Paper for Ejer - Margin Correction
-
Upload
mine-kalfaoglu-sancar -
Category
Documents
-
view
62 -
download
0
Transcript of Paper for Ejer - Margin Correction
Effective School Leadership: Effect of School Principals’ Behavior on Teacher Job Satisfaction
(Public School Principals’ Leadership Behaviors in Relation to Teacher Job Satisfaction in North Cyprus)
Mine SANCARSenior Lecturer
[email protected] Mediterranean University
Faculty of EducationDepartment of Educational Sciences
Famagusta, North Cyprus
1
ABSTRACT
This study was designed to determine the leadership behavior of public school principals
as perceived by public school teachers in relation to teacher job satisfaction in Northern Cyprus.
Teachers’ perceptions of their school principals’ leadership behavior was measured by the
Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire LBDQ). The Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman Job
Satisfaction Scales MCMJSS) was used to measure teachers’ expressed overall job satisfaction,
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation levels.
A Leaner Regression analysis of teachers’ perceptions of their school principals’
consideration and initiation of structure behaviors and their overall job satisfaction, intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation levels proved a significantly positive relationship between school principals’
perceived consideration behavior and teachers’ expressed overall job satisfaction, intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation levels and, if not negative or inverse, no significant relationship between
school principals’ perceived initiation of structure behavior and teachers’ job satisfaction levels.
Key Words: Leadership, consideration, initiation of structure, motivation, job satisfaction
INTRODUCTION
A Historical Perspective to Leadership
The concept of leadership dates back 5000 years to Egyptian hieroglyphics in which the
words (seshemu) “leader” and (seshement) “leadership” are used (Bass, 1990). Moreover, in
Plato’s ‘Philosopher King’ and Aristotle’s, ‘Magnanimous Man’ qualities such as valor, self-
confidence, determination, wisdom, foresight and justice were attributed to heroes/leaders in
classical Greece. The privileged status of the hero led into research revealing the “Great Man
Theory” and the “Trait Theory”. “The Great Man Theory” is an approach to history associated
with the nineteenth-century Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle who declared that the history of
the world is but the biography of great men (cited in Hirsch, Kett, &Trefil, 2002),. According to
this theory leaders are born, not made. Carlyle argued that heroes shape history through the
2
vision of their intellect, the beauty of their art, the prowess of their leadership, and, most
important, their divine inspiration. “The Trait Theory” assumes that potential leaders possess
certain personality traits and it is these traits which differentiate them from other members of the
society.
Mayo (1933), after a series of studies at Hawthorn Plant of Western Electric, developed
the human relations approach to leadership. Following these studies others (Murphy, 1941;
Stogdill, 1948) believed that leadership did not reside in a person but was a function of the
occasion. They stressed the fact that there is a relevant relationship between the leaders’ traits
and the characteristics of the followers. They viewed leadership as an interactional phenomenon
where group formation takes place first and as the group emerges each member is assigned a
relative position within the group depending on the interrelation of the group members. They
also believe that such a distribution is necessary to engage in the pursuit of the common goals.
They argue that leadership is defined in terms of status, interaction, perceptions, and behavior of
individuals in relation to other members of an organized group.
Personal-situational theorists argue that leadership must contain elements about the
person as well as elements about the situation (Bass, 1960; Fiedler, 1964;Hersey and Blanchard,
1977). Any theory of leadership should address the interplay between the situation and the
individual. In mid-twentieth century, leadership studies focused on the situational demands
asserting that situational factors determined the emergence of a leader. Hersey and Blanchard
(1977) developed situational leadership which is mainly based on the relationship between
follower maturity, leader task behavior, and leader relationship behavior. This theory suggests
that leadership style of a leader depends on the job maturity (a person’s maturity to perform the
job) and psychological maturity (a person’s level of motivation as reflected in achievement and
3
willingness to accept responsibility) of the followers. Therefore, from such a perspective, it
appears that in mid-twentieth century leadership began to be regarded as a relationship between
persons rather than as a characteristic of the isolated individual.
Research on leadership that followed focused on actual behavior of leaders (Shartle,
1950; Fleishman, Harris, & Burtt, 1955; Halpin, 1966). The Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire (LBDQ), which is used to measure leaders’ ‘consideration’ and ‘initiation of
structure’ behaviors, is the product of the Ohio State University studies. The term
‘consideration’ describes the extent to which a leader exhibits concern for the welfare of other
members of the group and ‘initiation of structure’ shows the extent to which a leader initiates an
activity in the group, organizes it and defines the way the work is to be done.
As the leadership studies gained momentum, they gave rise to theories known as
humanistic theories. They were concerned with the development of the individual within an
effective and cohesive organization. Such theories are grounded in the idea that the human being
is, by nature, a motivated organism and the organization is structured and controlled. Therefore,
the leader’s function within the organization is to provide freedom for individuals to realize their
motivational potential for the fulfillment of their need to contribute to the accomplishment of
organizational goals (McGregor, 1960, 1966, 1967; Argyris, 1962, 1964; Likert, 1961, 1967;
Blake & Mouton, 1964; Maslow, 1965; Hersey & Blanchard, 1977; Bass 1990). The so called
‘human relations’ approach is basically based on the Hawthorne studies (Mayo, 1933) conducted
at the Hawthorne Plant of Western Electric between 1927 and 1933. The results of this study
suggested that a human-social element operated in the work place, thus increased productivity
was not merely a result of any set of employer demands or physical factors but more of group
dynamics and effective management.
