Bureaucracy in School Administration: A Grounded Theory Study

Yıl 2024, , 218 - 237, 24.09.2024

Abdullah Balıkçı

https://doi.org/10.47806/ijesacademic.1458904

Öz

The aim of this study is to put forward a model for an effective bureaucratic administration structure in school administration, based on the interaction between school administration and Weberian bureaucracy. According to the research conducted with the participation of 27 school administrators and grounded theory design, bureaucracy has two aspects in terms of school administration. Bureaucracy contributes to the school administration in terms of maintaining the work in a certain order, giving importance to the field of expertise, allowing everyone to speak the same language by carrying out the work in an official manner, and being a tool in overcoming problems. On the other hand, it causes work to slow down and progress with difficulty because it brings about unfair practices and causes formalism and waste. When the dimensions of Weberian bureaucracy are examined in the context of school administration, 4 of the 6 dimensions - division of labor, rules and regulations, authority hierarchy and rational behavior - continue to function in school administration. However, it is understood that there are problems in school administration regarding specialization and merit.
In terms of an effective bureaucratic structure in school administration, a structure that takes both the employee and the school into consideration is required. In order to implement an effective and efficient bureaucracy in school administration, all dimensions of Weberian bureaucracy must be taken into account, based on the balance of authority-responsibility and delegation of authority. Additionally, organizational and individual dimensions should be taken into account.

Anahtar Kelimeler

School administration, Weberian bureaucracy, Grounded theory, Bureaucratic model, Employee

