THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ PROACTIVE BEHAVIORS

Yusuf Cerit; Nuri Akgün

TR EN

OKULUN ÖRGÜT YAPISI İLE SINIF ÖĞRETMENLERİNİN PROAKTİF DAVRANIŞLARI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı okul örgütsel yapısı ile sınıf öğretmenlerinin proaktif davranışları arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Bu çalışmanın verileri 2013-2014 öğretim yılında Bolu il merkez ilçe sınırları içerisinde yer alan ilkokullarda görev yapan 295 sınıf öğretmeninden elde edilmiştir. Araştırmanın verileri mekanik okul yapısı, organik okul yapısı ve proaktif davranış ölçekleri kullanılarak elde edilmiştir. Verilerin analizinde aritmetik ortalama ve standart sapma, korelasyon ve regresyon analizi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada mekanik okul yapısı ile proaktif davranış arasında negatif ve anlamlı ilişki, organik okul yapısı ile proaktif davranış arasında olumlu ve anlamlı ilişki bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mekanik yapı, organik yapı, proaktif davranış

Kaynakça

Asgari, A., Silong, A. D., Ahmad, A., & Samah, B. A. (2008). The relationship between transfor- mational leadership behaviors, organizational support, trust in management and organizational citizenship behaviors. European Journal of Scientific Research, 23(2), 227–242.
Belschak, F., den Hartog, D., & Fay, D. (2010). Exploring positive, negative, and contextdependent aspects of proactive behaviors at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 267-173.
Bindl, U.,& Parker, S. (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). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Burns, T.,& Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock Publications
Carpenter, M. , Bauer, T. & Erdoğan, B. (2013). Principles of Management: A Behavioral Appro- ach. Flat World Knowledge.
Cerit, Y. (2013). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin proaktif davranışları sergileme düzeylerinin bazı demografik değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. ULEAD 2013 Annual Congress: International Congress on Research in Education, Mayıs.
Cogliser, C. C.,& Schriesheim, C. A. (2000). Exploring work unit context and leader-member exc- hange: A multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 487-511.
Conley, S. & You, S. (2014). Role stress revisited: Job structuring antecedents, work outcomes, and modera- ting effects of locus of control. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(2), 184-206.
Conley S and Glasman NS (2008) Fear, the school organization, and teacher evaluation. Educatio- nal Policy, 22(1), 63–85.
Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. (1991). A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm

Behavior.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7-25.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462.
Courtright J A, Fairhurst G T ve Rogers L E (1989) Interaction Patterns in Organic and Mechanic Systems. Academy of Management Journal, 32 (4), 773-802.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32 (1), 83-107.
DiPaola, M. F.,& Hoy, W. K. (2005). School characteristics that foster organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of School Leadership, 15, 308-326.
Fay, D.,& Sonnentag, S. (2012). Within-person Fluctuations of Proactive Behavior: How Affect and Experienced Competence Regulate Work behavior. Human Performance, 25(1), 72-93.
Freund, A. & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2007). Organizational (role structuring) and personal (organizati- onal commitment and job involvement) factors: Do they predict interprofessional team effecti- veness?.Journal of Interprefessional Care, 21(3), 319-334.
Ghitulescu, B. E. (2013). Making Change Happen: The Impact of Work Context on Adaptive and Proactive Behaviors.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(2), 206–245.
Grant, A.M. and Ashford, S., (2008). The Dynamics of Proactivity at Work. Research in organiza- tional Behavior, 28, 3-34.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive be- havior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347.
Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. (2010). Leader vision and the development of adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 174-182.
Hirst, G., Knippenberg, D.V., Chen, C., & Sacramento, C.A. (2011). How Does Bureaucracy im- pact individual creativity? A Cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on goal orientation-creativity relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 624-641.
Hoy, W.K. & Miskel, C.G. (2010). Eğitim yönetimi: Teori, araştırma ve uygulama(çev. Ed. S. Tu- ran). Ankara: Nobel.
Jogaratnam, G. & Tse, E. C. (2006). Entrepreneurial orientation and the structuring of organizations: Performance evidence from the Asian hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(6), 454-468.
OECD. (2006). Demand-sensitive schooling. Evidence and issues. Paris: Organisation for Econo- mic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Hoy, W. K.,& Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and nature of enab- ling school structure. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 296-321.
McAllister, D.J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E.W., & Turban, D.B. (2007). Disentanglingrole percepti- ons: How perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, andefficacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1200–1211.
Messick,, P.P. (2012). Examining relationships among enabling school structures, academic op- timism and organizational citizenship behaviors (Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1033785180? accountid=15310
Miller R. J. & Rowan, B. (2006). Effects of organic management on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 219-253.
Parker, S.K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835–852.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive mo- tivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827–856.
Parker, S.,& Collins, C. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 633-662.
Parker, S., Williams, H., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behaviorat work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636-652.
Pearson, L. C.,& Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress,work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29, 37-53.
Rasmussen, C. & Marrongella, K. (2006). Pedagogical content tools: Integrating student reasoning and mathematics in instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(5), 388-423.
Raub, S. (2008). Does bureaucracy kill individual initiative? The impact of structure on organi- zational citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 179–186.
Rowan, B. (2002). Teachers’ work and instructional management: Alternative views of the task of teaching. Teory and Research in educational Administration (129-150). (ed.) W.K. Hoy & C. Miskel. Information Age Publishing
Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design of schools. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education(Vol. 16, pp. 353–389). Washing- ton, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Sonnentag, S. & Kruel, U. (2006). Psychological detachment from work during off job time: The role of job stressors, job involvement, and recovery related self-efficacy. Europen Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(2), 197-217.
Somech, A.,& Wenderow, M. (2006). The impact of participative and directive leadership on te- achers’ performance: The intervening effects of job structuring, decisions domain, and leader- member exchange. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(5), 746-772.
Stamper, C. L.,& Van Dyne, L.(2001). Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A field studyof restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 517-536.
Thomas, J., Whitman, D.S., & Viswesvaran, C., (2010). Employee Proactivity in Organizations: A Comparative Meta-Analysis of Emergent Proactive Constructs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 275-300.
Thompson, J.A. (2005). Proactive Personality and Job Performance: A Social Capital Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1011-1017.
Van De Bunt, L. (2012). Leadership and situational antecedents of proactive behavior. University van Amsterdam.dare.uva.nl.
Visscher, A. (2013). Introduction to organizational and management aspects of schoolls, in A. J. Visscher (Ed.) Managing Schools towards High Performance,(3-36). Taylor & Francis.
Yücel, A.S., Koçak, C., ve Cula, S., An Analysis on Proactive-Reactive Personality Profiles in Stu- dent-Teacher Relationship Through The Metaphorical Thinking Approach. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science & Technology Education, 6(2), (2010), 129-137.
Zhang, Z., Wang, M. and Shi, J. (2012). Leader-Follower Congruence in Proactive Personality and Work Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Leader-Member Exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 111-130.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