4
As McGregor (190, 1966, 1967) was working on his Theory X and Theory Y1, the Iowa
studies: ‘authoritarian, democratic and laissez-faire leadership’, the Ohio State University
studies: ‘consideration and initiation of structure’ and the Michigan State University Studies:
‘production centered and employee centered’ were concentrating on classifying leader behavior
into people (or relationships or employee)-orientation and task (or job)-orientation. They were
mainly interested in understanding leadership by comparing the behaviors of effective and
ineffective leaders. They were trying to determine what effective leaders do rather than what
effective leaders are. They believed that the dichotomy between leadership traits and behaviors
coincided; therefore, a leader’s personality traits and characteristics influenced his leadership
behavior or style.
The behavioral science approach was mainly influenced by the work of Maslow (1965)
who developed a hierarchy of needs of individuals. According to Maslow (1965) an
administrator’s job is to provide possibilities for the satisfaction of employee’s needs that also
support achievement of organizational goals, and to remove impediments that block need
satisfaction and create frustration, negative attitudes, or dysfunctional behavior. He also
emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity for everyone to use his/her full potential
for self-actualization. Drysdale, Ford, Gurr, & Swann (2003) support this by stating that
successful school leaders support all members of the school community, are achievement
oriented, clear the pathway and remove blockages for people to achieve, and try their best to
contribute significantly to make a difference to the quality of education and learning for the
1 McGregor (1960, 1966, and 1967) postulated two distinct types of leadership as Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X is based on the assumption that people are passive and resistant to organizational needs, thus they need to be directed and motivated to fit these needs. McGregor’s Theory X is very much similar, in philosophy, to Max Weber’s (1947) concept of bureaucracy. Conversely, Theory Y presupposes that people already possess motivation and a desire for responsibility; therefore, organizational conditions must be organized in such a way that it will be possible for people to fulfill their need while directing their efforts towards achievement of organizational objectives.
5
whole school community. Leithwood & Riehl (2003) stress the fact that leaders do not merely
impose goals on followers, instead they work with others to create a shared sense of direction
and goals. In public education this is even more important both for the development of academic
knowledge and skills and the learning and practice of important values and dispositions. They
also argue the importance of leaders working through and with other people to establish
conditions that enable others to be effective in what they are doing. For them successful school
leadership is not merely about setting directions, envisaging a vision, and communicating well
with others, it also includes having high performance expectations, monitoring organizational
performance, providing an appropriate model, being fair, strengthening the school culture,
modifying organizational structure and managing the environment in the process of developing
the institution as a learning organization.
Blake and Mouton (1964,1982) at the University of Texas, plotted leadership on a grid
called the Managerial Grid. They assessed managerial behavior on two dimensions: concern for
production and concern for people. The grid was designed to help managers identify their own
leadership styles, see how subordinates are affected by their leadership style, and consider
alternative ways of leadership in accordance with the subordinates needs. The leader who scores
high on both axes develops followers who are committed to the accomplishment of
organizational purposes. Thus, relationships of trust and respect between the leader and the
followers are accomplished.
According to Maslow (1965) different situations require different leadership, hence,
power should be given to a leader only on an ad-hock (complete suitability) bases for the
situation in which it is warranted. Thus, leadership should be given to those who are best suited
for the designated situation, those who can set things properly and who can do what needs to be
6
done. According to Etzioni’s (1975) compliance theory organizations can be classified in terms
of the type of power they use to direct the behavior of their members and the type of involvement
of the participants. According to Etzioni there are three types of organizational power: coercive
power, which uses force and fear to control lower-level participants; utilitarian power, which
remuneration or extrinsic rewards to control lower-level participants; and, normative power,
which employs allocation of intrinsic rewards such as interesting work, clear goals, contributions
to society. All three types of power can be helpful in attaining employee cooperation in work
place, yet the effectiveness of the type of power to be used depends on the participant’s
orientation which is characterized in terms of its intensity and direction.
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1964) tends to emphasize the need to place the person in
the situation for which he or she is suited rather than developing the person to adapt to the
situation. It closely complies with Maslow’s premise that leadership should be given to people
who are best suited for the designated situation. The contingency approach seems to be
comparatively more complex than either the trait or the behavioral approaches. According to
contingency theory, effective leadership depends on the interaction of the leader’s personal traits,
the leader’s behavior, and factors in the leadership situation. It also presupposes that leadership
cannot be defined by any one factor, thus all factors should be accounted for in the context of
situation in which a leader must lead. Weber’s (1947) Rationalization theory which emphasizes
the process of practical application of knowledge to achieve a desired end can be associated with
Fiedler’s contingency theory, because it leads to efficiency, and control over both physical and
social environment in which human behavior is guided by observation, experiment and reason.