Kaynakça

• Asaju, K., & Ayeni, E. (2021). Public bureaucracy and national development in Nigeria: Issues and challenges. Nigerian Journal of Administrative and Political Sciences, 5(1), 69-90.
• Abun, D., Magallanes, T., Macaspac, L., Seatriz, A., & Nicolas, M. T. (2021). Bureaucratic and humanistic administration styles and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Business Ecosystem & Strategy, Bussecon International Academy, 3, 73-84. https://doi.org/10.36096/ijbes.v3i2.262
• Açıkgöz, C. (2023). Development agencies in the transition from Weber bureaucracy to the alternative bureaucracy model: The case of Çukurova development agency (CDA) [Doctoral thesis, Mersin University].
• Akçakaya, M. (2016). Weber's concept of bureaucracy: Today and tomorrow. Gazi University Journal of Social Sciences, Special Issue, 275-295.
• Alanoğlu, M., & Karabatak, S. (2020). The mediating effects of job satisfaction and organisational justice on the relationship between principals' administration style and teachers' organisational citizenship behaviour: Turkey sample. KJEP, 17(2), 145-169. https://doi.org/10.22804/kjep.2020.17.2.001
• Aydoğan, İ. (2020). Education's search for identity. Pegem Akademi.
• Balıdede, F. (2012). A comparative study of school administration structures in Turkish, Irish, and Canadian education systems [Master’s thesis, Istanbul University].
• Balıkçı, A. (2016). Principalship in the context of daily life and bureaucracy [Doctoral thesis, Osmangazi University].
• Bush, T., & Oduro, G. K. T. (2006). New principals in Africa: Preparation, induction and practice. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(4), 359-375. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230610676587
• Bohte, J. (2001). School bureaucracy and student performance at the local level. Public Administration Review, 61(1), 92-100.
• Bolay, S. H. (2009). Glossary of philosophical doctrines and terms. Nobel.
• Byrkjeflot, H. (2018). The impact and interpretation of Weber’s bureaucratic ideal type in organization theory and public administration. In H. Byrkjeflot & E. Engelstad (Eds.), Bureaucracy and society in transition: Comparative perspectives (pp. 13–35). Emerald Publishing Limited.
• Cabral, I., Alves, J. M., Soares, D., & Palmeirão, C. (2019). Bureaucratic or instructional leaders? An overview of Portuguese school leaders’ perceptions on an autonomy and curriculum flexibility program. In Proceedings of EDULEARN19 Conference (pp. 1-12). ISBN: 978-84-09-12031-4.
• Cansoy, R., Türkoğlu, M. E., & Balıkçı, A. (2021). What are the sources and negative effects of assistant principals’ work intensification? SAGE Open, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211047582
• Ceylan, E., Özdoğan Özbal, E., Sever, M., & Boyacı, A. (2020). Türkiye’deki öğretmen ve okul yöneticilerinin görüşleri, öğretim koşulları: TALIS 2018 öğretmen ve okul yöneticileri yanıtları analizi. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
• Chang, A. (2022). A formal model of street-level bureaucracy. Rationality and Society, 34(1), 6-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/10434631211043205
• Cho, W., Im, T., Porumbescu, G. A., Lee, H., & Park, J. (2013). A cross-country study of the relationship between Weberian bureaucracy and government performance. International Review of Public Administration, 18(3), 115-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2013.10805266
• Clegg, S. R. (2012). The end of bureaucracy? Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 35, 59-84. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2012)0000035005
• Civek, F., & Özkahveci, E. (2021). Weber bürokrasi kuramı ve insan kaynakları yönetimi üzerine kavramsal bir değerlendirme. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 39, 364-394. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.1008866
• Creswell, J. W. (2016). Five qualitative research approaches. In M. Bütün & S. B. Demir (Eds.), Qualitative research methods (pp. 69-110). Siyasal Kitabevi.
• Çevikbaş, R. (2014). Theory of bureaucracy and administrative functions. Journal of Economics and Administration Research, 3(2), 75-104.
• Dönder, H. H. (2006). Teachers’ organizational citizenship behaviours and bureaucracy [Master’s thesis, Afyonkarahisar Kocatepe University].
• Erbek, O. (2023). The investigation of the relationship between bureaucracy and teacher autonomy in public schools: The case of Edirne province [Master’s thesis, Trakya University].
• Eryılmaz, B. (2013). Bureaucracy and policy. Alfa.
• Espuny, M. T., Cunha, R. S., Cabral, I., & Alves, J. M. (2020). Giving voice to problems faced by school leaders in Portugal. School Leadership & Administration, 40(4), 352-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1719400
• Fitzgerald, T., Youngs, H., & Grootenboer, P. (2003). Bureaucratic control or professional autonomy? Performance administration in New Zealand schools. School Leadership & Administration, 23(1), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243032000080050
• Fullan, M. (2008). What’s worth fighting for in the principalship. Teachers College Columbia University. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. AldineTransaction.
• Gönüllü, Y. (2009). The relation between bureaucracy and teacher’s efficiency [Master’s thesis, Uşak University]. Gülsoy Kerimoğlu, P. N. (2019). Education systems of Turkey and South Korea: A comparative study [Master’s thesis, Hacettepe University].
• Haveman, H. A. (2013). Bureaucracy. In Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137294678.0058
• Honingh, M. E., & Hooge, E. H. (2009). Reconsidering the tension between bureaucracy and professionalism in publicly and privately funded schools. School Leadership and Administration, 29(4), 405-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430903152062
• Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2000). School bureaucracies that work: Enabling, not coercive. Journal of School Leadership, 10, 525-541.
• Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2010). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (S. Turan, Trans. Ed.). Nobel.
• Höpfl, H. M. (2006). Post‐bureaucracy and Weber's “modern” bureaucrat. Journal of Organizational Change Administration, 19(1), 8-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810610643659
• Joo, H. J., & Kim, T. (2022). Ambivalence toward bureaucracy: Responses from Korean school principals. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(3), 311-324. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2021-0020
• Kean, T. H., Kannan, S., & Piaw, C. Y. (2017). The effect of school bureaucracy on the relationship between principals’ leadership practices and teacher commitment in Malaysian secondary schools. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(1), 37-55.
• Keddie, A., & Holloway, J. (2020). School autonomy, school accountability and social justice: Stories from two Australian school principals. School Leadership & Administration, 40(4), 288-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1643309
