İlköğretim Okullarında Örgütsel İklim ve Örgüt Sağlığının Örgütsel Bağlılık Üzerindeki Etkisi

Yıl 2011, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 1, 117 - 139, 01.02.2011

Mehmet Korkmaz

Öz

Bu araştırmada okul iklimi ve okul sağlığının okul çalışanlarının örgütsel bağlılıkları üzerinde etkili bir faktör olup olmadığı araştırılmıştır. Diğer bir ifadeyle öğretmenlerin okullarına ve diğer meslektaşlarına bağlılığını ifade eden örgütsel bağlılık etkili bir okul iklimi ile okul sağlığının bir göstergesi midir? sorusuna cevap aranmıştır. Bunun için Ankara ili merkez ilçelerinde yer alan 42 ilköğretim okulu ile bu okullarda görev yapan 657 öğretmene 4 dereceli likert tipinde ölçek uygulanmıştır. Değişkenler arasındaki ilişkinin gücü için korelasyon katsayıları hesaplanmış, ayrıca; değişkenlerin birbirlerini etkileyip etkilemediği ve açıklama gücünün ne olduğu çoklu regresyon analizi ile ortaya konmuştur. Analiz sonucunda elde edilen bulgular, öğretmenlerin örgütsel bağlılığını yordamada örgütsel sağlığın (OHI) boyutlarının güçlü bir şekilde ilişkili olduğunu, fakat örgütsel iklim boyutlarından (OCDQ-RS) sadece “müdürün destekleyici davranışı” ve “mesleki öğretmen davranışı” ile güçlü bir şekilde ilişkili olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. OHI'nin örgütsel bağlılığın yordanmasında OCDQ-RS'den daha iyi yordayıcı bir ölçme aracı olduğu bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

örgütsel iklim , örgütsel sağlık , örgütsel bağlılık , örgütsel etkililik

The Effects of Organizational Climate and Organizational Health on Organizational Commitment in Primary Schools

Öz

Background. Educational reformers hope that schools will be prepared to meet all needs of children in a better way by reconsidering the structure of educational system. While it is the main aim of the reform practiced to increase students' success, it is also important to control school climate and health, and depending on these, to control how organizational commitment behaviors and feelings are developed by the members of school society, especially by the teachers in a performed educational system (Stedman, 1987; Bossert, 1988; Brookover, Beady, Flood, Schveltzer ve Wisenbaker, 1979; Celep, 2000; Balay, 2000; Çelik, 2003). Purpose. The purpose this study is to examine that the school climate and school health are effective factors that have effects on the organizational commitments of the people working in the schools. Predictive effects of organizational health and organizational climate on the organizational commitment perceptions of the primary teachers are examined. In order to reach this purpose the following research questions were formulated: 1. Is there a significant relationship between organizational commitment and organizational health? 2. Is there a significant relationship between organizational commitment and organizational climate? 3. Can organizational commitment be predicted from organizational health? 4. Can organizational commitment be predicted from organizational climate? Method. Data were collected from 657 primary teachers from 42 primary schools located in the city center of Ankara. Three different scales were used in the data gathering process. These scales -“Describing Organizational Climate Questionnaire (OCDQ-Rs)”, “Organizational Health Questionnaire (OHI)” and “Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ)”- were originally developed and revised by Porter, Steer, Mowday and Boulian (1974). In the data analysis process arithmetic mean , standard deviation, Pearson's Moment correlation analysis (r) techniques were used. Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted in order to predict organizational commitment from organizational climate and organizational health. Results. The lowest maximum grade mean which is related to the sub scales of the Organizational Health Measurement is %11.55 (Institutional Integrity) and the possible maximum grade one is %26.22 (teachers' commitment). Teachers' perception about Organizational Health Scale, Intuitional Integrity subscale has the lowest standard deviation. This subscale has the highest consistency. The biggest change in teachers' perception belongs to collegial leadership subscale. In other words, this scale is the variable with the lowest consistency among teachers' perception. Excluding institutional integrity, a positive relationship was observed among the most of the subscales of organizational health. It is also seen that the lowest maximum grade mean belonging to the subscales of the organizational climate instrument is %9.41 (disengaged behavior) and the possible highest maximum grade mean is %28.26 (supportive behavior). According to the results of regression analysis both the Organizational Health Measurement Instrument and Organizational Health Measurement Instrument explain more parts of the variance in predicting organizational commitment from the Organizational Health Instrument (OHI). Findings suggest that the principal has a direct effect on school commitment. Disengaged behavior and restrictive behavior which are the subscales of organizational climate have no effects on school health. Discussion. Findings of this study show that dimensions of organizational health (OHI) have an important effect on organizational commitment but all dimensions of organizational climate do not have a strong effect on it. In other words, OHI is more effective than OCDQ – RS in order to predict organizational commitment. Because, while organizational health subscales express 45 % of variance in organizational commitment, organizational health and organizational climate subscales together express 48% of the variance in teachers' organizational commitment perception. Organizational climate subscales made a contribution of 3% for the prediction of organizational commitment. This result of the research supports the results of Hoy, Tarter and Bliss (1990). This result also shows that OHI has significant predictive effects on organizational commitment. The findings of this comparison did not surprise us. Organizational health scale predicts some characteristics like reaching organizational aims, revision, faith and integrity. These are directly linked to functional requirements (Parsons, 1961).