Mastery of physical and social environment increases cooperation and productivity. Similarly,
contingency theory suggests that there are three variables determining the situations under which
7
a leader behavior would be most effective: the degree to which a leader is accepted by the
followers (leader-member relations), the degree to which the work to be done is clearly outlined
(task structure), and the extent to which the leader has control over rewards and punishments the
followers receive (position power). Thus, effectiveness of a leader depends on the situation in
which he is functioning. In some situations relationship-oriented leaders perform better, while
other conditions may require task-oriented leaders.
Studies on leadership have shown that, in order to account fully for leader-follower
relations, cognitive, behavioral and interactional (humanistic) explanations are needed. The
dominant paradigm for the study of leadership has evolved from research on traits and situations
to something more dynamic in terms of human relations, task analysis and contextual factors
together with personally favored styles similar to the rationalization theory once more.
The varying theories and definitions of leadership include such recurring themes such as
process, transaction, and context. This makes it possible to arrive at general definitions of
leadership. Green (1988) describes leadership as ‘a process’ and ‘a transaction’ between an
individual leader and the followers that ‘takes place in a given context that shapes the nature of
the transaction’ (p.3). Therefore, to arrive at an appropriately matching definition, leadership
may be best regarded as a practice the style of which mainly depends on the characteristics of the
workers and the type of institution in which it is to be exercised.
As Gardner (1986) and Kouzes and Posner (1993) state, mutual needs of both the leader
and the followers shape the style of leadership within an organization. Thus, taking the needs and
the interests of the leader and the constituents into account it can be stated that, effective
leadership involves cooperation, collaboration, interaction, and participation on both sides in the
process of the accomplishment of the shared goals and objectives in a given context.
8
Scholars interested in the process and exercise of leadership also suggest that the process
of leadership is different from the process of management in that leaders are pioneers leading the
way while managers are people handling things (Gardner, 1986; Bass, 1990; Kouzes & Posner,
1995; Yukl, 1998; Sashkin, 1999; Zaleznik, 1977)). Yukl (1998) agrees that managers ask
people to do things more efficiently, whereas leaders bring people together to agree about what
things should be done and how they should be done.
Background of the Problem
During the first half of the twentieth century, classical organizational theory clearly
defines administrative management however it does not account for scientific management
which mainly concentrates on jobs of individual workers. Gulick and Urwich (1937) identified
seven functions of a manager as planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating,
reporting, and budgeting based on Weber’s (1947) concept of bureaucracy. However, the
contributions of the studies carried on in the second half of the twentieth century with the effect
of the human relations approach, gave impetus to a different orientation to management versus
leadership studies. With the contributions of the diverse perspective in behavioral science and
with the assistance of social scinentists (Bass, 1960, 1990, 1997; Blake & Muton, 1964, 1982,
1994; Fiedler,1964, 1997; Reddin,1970; Etzioni,1975; Vroom, 1988, Bennis, 1990) leadership
in organizations have been more clearly defined. Bennis (1990) identifies bureaucracy and other
classical management principles as the ‘unconscious conspiracy’ that prevents leaders from
leading.
In the field of school leadership, Senge (1990) and Duignan & Macpherson (1992)
provide considerable insight into how educators can transform schools into ‘learning
9
organizations’. Lunenburg and Ornstein (2000) adapting from Watkins and Marsick (1999) list
seven action imperatives that can be interpreted in term of what must school administrators do to
help schools become learning organizations: (1)create continuous learning opportunities; (2)
promote inquiry and dialogue; (3) encourage collaboration and team learning; (4) create systems
to capture and share learning; (5) empower people toward a collective vision; (6) connect the
organization to its environment; and (7) provide strategic leadership for learning.
Thus, with recent work in the field of leadership, school principals have been provided
with a broader framework for understanding difficult problems, complex relationships and
human relations within the school. School principals have come to realize that in schools task-
oriented and relations-orientated behavior (management and leadership) might overlap and the
school principal might need to exert both leadership and management behaviors.
Gardner (1986) names the person demonstrating both types of behavior as the “leader-
manager” and sums the following nine “leader-manager’s” tasks: (1) envisioning the group’s
goals; (2) affirming values for the group; (3) motivating the members; (4) managing the work
and the group; (5) achieving a workable unity among the members; (6) explaining what needs to
be done; (7) serving as a symbol; (8) representing the group; and (9) renewing the group.
In the case of school principals in North Cyprus as appointed “leader-managers”, five
other responsibilities might be attributed to them such as: (1) improving human relations; (2)
motivating teachers; (3) following instructions of their superiors in the Ministry of Education and
Culture; (4) meeting deadlines; and (5) improving or, at least, maintaining standards and quality
in teacher and student performance. School principals as managers or administrators also try to
overcome the problems of staff evaluation, appraisal, promotion, or rating of professionals
working for a shared goals and mission and struggling for efficient functioning of school.
10
One important factor that is generally not mentioned for the person in the administrative
or leading position is the effort that he has to spend for others’ and his/her own self- actualization
needs. A school principal must also focus on the attainment of all school participants’ and
his/her own full potential for continued personal and professional development. He/she must
realize that self- actualization is manifested differently in different people. Thus, he/she must
first get to know himself/herself and then his/her subordinates in the best way possible to be able
to act as a catalyst to help people and induce himself/herself achieve ultimate job satisfaction.