• Khan, M. H. (2020). Do the advantages of the Weberian bureaucracy outweigh its disadvantages? Indian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4), 592–595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019556120976600
• Kim, S., & Han, C. (2015). Administrative reform in South Korea: New public administration and the bureaucracy. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(4), 694–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314558034
• Koç, B. (2020). Investigation of a school in Sivas province in the context of school administration [Master’s thesis, Cumhuriyet University].
• Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis. Sage Publications.
• Labaree, D. F. (2020). Two cheers for school bureaucracy. Phi Delta Kappan, 101(6), 53-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720909595
• Li, T., & Wang, Z. M. (2021). The top-heavy shape of authoritarian bureaucracy: Evidence from Russia and China. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211058865
• Liu, S., Wang, J., & Liang, H. (2015). Principals’ perceptions of effective teaching: A survey of Chinese school principals. KJEP, 12(2), 225-250.
• Lortie, D. C. (2009). School principal. The University of Chicago Press.
• Löfgren, K., Darrah-Morgan, B., Hall, P., & Alamaa, L. (2022). The rise of a new public bureaucracy in New Zealand? Administration & Society, 54(1), 57–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211013301
• Luhman, N. (2021). New chief: Bureaucratic conservatism and leadership (M. Ş. Garipbaş, Trans.). VakıfBank Kültür Yayınları.
• Macpherson, R., & Hyung, P. S. (2015). Educational administration as national capacity building: Towards South Korea becoming a creative learning state. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16, 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9359-8
• Merriam, S. B. (2015). A guide to qualitative research design and practice (S. Turan, Trans. Ed.). Nobel.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2015). Qualitative data analysis (S. Akbaba Altun & A. Ersoy, Trans. Eds.). Pegem A.
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2013; 2014; 2018; 2019; 2021). http://www.meb.gov.tr/mevzuat/liste.php?ara=6
• Mises, L. V. (2010). Bureaucracy (F. Ergin & A. Yayla, Trans.). Liberte.
• Mouzelis, N. P. (2001). Organisation and bureaucracy (H. B. Akın, Trans.). Çizgi.
• Neuman, W. L. (2010). Social research methods (S. Özge, Trans.). Yayınodası.
• Olsen, J. P. (2005). Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui027
• Oplatka, I. (2017). Principal workload components, determinants and coping strategies in an era of standardization and accountability. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(5), 552-568. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-06-2016-0071
• Ömeroğlu, Ö. (2006). The relationship between bureaucracy in school administration and teachers’ attitudes towards school [Master’s thesis, Dokuz Eylül University].
• Önal, H. (2012). The relationship between organizational culture and bureaucracy in Turkish primary schools [Master’s thesis, Gazi University].
• Öngel, G. (2019). Establishing and sustainability on enabling school bureaucracy [Master’s thesis, Yıldız Teknik University].
• Özkaral, M. (2020). The structure of bureaucracy. Çizgi.
• Öztaş, N. (2019). Bureaucracy. Nobel.
• Parlar, H., & Cansoy, R. (2017). The effect of bureaucratic school structure on teacher leadership culture: A mixed study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(6), 2175–2201. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.6.0150
• Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Trans. Eds.). PegemA. Pekince Kardaş, D. (2019). Putting bureaucratic accountability into a perspective in terms of academic achievement. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 31, 349–375.
• Racko, G. (2017). Values of bureaucratic work. Sociology, 51(2), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038515604106
• Roch, C. H., & Edwards, J. (2017). Representative bureaucracy and school discipline: The influence of schools’ racial contexts. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(1), 58-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015589126
• Roch, C. H., & Pitts, D. W. (2012). Differing effects of representative bureaucracy in charter schools and traditional public schools. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(3), 282-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074011400404
• Robinson, S. (2015). Decentralisation, managerialism and accountability: Professional loss in an Australian education bureaucracy. Journal of Education Policy, 30(4), 468-482. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1025241
• Samur, G., Samur, Z., Acar, İ., Çetinasker, P., Ekim, H., & Koçak, E. (2022). Opinions of school principals working in primary schools about the bureaucratic problems they encounter. Social Mentality and Researcher Thinkers Journal (Smart Journal).
• Sandström, M., Klang, N., & Lindqvist, G. (2019). Bureaucracies in schools—Approaches to support measures in Swedish schools seen in the light of Skrtic’s theories. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(1), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1324905
• Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. W. (2004). A mixed relationship: Bureaucracy and school performance. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 728-736.
• Strategy Budget Presidency [SBP]. (2019). 11th Development Plan. www.sbb.gov.tr
• Sünnetçioğlu, S. B. (2019). Bureaucracy in Turkey in memories [Master’s thesis, Afyon Kocatepe University].
• Şahin, A. (1998). Bureaucracy theory and Turkish bureaucracy [Master’s thesis, Selçuk University].
• Tortop, N., İsbir, E. G., & Aykaç, B. (1999). Administration science. Yargı.
• Urquhart, C. (2018). Grounded theory for qualitative research: A practical guide (Z. Ünlü & E. Külekçi, Trans.). Anı.
• Weber, M. (2012). Economy and society (L. Boyacı, Trans.). Yarın.
• Weber, M. (2014). Bureaucracy and authority (H. B. Akın, Trans.). Adres.
• Wong, K. K., & Sunderman, G. L. (2001). How bureaucratic are big-city school systems? Peabody Journal of Education, 76(3-4), 14-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2001.9681989
• Wong, P. M. (2009). A conceptual framework for understanding the working relationship between school principals and vice-principals. School Leadership and Administration, 29(2), 157-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430902775558
• Yalçın, M., Aypay, A., & Boyacı, A. (2020). Principals’ ordeal with bureaucracy. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 26(Special Issue 1), 203-260. https://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2020.005
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Seçkin.
• Yılmaz, A. İ., & Beycioğlu, K. (2017). Teachers’ perceptions regarding bureaucratic structures in schools. Journal of Education Faculty of Anadolu University, 1(2), 1-23.