EXAMINATION OF TEACHERS’ ORGANIZATIONAL IMAGE PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THEIR SCHOOLS IN TERMS OF SOME VARIABLES

Öz

In our rapidly changing and developing world, organizations maintain struggle to survive in competition environment. This struggle forced the organizations to notice social factors as well as economic factors. One of the basic issues encountered by contemporary organizations is about how society perceives the organization. Organizations become more accountable to society nowadays and thus it becomes inevitable that they portray a positive image to be characterized as successful organizations. Image is a perception manner that emerges in thoughts of external participants which based on organization members for development and consist of vision, mission and values of the organization (Sabuncuoğlu, 2004). According to Hatch and Schultz (2002), image was described as overall thought about how organization creates an impression on members and others. Like other branches, education was effected by developments emerge in the current competition environment. Especially, new developments emerged right after progress of computer technologies did not enable staying in national borders and required to be operated in an international environment (Cerit, 2006). From the point of education institutions, experiences during application period, advertising and public relations and applicant providing activities are very important for the emergence of first perception and this perception plays a crucial role in decision to apply for a school (Collins and Stevens, 2001). This situation increase competition among high schools. To be a preferred high school by students, creating a positive organizational image is considered as a significant factor. Therefore, it was tried to determine teachers’ perceptions about images of high schools. At the same time, people create their perceptions about an organization as a result of interaction with this organization. For that reason, in determining level of organizational level, information related to this organization should be obtained from people who are affined with this organization (Cerit, 2006). In this sense, because of image perceptions of teachers obliged to give education service in high schools as thought their perceptions about institution where they serve thinkable as important, organizational image levels of high schools were tried to determine according to teachers’ opinions. Purpose: This study aims to examine the level of organizational image perceived by teachers concerning schools they serve in. Also to test whether there is any relationship between some valuables (gender, age, branch and school type) and organizational image level of schools. For this purpose questions below are tried to be answered: What is the level of teachers’ organizational image perceptions concerning their schools? Is there any relationship between teachers’ organizational image perceptions concerning their schools and demographic variables (gender, age, branch and school type)? Methodology: Quantitative research method and survey strategy were used in this research. Survey model is an approach aims to determine existence of a current or impermanent condition. Subject of research is tried to describe in conditions of individual or object (Karasar, 2006). In the research, relationships between teachers’ organizational image perceptions concerning their schools and gender, age, branch and school type examined respectively. Workgroup of the research consists of 190 teachers who serve in Anatolian high schools randomly selected from city centre of Sivas in school year 2011/12. Data collection tool was developed by Polat, Abat and Tezyürek (2010) based on survey developed by Kazoleas, Kim and Moffitt (2001) to measure the image of higher education institutions. This 5 point Likert scale consists of five dimensions; organizational image, quality image, program image, background image, social image and appearance image. Alpha reliability coefficient of the scale is .92. Alpha reliability coefficient of scale’s dimensions are .90 for quality image, .79 for appearance image, .81 for social image, .75 for background image and .63 for program image, respectively. SPSS packaged software was utilized in analysis and evaluation of findings. To determine secondary education teachers’ organizational image perceptions concerning their schools, arithmetic mean (X ¯) and standard deviation (SD) values of teacher perceptions were surveyed in line with subgoals of research. Test of normality was conducted at first to test whether levels of perception vary according to individual and organizational feature. For that purpose, skewness and flatness coefficients were surveyed and it was shown that coefficients are between (-1, +1). Additionally, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was conducted because number of samples is more than 50 (N=190) and as a result of that it was shown that normality hypothesis is provided by model. T test from parametric tests and one-way variance analysis were conducted right after passing of normality test. Independent Samples T Test was conducted to test whether there is a significant difference between answers given by subjects to scale clauses with regards to variables of gender and school type. One-way variance analysis (ANOVA) was conducted to test whether there is a significant difference between answers given by subjects to scale clauses with regards to variables of age and branch. Findings: In general, organizational image of schools are perceived by teachers in “mid-level”. Most perceived dimension among others is quality image of schools. This is followed by appearance image, social image, background image and program image, respectively. Social, background and program images are perceived in “mid-level”, while quality image of schools is perceived in “high-level”. No image dimension was perceived in “ultrahigh-level”. Schools focused mostly on academic quality and it seems that schools pass over other image dimensions. There are no significant differentiation between perceptions of teachers’ organizational image, quality image from sub-dimensions, appearance image, social image, background image and program image and variables of gender, age and branch. There is no significant differentiation between teachers‘ perception of organizational image, social image from sub-dimensions and background image and school type. But there are significant differentiations in sub-dimensions of organizational image; quality image (in favour of Anatolian high schools), appearance image (in favour of Anatolian high schools) and program image (in favour of general high school) perception according to variable of school type. Conclusion and Discussion: In consequence of the research, organizational image of schools was found in “mid-level” according to teachers’ opinion. Quality image which is one of the sub-dimension of organizational image were perceived in “high-level” and other dimensions such as program, background, social and appearance images were perceived in “mid-level”. Also it was shown that there is no difference between teachers’ image perceptions in terms of gender, age and branch. Teachers anticipate similarly whatever their genders, ages and branches are. Another important result of the analysis is that teachers perceive quality and appearance image of Anatolian high schools in higher level than general high schools’. Differentiation of quality image is an expectable situation due to the fact that teachers are appointed to institutions through examination and their students come to school after a placement test. Also appearance of Anatolian high schools is perceived better than general high schools’. In the program image, yet, the superiority of general high school stands out more than Anatolian high schools’. In general, while Anatolian high schools distinguish in numeric and equally-weighted fields, general high schools distinguish verbal, sporting and fine arts fields and show variety in comparison with Anatolian high schools.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Image, Organization, Organizational Image, Secondary Education.

ÖĞRETMENLERİN, OKULLARINA İLİŞKİN ÖRGÜTSEL İMAJ ALGILARININ BAZI DEĞİŞKENLER AÇISINDAN İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Bu araştırma ortaöğretim okullarında görev yapan öğretmenlerin okullarına ilişkin örgütsel imaj algılarını bazı değişkenler açısından incelemektedir. Bu çalışmada, örgütlerin imaj düzeylerinin de artacağına inanılarak ‘Orta öğretim kurumlarının örgütsel imaj algıları ile öğretmenlerin demografik (cinsiyet, yaş, branş ve okul türü) özellikleri arasında bir ilişki var mıdır?’ sorusuna cevap aranmıştır. Araştırma, nicel bir araştırmadır ve tarama stratejisi kullanılmıştır. Çalışma grubunu 2011–2012 eğitim-öğretim yılı Sivas ili merkezinden rastgele seçilen Anadolu liseleri ve genel liselerde görev yapan 190 öğretmen oluşturmuştur. Örgütsel İmaj Ölçeği (31 madde) veri toplama aracı olarak kullanılmıştır. Verilerin çözümlenmesi için betimsel istatistik, t testi ve ANOVA testi yapılmıştır. Araştırma sonunda öğretmenlerin örgütsel imaj algılarının orta düzeyde olduğu görülmüştür. Bulgular, kalite imajı, sosyal imaj, altyapı imajı, görünüm imajı ve program imajı olarak belirlenen beş imaj türünden, aralarından en yüksek olarak algılananın kalite imajı olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bunu görünüm imajı, sosyal imaj, altyapı imajı ve program imajı takip etmektedir. Diğer bulgular cinsiyet, yaş ve branş açısından öğretmenlerin imaj algılarının farklılık göstermediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Okul türü değişkenine göre ise öğretmenler Anadolu liselerinin kalite ve görünüm imajını genel liselere göre daha yüksek düzeyde algılamaktadırlar. Program imajı ise genel liselerde Anadolu liselerinden daha yüksek algılanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İmaj, Örgüt, Örgütsel İmaj, Orta Öğretim.

Kaynakça

1. AVŞAR A. (2002). Kurum İmajının Oluşmasında Halkla İlişkiler Faaliyetlerinin Etkisi ve Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri Rehabilitasyon ve Bakım Merkezi Uygulaması, Gazi Üniversitesi, Sosyal bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
2. BEKTAŞ F. (2010). “Örgütsel İmaj ve Örgüt Kültürü: Öğretmen Adayı Örnekleminde Nedensel Bir Araştırma”, Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi/Teori ve Uygulama, 1, 5-18. Y
3. DUTTON J.E, DUKERICH J.M. ve HARQUAIL C.V (1994). Organizational Images and Member Identification. Administratlve Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.
4. ERKMEN T., ÇERİK Ş. (2007). “Kurum İmajını Oluşturan Kurum Kimliği Boyutları Bağlamında Örgüte Bağlılığın İncelenmesi: Üniversite Öğrencileri Üzerine Bir Uygulama”, Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(28), 107-119.
5. FULLER J.D, MARLER L., HESTER K., FREY L. ve RELYEA C. (2006). “Construed External Image and Organizational Identification: A Test of the Moderating Influence of Need for Self-Esteem”, The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(6), 701-715.
6. GARİH Ü. (2000). Pazarlama Tanıtım Halkla İlişkiler, İstanbul: Hayat Yayınları.
7. GRAYSER S.A. (1999). “Advencing and Enhancing Corporate Reputation”, Journal of Corporate Communications, 4(4), 177-181.
8. GÜRBÜZ S. (2010). “Algılanan Kurumsal İmajın Yöneticilerin Bazı Tutum Ve Davranışlarına Etkisi”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 24, 229-240.