This means that a school principal must be aware of his/her personal traits and employ his/her
professional skills in employing people in planning job design, assigning work that would
employ people’s unique skills, and having a flexible structure that would participants’ personal
and professional growth that would allow shift and modification of responsibilities and
accountabilities. Being able to attain self-awareness and awareness of others’ potentials, needs
and expectations requires social (interpersonal and intrapersonal) skills. Drysdale, Ford, Gurr, &
Swann (2003) argue that most successful leaders have effective social skills such as strong
interpersonal communication skills, and they successfully engender a sense of confidence in
themselves and continuously exhibit enthusiasm towards a clearly shared vision.
Howard Gardner (1983, p. 243) states that ‘the capacity to know oneself and the others is
an inalienable part of the human condition … and it deserves to be investigated no less than these
other “less charged” forms’. E.L. Thorndike (1920) used the term ‘social intelligence’ to refer to
the person’s ability to understand and manage other people, and to engage in adaptive social
interactions. Similarly, Moss and Hunt, (1927, 108) defined social intelligence as ‘the ability to
get along with others’. Sternberg, Conway, Ketron, & Bernstein, (1981) list factors such as
accepting others for what they are; being on time for appointments; having social conscience;
11
thinking before speaking and/or doing; not making snap judgments; making fair judgments;
assessing well the relevance of information to a problem at hand; being sensitive to others’ needs
and desires; being frank with self and the others; and displaying genuine interest in the
immediate environment among other factors as behaviors reflecting social competence.
Kosmitzki and John (1993), based on an earlier study by Orlik (1978), list additional dimensions
to social competence as: being good at dealing with people; having extensive knowledge of rules
and norms in human relations; being able to take perspective of other people; adapting well in
social situations; being warm and caring towards others; and being open to new experiences,
ideas and values.
Howard Gardner (1983) believing that traditional measures of intelligence fail to fully
explain cognitive ability formulated the idea of ‘Multiple Intelligences’ including both
interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences. Gardner’s documentation of individual differences
does not rely on traditional psychometric measures. He seems to prefer somewhat
impressionistic analysis based on convergence of signs provided.
The term “emotional intelligence” (EQ) was fist coined by Peter Salovey and John Mayer
(1990) to describe the characteristics such as understanding one’s own feelings; empathy for the
feelings of others; and ability of regulation of emotions in a way that improve the quality of
living. Goleman (1996) sees practical application of EQ in every aspect of life from how
companies should decide whom to hire to how parents should raise their children and how
schools should teach them. The cornerstone to human emotional intelligence is the sense of self-
awareness, being aware about what one is and how he/she feels. Goleman (1996) states that self-
awareness allows people to exercise self-control. He also argues that IQ may get one hired but
EQ gets him/her promoted. Most executives have become more and more interested in getting
12
emotionally retooled. David Campbell (2002) and the other scholars at the Center for Creative
Leadership argue that getting emotionally retooled is not sensitivity training. One thing the
participants know when they get through this training is what other people think of them.
Barbuto & Burbach (2006) at the end of their survey to explore the relationship between
emotional intelligence and transformational leadership found that the emotional intelligence of
the leaders shared significant variance with self-perceptions and rater-perceptions of
transformational leadership. They reported that leaders who demonstrate less mood regulation
(more mood regulation is considered a desired behavior of emotional intelligence) enjoyed
higher levels of authenticity with peers. They also added that leaders with high levels of self-
awareness (another desired behavior of emotional intelligence) felt less effective as leaders in a
transforming organization in terms of inspirational motivation. They concluded that a positive
relationship between all elements of emotional intelligence and transformational leadership
existed based on personal traits.
The discussion of emotional intelligence has become more pressing in schools. From the
school principals to ancillary workers everyone is becoming more aware of who they are, how
they feel and the importance of regulating their emotions for enhanced living. This is becoming
more and more effective in their human relations and management of their own lives and
surroundings. Since human relations and humanistic approach to management of people is
becoming more important, the Ohio State leadership studies carried out in mid-twentieth century
will enlighten the perspective to school administration.
The Ohio State leadership studies (Halpin, 1966) defining leadership styles of school
principals from the humanistic perspective used the terms “consideration” and “initiating
structure” to describe the leadership style of school superintendents. The ‘consideration’ factor,
13
which mainly takes human needs into account, refers to leader behavior which is indicative of
friendship, mutual trust, respect, and warmth in the relationship between the leader and the
members of staff, and the ’initiating structure’ factor refers to the leader’s behavior in delineating
the relationship between self and the members of the group, and in endeavoring to establish well
defined patterns of organization, channels of communication, and methods of procedures.
However, as mentioned before, because the responsibilities of a school principal
embodies administrative issues, in a school culture leadership involves both consideration and
initiating structure behaviors since it involves people gathering around a shared mission which is
not imposed on them by the institution they are working in, but assumed by the teachers
themselves while choosing the teaching profession. This is especially true in educational settings
in which the shared mission is driven by transformation because there is a constant change in
society to catch up with. Drucker (1999, p. 73) contends that ‘the only ones who survive in a
period when change is the norm are the change leaders’. He adds that ‘to be a successful change
leader an enterprise has to have a policy of systematic innovation’ (p. 84); innovation in
curriculum, innovation in pedagogy, innovation in professionalism, innovation in funding,
innovation in leadership and innovation in management. Therefore, each domain for leadership
in school education becomes a field of innovation. This is an indication for school principals
that, throughout their leadership, they should practice skills such as the ability to share ideas,
promote participation, allocate resources, shape a shared mission and vision, allow and create
opportunities for professional development, evaluate their position and others’ contribution to the
process of the accomplishment of goals. Thus, school principals need to consider others’
welfare, and establish a structure through which people work unobtrusively, without feeling the
pressure of administration and meet the requirements of their basic task, which is considered to
14
be teaching and educating young generations, and meet the needs and the expectations of the
institution and the society to lead to quality performance for the present and for the future.
Caldwell (2000) says that innovation in school leadership is such and important issue that the
Blair Government in the U.K. put an initial investment of HK$125 million, and HK$750 million
over the following three years in creating the National College for School Leadership for training
teachers for headship. Drysdale, Ford, Gurr, & Swann (2003), too argue that most successful
school leaders are not satisfied with the status quo, they guide the school to establish a culture of
continuous improvement.
The Role of Leadership in Teachers’ Motivation and Job Satisfaction
It is vital for effective school principals to get the support of the others in their endeavor
as leaders serving the school and the society. The teachers, in order to support a school principal
in his/her endeavor and attain job satisfaction need to be motivated and happy with what they are
doing. Surveys of job satisfaction since the 1920s illustrate the importance of leadership
indicating that employees’ favorable attitudes toward their supervisors contribute to their job
satisfaction (Bergen, 1939; Houser, 1927; Kornhouser and Sharp, 1932; Viteles, 1953; Bass.
1990). Since then, countless surveys can be cited to support the argument that leaders make a
difference in their subordinates’ satisfaction and performance. Therefore, whether an
organization succeeds or fails mainly depends on the leadership style employed within the
organization since it affects satisfaction level of the employees and thus, their performances
(Bass, 1990).
Researchers investigating the matter from a humanistic approach are concerned with
development of the individual within an effective and cohesive organization (McGregor, 1960;
15
Argyris, 1964; Likert, 1961; 1962; Blake and Mouton, 1964; Maslow, 1965; Hersey &
Blanchard, 1969; Burns, 1978; Klawitter, 1985; Bass, 1990; Everett, 1991; Fowler, 1991). They
mainly believe that effective leadership in organizations strongly endorses human relations. They
suggest that participation generates the satisfaction of higher-order needs in subordinates, which
in turn, increases the subordinates’ motivation, satisfaction, quality and quantity of performance.
They base their arguments on the fact that the human being is, by nature, a motivated organism;
the organization is, by nature, structured and controlled. Hence, it is the function of the
leadership to modify the organization, to provide freedom for the individuals, to realize their
motivational potential for the fulfillment of their needs up to the highest level and to contribute
to the accomplishment of the organizational goals (Bass, 1990). Burns (1978) notes that an
effective leader recognizes the need for a potential follower and goes further by seeking to
satisfy higher needs, in terms of Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs.
Thus, researchers in the field of education mainly support that there is no best style of
leadership that will successfully apply to every type of situation (Bhella, 1982; Boyer, 1982;
Everett, 1987; Fiedler, 1964; Fiedler & Chemers1997; Halpin, 1959; Klawitter, 1985; Stogdill,
1974). However, leaders who exhibit high task (initiating structure) and high relationship
(consideration) skills in combination based on their situations are likely to have a positive impact
on teacher job satisfaction.
There is evidence that school principals are powerful predictors of the school’s
organizational effectiveness and that school principals’ behaviors are closely associated with
teacher job satisfaction. The research indicate a relationship between school effectiveness and
teacher job satisfaction which are directly connected to leadership behavior (consideration and
initiation of structure) which are measured by the LBDQ (Leadership Behavior Description
16
Questionnaire), developed by the Ohio State Studies (Bare-Oldham, 1998; Everett, 1991;
Fowler, 1991; Hall, 1994; Klawitter, 1985; Krug, 1989).
Research has produced strong evidence that school administrators are effective factors in
teacher job satisfaction and thus, indirectly, in the academic performances of students (Brown,
1967; Fast, 1964; Greenfield, 1968; Keeler & Andrews, 1963; Seeman, 1957). Seeman (1957)
found performance evaluation of the school principals’ leadership to be positively related to
consideration, initiating structure, communication, and willingness to change, and yet negatively
related to domination and social distance. According to Fast (1964) consideration and the
initiation of structure by principals, as described by teachers, were positively related to the
teachers’ satisfaction. Stromberg (1967) obtained a significant relation between teachers’ morale
and the attitudes of their principals towards consideration and initiation of structure.
Purpose of the Study
Based on research done in various contexts, the present study focuses on effective
educational leadership styles of school principals in Northern Cyprus in relation to teachers’ job
satisfaction. The study concentrates on investigating whether there is a significant relationship
between perceived leadership styles of school principals in Northern Cyprus and the expressed
job satisfaction of the teachers in their current positions.