-

Bölüm

-

Yazarlar

Yusuf Cerit Bu kişi benim
ABANT İZZET BAYSAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ, İLKÖĞRETİM BÖLÜMÜ

Nuri Akgün Bu kişi benim
ABANT İZZET BAYSAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ, EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ

Yayımlanma Tarihi

15 Aralık 2015

Gönderilme Tarihi

15 Temmuz 2016

Kabul Tarihi

-

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2015 Cilt: 23 Sayı: 4

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA45CK35ZY

APA

Cerit, Y., & Akgün, N. (2015). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ PROACTIVE BEHAVIORS. Kastamonu Education Journal, 23(4), 1789-1802. https://izlik.org/JA45CK35ZY

AMA

1.Cerit Y, Akgün N. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ PROACTIVE BEHAVIORS. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi. 2015;23(4):1789-1802. https://izlik.org/JA45CK35ZY

Chicago

Cerit, Yusuf, ve Nuri Akgün. 2015. “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ PROACTIVE BEHAVIORS”. Kastamonu Education Journal 23 (4): 1789-1802. https://izlik.org/JA45CK35ZY.

EndNote

Cerit Y, Akgün N (01 Aralık 2015) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ PROACTIVE BEHAVIORS. Kastamonu Education Journal 23 4 1789–1802.

IEEE

[1]Y. Cerit ve N. Akgün, “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ PROACTIVE BEHAVIORS”, Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, c. 23, sy 4, ss. 1789–1802, Ara. 2015, [çevrimiçi]. Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA45CK35ZY

ISNAD

Cerit, Yusuf - Akgün, Nuri. “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ PROACTIVE BEHAVIORS”. Kastamonu Education Journal 23/4 (01 Aralık 2015): 1789-1802. https://izlik.org/JA45CK35ZY.

JAMA

1.Cerit Y, Akgün N. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ PROACTIVE BEHAVIORS. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi. 2015;23:1789–1802.

MLA

Cerit, Yusuf, ve Nuri Akgün. “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ PROACTIVE BEHAVIORS”. Kastamonu Education Journal, c. 23, sy 4, Aralık 2015, ss. 1789-02, https://izlik.org/JA45CK35ZY.

Vancouver

1.Yusuf Cerit, Nuri Akgün. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ PROACTIVE BEHAVIORS. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi [Internet]. 01 Aralık 2015;23(4):1789-802. Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA45CK35ZY

Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, Creative Commons Atıf 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı (CC BY) ile lisanslanmıştır.

OKULUN ÖRGÜT YAPISI İLE SINIF ÖĞRETMENLERİNİN PROAKTİF DAVRANIŞLARI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler