the research results, teachers believe that among the multi-factorial leadership styles their managers show mostly transformational, transactional and change leadership behaviors, while they show laissez-faire leadership behaviors less frequently. It was also found out that there is a moderate relation between transformational and change leadership styles; a low-level weak relation between transformational and transactional leadership; and a low-level relation between transformational and laissez-faire leadership. On the other hand, there is a respectively low and meaningful relationship between change leadership and transactional leadership; a negative and very low relationship between change leadership and laissez-faire leadership. Finally, a low level relation has been detected between transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership.

Keywords

• Change leadership,transactional leadership,transformational leadership,laissez-faire leadership

Kaynakça

1. Akdogan, E. (2002). Ogretim elemanlarinin algiladiklari liderlik stilleri ile is doyum duzeyleri arasindaki iliski. Yayinlanmamis Master Thesis, Marmara Universitesi, Istanbul.
2. Avolio, B. J.,Bass, B. M., Riggio, R. E., Orr, S. S., Ciulla, J. B., Krishnan, V. R., ... &Riggio, R. E. (2008). Transformational leadership. Asia-Pacific Business Review, 4(1).
3. Baloglu, N., Karadag, E.,, & Gavuz, S. (2009). Okul mudurlerinin cok faktorlu liderlik stillerinin yetki devrine etkisi: Bir dogrusal, & yapisal esitlik modelleme calismasi. Uludag Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 22(2), 457-479.
4. Bektas, Cogaltay, & Sokmen. (2014) Ogretmen algilarina gore okul mudurlerinin liderlik stillerinin orgutsel baglilik uzerindeki rolu, Uluslararasi Turk Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Ekim.
5. Buluc, B. (2009). Sinif ogretmenlerinin algilarina gore okul mudurlerinin liderlik stilleri ile orgutsel baglilik arasindaki iliski. Kuram, & Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi, 15(1), 5-34.
6. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. NewYork: Harper, & Row.
7. Buyukozturk, S., Kilic Cakmak, E., Akgun, O.E., Karadeniz, S.,, & Demirel, F., (2013). Bilimsel arastirma yontemleri (14. Baski). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
8. Carnoy, M., & Samoff, J. (2014). Education and social transition in the third world. Princeton University Press.

9. Caldwell, S. D.,Roby-Williams, C., Rush, K., Ricke-Keily, T. (2009). Influences of Context, Processand Individual Differences on Nurses’ Readiness for Changeto Magnet Status, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 65 issue 7, pp. 1412 – 1422.
10. Cemaloglu, N. (2013). Liderlik. S. Ozdemir (Ed.), Egitim yonetiminde kuram, & uygulama icinde (ss. 131-183). Ankara: PegemA.
11. Cemaloglu, N. (2007). Okul yoneticilerinin liderlik stillerinin orgut sagligi uzerindeki etkisi. Turkiye Sosyal Arastirmalar Dergisi, 11(2), 165-194.
12. Cemaloglu, N. (2007). Okul yoneticilerinin liderlik stillerinin farkli degiskenler acisindan incelenmesi. Turk Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5 (1), 73-112.
13. Celik V. (1998) Egitimde Donusumcu Liderlik. Kuram, & Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi, (16), 423-441.
14. Celik, V. (2005). Liderlik. Icinde, Y. Ozden(Ed.). Egitim, & okul yoneticiligi el kitabi (ss. 187-215). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
15. Dursun, Y. (2009). Ogretmenlerin tukenmislik duzeyleri ile yoneticileri icin algiladiklari donusumcu, & etkilesimci liderlik stilleri arasindaki iliski (Karabuk ilkogretim okullari ornegi). (Unpublished Master Thesis). Gazi Universitesi/Egitim Bilimleri Enstitusu. Ankara. Erisim..Tarihi..20.12.2013, https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
16. Gedikoglu, T. (2015). Liderlik, & okul yonetimi. Ankara: Ani Yayincilik.
17. Guney, S. (2011). Orgutsel davranis. Ankara: Nobel yayin dagitim.
18. Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (2010). Educational Administration (cev. editor: Selahattin TURAN), Ankara: Nobel Yayin Dagitim
19. Jones M. L. (2010). What do Managers do during Major Organisational Change.subat 2014 tarihinde mevcuttur. http://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/727
20. Judson, A. S. (1991). Changingbehavior in organizations: Minimizing resistance to change. B. Blackwell.
21. Karip, E. (1998). Donusumcu liderlik. Kuram, & Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi, (16), 443-465.
22. Kul, M., & Guclu, M. (2010). Okul yoneticilerinin liderlik stilleri ile beden egitimi ogretmenlerinin orgutsel bagliliklari arasindaki iliski. Uluslararasi Insan Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(2), 1021-1038.
23. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leadingchange. Harvard Business Press.
24. Korkmaz, M. (2005). Duygularin, & liderlik stillerinin ogretmenlerin performansi uzerinde etkisi. Kuram, & Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi, 11(3), 401-422.
25. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 5-41.
26. Liu, Y. (2010). When Change Leadership Impacts Commitment To Change And When It Doesn’t. A Dissertationfort he doctorate of philosopy. GeorgiaInstitute of Technology
27. Northouse, P.G. (2014). Liderlik: Kuram, & uygulamalar (cev.: Kaleli, M.), Istanbul: Surat Universite Yayinlari
28. Ozdamar, K. (2003). Modern bilimsel arastirma yontemleri. Eskisehir: Kaan Kitabevi.
29. Sahin, S. (2004). Okul mudurlerinin donusumcu, & surdurumcu liderlik stilleri ile okul kulturu arasindaki iliskiler (Izmir ili ornegi). Kuram, & Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 4(2), 365-395.
30. Simsek, S.,Akgemici, T., & Celik, A. (2011). Davranis Bilimlerine Giris, & Orgutlerde Davranis. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
31. Turan, S. (2002). Teknolojinin okul yonetiminde etkin kullaniminda egitim yoneticisinin rolu. Kuram, & Uygulamada Egitim Yonetimi, 30(30), 271-281.
32. Turan, S., & Bektas, F. (2014). Liderlik. S. Turan (ed.). Kuram, & Uygulamada Teori, Arastirma, & Uygulama. Icinde (ss. 293-336). Ankara. Pegem Akademi Yayincilik.
33. Tuncer, P. (2011). Orgutsel degisim, & liderlik. Sayistay Dergisi, 80, 57-83.