The study utilizes Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) to measure
leadership styles of school principals as perceived by teachers and Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman
Job Satisfaction Scale (MCMJSS) to measure teachers’ job satisfaction levels in terms of
17
intrinsic motivation2, extrinsic motivation3 and overall job satisfaction. Although intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation may look distinct, it is suggested that the same factors that may enhance
intrinsic motivation by promoting feelings of self-determination can also promote self-
determined extrinsic motivation or visa versa (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Lepper and Henderlog
(1999) suggest that intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation can operate simultaneously and
are not necessarily reciprocal. Therefore, extrinsic motivation can actually enhance intrinsic
motivation when it motivates the individual to engage and interest-enhancing strategies. Similar
studies to the present one focus on the same issue investigating the relationship between leader
beahviour and job satisfaction(Fast, 1964; Brown, 1967; Stromberg, 1967; Andreas, 1981;
Andreas and Ilada Andreas, 1987; Burns, 1990; David, 1990; Fjelstad, 1990; Lunenberg and
Ornstein, 1991 Allegre, 1994; Reyes and Shin, 1995; Bare-Oldham, 1998; John & Taylor, 1999).
The unique quality of this study, however, lies in its exploration of the teachers’
perceptions of the school principals’ leadership styles and their expressions of their job
satisfaction levels in Northern Cyprus. No such study that has ever been done before in North
Cyprus and it might serve as a starting point for further study.
2 Lepper & Henderlog (1999) and Ryan & Deci (2000) define intrinsic motivation as occurring when an activity satisfies basic human needs for competence and control which makes the activity interesting and likely to be performed for its own sake rather than as a means to an end (cited in Sansone & Harackiewicz (2000).Shah & Kruglanski (2000) define intrinsic motivation in two distinct ways. They suggest that intrinsic motivation can be defined in terms of structure (when an activity is associated with one and only one goal) and in terms of substance (when the content of the goal is the matter). Thus, a person’s intrinsic motivation may be considered intrinsic in terms of his or her degree of persistence and his or her emotional experiences while working toward a given goal (cited in Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000).Sansone and Smith’s (1999) definition of the term suggests that intrinsic motivation occurs when individuals are motivated to experience interest and that a variety of goals may be associated with interest for different people and/or different contexts (cited in Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000).Renninger (1989, 1990, and 1992) suggests that intrinsic motivation occurs when the activity is central to the self, or when it is associated with individual interest. These are more enduring interests as that develop as knowledge and value increases (cited in Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000).
3 There are two distinct definitions of extrinsic motivation. (1) when motivation is based on something extrinsic to the activity and (2) when motivation is based on something extrinsic to the person (Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000). In this case the second definition of extrinsic motivation will be the focus.
18
The study aims at involving teachers working in schools in all five districts of North
Cyprus (Nicosia, Famagusta, Kyrenia, Güzelyurt, and Yeni İskele). The idea is to collect
comprehensive data, to comment on the leadership styles of school principals in Northern
Cyprus, as perceived by the teachers, and their impact on expressed teacher job satisfaction.
This will provide evidence to make helpful recommendations for future practices.
Based on the review of literature, it is hypothesized that a significantly positive
relationship will exist between principals’ perceived leadership style and expressed teacher job
satisfaction.
Brown 1967) reported that effective school principals generally scored higher on the
LBDQ Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, developed by Ohio State University
leadership study group). According to Fast 1964) ‘consideration’ and ‘initiation of structure’
exerted by principals as perceived by teachers were positively related to the teachers satisfaction.
Again, Stromberg 1967) obtained a significant relation between teachers’ morale and the
attitudes of their principals toward ‘consideration’ and ‘initiation of structure’.
Reyes and Shin 1995) state that job satisfaction is an indispensable element for
organizational commitment of the employees. Findings indicate that teachers feel committed to
their school when the principal’s leadership style is supportive and enabling. This is in harmony
with David’s 1990) findings that democratic leadership style in selected Catholic schools in the
Philippines was significant and positively related to teachers’ organizational commitment
(Burns, 1990; Fjelstad, 1990). John and Taylor 1999) found a strong relationship between
consideration leadership behavior of principals and the organizational commitment, thus job
satisfaction of teachers.
19
The studies in the Philippines have indicated that the Filipinos tended to be relationship
oriented and preferred consideration behavior, and when it was practiced they worked better and
were more committed to their work David, 1990; Alegre, 1994; Andreas, 1981; Andreas and
Ilada-Andreas, 1987). The implications of these findings for this study may indicate that the
same may be the case for North Cyprus, an island state, which holds a very small population and
on which the social structure is closely knit. People on the island seem to have more intimate and
friendly relations rather than being inhibited and indifferent to one another as observed in larger
societies.
Research Questions
1. What is the significantly perceived leadership behavior of public school principals by
public school teachers in Northern Cyprus as measured by the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire (LBDQ)?
2. What is the expressed job satisfaction level of public school teachers in Northern Cyprus
as measured by the Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman Job Satisfaction Scale (MCMJSS)?