Anahtar Kelimeler

organizational climate , organizational health , organizational commitment

Kaynakça

• Açıkgöz, A., Toytok, H. E., ve Bayram, Y. T. (2008). Asil ve vekil ilköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin örgütsel bağlılık düzeyleri. XVII. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi. Sakarya Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Sakarya.
• Allen, T. D, Freeman, D. M., Reizenstein, R. C., & Rentz, J. O. (1995). Just anaother transition? Examining survivors’ attitudes over time. Academy of Management Proceedings. Best paper, 78-82.
• Altunkese, T. N. (2002). Study of relationship between psychological climate organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in a public organization. M. Sc. Thesis. Osmangazi Univeristy, Turkey.
• Anderson, C. S. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 368-420.
• Anderson, D. P. (1964). Organizational climate of elementary schools. Minneapolis: Educational Research and Development Council.
• Balay, R. (2000). Yönetici ve öğretmenlerde örgütsel bağlılık. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Balcı, A. (2001). Etkili okul ve okul geliştirme. Kuram uygulama ve araştırma. Ankara, Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within. CA: Jossey- Bass.
• Bassert, S. T. (1988). School effects. In N. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 341-352). NY: Praeger.
• Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5) 662-682.
• Brookover, W. B, Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., & Wisenbaker, J. (1979). School social systems and student achievement. NY: Praeger.
• Brady, L. (1988). The Principal as a climate factor in Australian schools: A review of studies. Journal of Educational Administration, 26, 73-81.
• Buluç, B. (2009). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin algılarına göre okul müdürlerinin liderlik stilleri ile örgütsel bağlılık arasındaki ilişki. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 57, 5-34 .
• Buluç, B. (2008). Ortaöğretim okullarında örgütsel sağlık ile örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışları arasındaki ilişki. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(4), 571-602.
• Celep, C. (2000). Eğitimde örgütsel adanma ve öğretmenler. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Cemaloğlu, N. (2007a). The exposure of primary school teachers to bullying: An analysis of various variables, Social Behavior and Personality, 35(6), 789–802.
• Cemaloğlu, N. (2007b). The relationship between organizational health and bullying that teachers experience in primary schools in turkey. Educational Research Quarterly, 31(2), 3-29.
• Cuban, L. (1991). Managing conflict. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
• Çelik, V. (2003). Eğitimsel liderlik. 3. Baskı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
• Davis, J. (2002). Effective schools, organizational culture and local policy initiatives. NY: Teachers College Press,
• Durna, U., ve Eren, V. (2005). Üç bağlılık unsuru ekseninde örgütsel bağlılık. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 6(2), 210–219.
• Epstein, J. L. (1990). School and family connections: Theory, research and implications for integrating sociologies of education and family. In D. G. Unger & M.B. Sussman (Eds.) Families in community setting: Interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 99-126). NY: Haworth.
• Hall, R. H. (1972). Organiations: Structure and process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
• Halpin, A. W. (1966). Theory and research in administration. NY: Macmillan.
• Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1963). The organizational climate of schools. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center of the Unversity of Chicago.
• Hard, P. M., Conn, M., & Carter, N. (1992). School Organizational Health Questionnaire: Manual. Melbourne, Victoria: Department of School Education.
• Hoy, J. K., & Tarter C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: The handbook for change. CA: Corwin Press.
• Hoy, W. K., & Clover, S. I. R. (1986). Elementary school climate: A revision of the OCDQ. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22, 93-110.
• Hoy, W. K., & Hannum, J. (1997). Middle school climate: An empirical assessment of organizational health and student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33, 290-311.
• Hoy, W. K., & Sabo, D. J. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Pres.
• Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. W. (1996). Educational administration. NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Hoy, W. K., & Miskel,C. W. (1987). ). Educational administration:theory, research, and practice. New York: Random House.
• Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open school, healthy school: Making schools work: Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
• Hoy, W.K., Tarter, J. C., & Bliss. R. J.(1990). Organizational climate, school, health and effectiveness: A comparative analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, (26)3, 260-279.
• Hoy, W. K., & Feldman, J. A. (1987). Organizational health: The concept and its measure. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20, 30-38.
• Izgar, H. (2008). Okul yöneticilerinde iş doyumu ve örgütsel bağlılık. Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 317-334.
• Korkmaz, M. (2005). Duyguların ve liderlik stillerinin öğretmenlerin performansı üzerine etkisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 43, 401-422.
• Korkmaz, M. (2007).Örgütsel sağlık üzerinde liderlik stillerinin etkisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi ,49, 57-91.
• Mathews, B. P., & Shepherd, J. L. (2002). Dimensionality of Cook and Wall’s (1980) British Organizatonal Commitment Scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 75, 369-375.
• Miles, M. B. (1969). Planned change and organizational health: Figure and ground. In E. D. Carver & T. J. Sergiovanni (Eds.), Organizations and human behaviour New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 375-391.
• Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denesen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 17(2), 145-177.
• Özden, Y. (1998). Eğitimde dönüşüm, yeni değerler ve oluşumlar, (Birinci Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Özdevecioğlu, M. (2003). Algılanan örgütsel destek ile örgütsel bağlılık arasındaki ilişkilerin belirlenmesine yönelik bir araştırma. D.E.Ü.İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 18(2),113-130.
• Parsons, T. (1967). Some ingredients of a general theory of formal organization. In A. W. Haplin (Ed), Administrative theory in Education (pp.40-72). New York: Macmillan.
• Parsons, T., Bales, R. E., & Shils, E. A. (1953). Working papers in the theory of action. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
• Parsons, T. (1961). An outline of the social system. In T. Parsons, E. Shils, K. Naegle & J. Pitts (Eds.), Theories of Society. New York: Free Pres.
• Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among pschiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603–609.
• Rokeach, M. 1960. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. 1967.
• Stedman, L. C. (1987). It’s time we changed the effective school formula. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 214-224.
• Stern, G. G. (1970). People in context: Measuring person-environment in education and industry. New York: Wiley.
• Swailes, S. (2002). Organizational Commitment: a critique of the construct and measures. International Journal of Management Reviews,4(2), 603–609.
• Şişman, N., & Turan, S. (2002). Eğitim ve okul yönetiminde eğitim bölgesi danışma kurullarının işlevi. Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(6), 136-146.
• Terzi, A. R., ve Kurt, T. (2005). İlköğretim okulu müdürlerinin yöneticilik davranışlarının öğretmenlerin örgütsel bağlılığına etkisi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, Sayı: 166, http://yayim.meb.gov.tr/dergiler/166/index3-kurt.htm. (5.4.2008 tarihinde erişildi).
• Topaloğlu M., Koç, H., & Yavuz, E. (2008). Öğretmenlerin örgütsel bağlılığının bazı temel faktörler açısından analizi, Kamu İş, 9(4), Ankara.
• Tsui, T. K. Ve Cheng, C. Y. (1999). School organizational health and teacher commitment: A contingency study with muti-level analysis. Educational Research and Evaluation Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 249-268.
• White, M. M., Parks, J. M., Gallagher, D. G., Tetrault, L. A., & Wakabayashi, M. (1995). Validity evidence fort he organizational commitment questionnaire in the Japanase corporate culture. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 278-290.
• Yıldırım, C. (2006). Okul müdürlerinin liderlik stillerinin örgütsel sağlık üzerindeki etkisi (Ankara ili örneği). Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi.
• Yukl, A. G. (2001). Leadership in organizations. Prentice Hall Publisher: Lakewood WA.