9. HATCH M.J. ve SCHULTZ M. (2002). The Dynamics Of Organizational Identity. Human Relations, 55(8), 989-1018.
10. KARABEY C.N. ve İŞCAN Ö.F. (2007). “Örgütsel özdeşleşme, örgütsel imaj ve örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı ilişkisi: Bir Uygulama”, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 21 (2), 231-241.
11. KARASAR N. (2006). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri, Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
12. KAZOLEAS D., KIM Y. ve MOFFIT M.A. (2001). Institutional Image: A Case Study, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(4), 205-216.
13. LIEVENS F., HOYE G.V. ve ANSEEL F.(2007). “Organizational ıdentity and employer ımage: Towards a unifying framework”, British Journal of Management, 18, 45–59, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00525.x.
14. MARKWICK N. ve FILL C. (1997). “Towards A Framework for Managing Corporate Identitiy”, Europen Journal of Marketing, 31 (5), 396-403.
15. ÖRS F. (2004). “Meslek Yüksekokullarının Toplumsal İşlevi: Bir Meslek Yüksekokulunun Kurumsal İmaj Araştırması”, Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10, 65-80.
16. PARILTI N. ve TOLON M. (2003). “Yerel Yönetimlerde İmaj Kavramı ve Olası Sonuçları”, I. Uluslararası Yerel Yönetimler Üniversite Sanayi İşbirliği Sempozyumu, 23–24 Ekim 2003,Ankara.
17. PELTEKOĞLU B.F. (2004). Halkla İlişkiler Nedir?, İstanbul: Beta Yayınları, No:1126.
18. PENROSE J.M. (2000). “The Role of Perception in Crisis Planning”, Public Relations Review, 26 (2), 155-171.
19. POLAT S. (2011). “Üniversite Öğrencilerine Göre Kocaeli Üniversitesi’nin Örgütsel İmajı”, Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi, 36(160), 105-118.
20. POLAT S., ABAT E. ve TEZYÜREK S. (2010). “The Perceived Corporate Image Of Private Secondary Schools By Students’ And Parents’ Views. European J”, Educ. Studies, 2(2).
21. PRICE K. ve GIOIA D.A. (2008). “The Self-Monitoring Organization: Minimizing Discrepancies among Differing Images of Organizational Identity”, Corporate Reputation Review 11, 208–221. doi: 10.1057/crr.2008.17.
22. SABUNCUOĞLU Z. (2004). İşletmelerde Halkla İlişkiler, İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
23. SAFFIR L. ve TARRANT J. (1992). Power Public Relations: How to Get PR to Work For You, Lincolnwood (Chicago): NTC Business Books.
24. SARTONE-BALDWIN, M.C. ve WALKER M. (2011) “The Process of Organizational Identity: What are the Roles of Social Responsiveness, Organizational Image, and Identification?” Journal of Sport Management, 7, 489-505.
25. SCHULER M. (2004) “Management of the Organizational Image: A Method for Organizational Image Configuration”, Corporate Reputation Review, 7(1), 37-53.
26. TASLAK S. ve AKIN M. (2005). “Örgüt İmajı Üzerinde Etkili Olan Faktörlere Yönelik Bir Araştırma: Yozgat İli Emniyet Müdürlüğü Örneği”, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(2), 263-294.
27. TAŞKIN E. ve SÖNMEZ S. (2005). “Kurumsal İmaj Oluşturmada Halkla İlişkilerin Rolü ve Bir Alan Araştırması”, Akademik Bakış Uluslararası Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler E-Dergisi, 7, 1-27.
28. TİKVEŞ Ö. (2003). Halkla İlişkiler ve Reklamcılık: Temel Bilgiler- Uygulamalar, İstanbul: Beta Yayını.
29. TSAI W.C. ve YANG I.W.F (2010). “Does Image Matter To Different Job Applicants? The İnfluences Of Corporate İmage And Applicant İndividual International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18 (1), 48-63. On Organizational Attractiveness”,
30. ÜZÜN C. (2000). Stratejik Yönetim ve Halkla İlişkiler, İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Yayınları.
31. VAROL M. (1993). Halkla İlişkiler açısından Örgüt Sosyolojisine Giriş (Etkili Yönetsel İlişkilerden Saygın Örgüt Kimliğine), Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Yayınları.