3. Is there a significant relationship between public school principals’ perceived leadership
styles consideration and initiation of structure), as measured by the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire LBDQ, and the teachers’ expressed job satisfaction, as
measured by the Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman Job Satisfaction Scale (MCMJSS) in
Northern Cyprus?
4. Is there a significant relationship between public school principals’ perceived leadership
styles, as measured by the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire LBDQ, and the
20
teachers’ expressed intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, as measured by the Mohrman-
Cooke-Mohrman Job Satisfaction Scale (MCMJSS) in Northern Cyprus?
Limitations of the Study
1. Many of the studies investigating whether there is a significant relationship between
school principals’ perceived leadership style and teachers’ expressed job satisfaction
levels have been weak and inconsistent for most criteria of leadership effectiveness
(Bass,1990; and Fisher & Edwards, 1988). Some of the studies reveal that
subordinates are more satisfied with initiating structure (task-oriented) leaders
whereas others indicate just the opposite or no significant relationship at all.
Moreover, it is discussed that behavior description questionnaires are susceptible to
several types of bias and error (Bass, 1990).
Thus, in this study errors might result from different sources such as ambiguous items
that may be interpreted in different ways by different respondents. A fixed response
format may require respondents to think on one item for a long time, thus the
respondent may never be sure.
2. Another source of error might result from biases depending on whether the
respondent likes or dislikes the leader. Therefore, when these sources of error are
considered the results of the research may not allow the researcher to make
generalizations but may allow some indications of respondent perceptions of leaders
and leadership.
3. The study is also limited in that, the questionnaire was distributed to teachers who
were presently working in public schools in major cities of Northern Cyprus. Private
21
schools and technical/vocational schools were not included in the study.
Consequently, research findings may not allow the researcher to make generalizations
but the analysis of the available data may provide valuable insights into the field and
may allow inferences for further discussions.
4. This study is limited in that it only employs one instrument for each variable: The
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) for perceived behaviors of
school principals, and Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman Job Satisfaction Scale (MCMJSS)
for examining teachers’ job satisfaction level. Applying other instruments may reveal
different results.
Summary of Procedures
The population of teachers working in public elementary and secondary schools in the
2002-2003 academic-year was around 2200 as identified by the Ministry of National Education
and Culture in Northern Cyprus. One thousand seventy seven 1077) of these teachers worked in
87 public elementary schools and 1270 worked in public secondary schools. Three hundred and
fifty-eight 358) teachers working in randomly selected twenty-one public elementary schools
and 452 randomly selected teachers working in 26 (total number of secondary schools excluding
technical-vocational schools ) public secondary schools were sent the questionnaire packages.
The return rate from the public elementary school teachers was 77% 274) and the return rate
from the public secondary school teachers was 72% 325 - 134 from middle schools, grades 6 to
8; 121 from combined middle and high schools, grades 6 to 11; and 70 from high schools, grades
9 to 11). The public elementary school teachers who responded comprised 46%, and the public
secondary school teachers responding comprised 54% of the total number of 599 respondents (n
= 599).
22
The Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire LBDQ) was used to obtain data on
public school teachers’ perception of their school principals’ leadership style. The instrument
consisted of two sub-scales, consideration and initiation of structure that are measured to be
different patterns of leadership behavior. The Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman Job Satisfaction Scale
MCMJSS) instrument was used to determine public school teachers’ level of job satisfaction.
The instrument contained four items measuring intrinsic motivation and four items measuring
extrinsic motivation, which altogether measured teachers’ overall job satisfaction.
The first statistical analysis to be performed was coefficient alpha to measure the
reliability of the instruments. Although the instruments were proven to be reliable and have been
used since the mid-twentieth century, reliability tests were needed for this study since the
instruments were translated into Turkish, and were used in a different a culture at a different span
of time.
An internal consistency estimate was computed for both instruments, the Leadership
Behavior Description Questionnaire LBDQ) and the Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman Job
Satisfaction Scale MCMJSS) . The alpha value was .95 for both consideration and initiation of
structure behavior, and .83 for conditions for administration for the Leadership Behavior
Description Questionnaire LBDQ) . For the Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman Job Satisfaction Scale
MCMJSS) the value for total satisfaction was .90, for intrinsic motivation .86, and for extrinsic
motivation .90 all of which were above the cut off value of .70 suggested by Nunnaly 1978).
The returned questionnaires were tabulated for frequencies of leadership style choices
and job satisfaction scores. In order to answer research questions 1 and 2 statistical tests using
Statistical Package for Social Sciences SPSS) were performed to determine perceived
leadership styles of public school principals and expressed job satisfaction levels public school
23
teachers in Northern Cyprus. A linear regression analysis was performed to test research
questions 3 and 4.
The mean scores of the totals of the items related to consideration and initiation of
structure behavior were compared to reveal the perceived leadership styles of public school
principals in Northern Cyprus and the mean scores for overall job satisfaction, intrinsic
motivation, and extrinsic motivation were taken to determine the expressed job satisfaction
levels of public school teachers in Northern Cyprus.
Summary of the Findings
1. As tested by Pearson’s Paired Sample t-Test, the correlation coefficient .912 between
the two perceived styles, consideration and initiation of structure, is significant. Thus,
there is a very strong positive and significant correlation between the two perceived
styles.
Because of a positive mean difference, 2.31 points, to the advantage of perceived
consideration style, (t = 7.44 and p = 000 which is p < .01), it may be stated that
school principals in Northern Cyprus are perceived to display consideration style to a
greater degree than initiation of structure style.
Thus, public school principals in Northern Cyprus are considered to display quadrant
II behavior – high consideration / high initiating structure Halpin, 1966; Stogdill &
Coons, 1957). This means that principals in this study are perceived to be highly
considerate of teachers’ needs and wants while providing a lot of guidance about how
tasks can be completed. Thus, they are perceived to be effective and efficient in
managing both tasks and people.
24
2. As the mean scores clearly indicated, public school teachers in Northern Cyprus have
high overall job satisfaction M =39,5, SD = 5.31), intrinsic motivation M = 20, SD
= 2.98) and extrinsic motivation M = 19.5, SD = 3.24). All these scores are above
the cut off points, which are 24 for overall job satisfaction, 12 for intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation.
The compared mean score of .55 points to the advantage of intrinsic motivation,
as tested by Pearson’s paired sample T-test (t = 4.50, p = .000 which is p< .01),
indicated that expressed intrinsic motivation level of public school teachers in
Northern Cyrus is significantly higher than their stated extrinsic motivation. This
might indicate that public school teachers seem to be more motivated with the
characteristics of the teaching job that are inherent in the activity itself because they
view teaching as a worthwhile activity for their self-esteem and self-respect.
3. The bivariate correlations between the perceived consideration and initiation of
structure behaviors of school principals and expressed overall job satisfaction of
teachers in Northern Cyprus , as tested by multiple regression analysis, are positive.
The predictors consideration and initiation of structure behavior) together indicated a
high relationship to expressed overall teacher job satisfaction R = 555, R2 = .309, p =
.000, p < .01). The beta coefficients indicate that perceived consideration behavior of
public school principals in Northern Cyprus is related to the prediction of teachers
expressed overall job satisfaction, however, initiation of structure behavior of public
school principals has no contribution to expressed overall teacher job satisfaction on
its own.
25
If the predictors are to be relatively ordered in importance, it can be stated that
consideration behavior is more important in predicting overall teacher job satisfaction
in Northern Cyprus. Regression Standardized Residual, P-P Plot of Regression-
Standardized Residual, and the Partial Regression Plot contribute to the finding that
the two variables are linearly related and as perception of consideration behavior of
school principals increased the overall teacher job satisfaction increased.
When significance of correlation coefficients were computed, the only important
variable in predicting teachers’ overall job satisfaction seems to be consideration
behavior of school principalst = 7.21, p = .000, p < .01). Initiation of structure
behavior seems to have not effect on predicting the overall teacher job satisfaction (t
= -.554, p = .55, p > .5).
When partial correlations between the independent variables/predictors
(consideration and initiation of structure behaviors) and the criterion (teachers’
expressed intrinsic motivation) were analyzed, it was observed that there is a positive
correlation (r = .46) between perceived consideration behavior of public school
principals and overall job satisfaction of public school teachers in Northern Cyprus
even after partialling out the effects of initiation of structure behavior (r = .23).
Although the correlation coefficient between perceived initiation of structure behavior
and expressed overall teacher job satisfaction (r = .41) indicated a positive correlation
between the two variables, the partial correlation (after partialling the effects of
consideration behavior) between them (r = -.03) did not indicate a relationship
between the two variables.
26
4. The bivariate correlations between the perceived consideration and initiation of
structure behaviors of school principals and expressed intrinsic motivation of public
school teachers in Northern Cyprus were positive R = .459). The predictors
consideration and initiation of structure behavior) together indicate a high
relationship to teachers’ expressed intrinsic motivation R = .459, R2 = .211, p = .000,
< .01). Thus, the correlation coefficients signified a significantly positive relationship
between perceived consideration behaviors of the public school principals and
teachers’ expressed intrinsic motivation in Northern Cyprus. The beta coefficients B
= .084, = .519) indicated that perceived consideration behavior of public school
principals in Northern Cyprus seems to make a considerable contribution to the
prediction of teachers expressed intrinsic motivation. On the other hand, initiation of
structure behavior (B = .015, = -.066) of public school principals seems to have no
contribution to expressed intrinsic motivation of teachers on its own. Therefore, if the
predictors are to be relatively ordered in importance, it can be stated that
consideration behavior is more important in predicting intrinsic motivation of teachers
in Northern Cyprus.
When significance of correlation coefficients were considered, the only important
variable in predicting intrinsic motivation of teachers was again consideration
behavior t = 5.86, p = .000, p < .01). Initiation of structure behavior was found to
have no effect on predicting the intrinsic motivation of teachers. (t = -.750, p = .453, p
> .5). When partial correlations between the independent variables/predictors
(consideration and initiation of structure behaviors) and the criterion (teachers’
expressed intrinsic motivation) were analyzed, it was observed that there is a
27
positively high correlation (r = .458) between perceived consideration behavior of
public school principals and intrinsic motivation of public school teachers in Northern
Cyprus even after partialling out the effects of initiation of structure behavior(r
= .233). Although the correlation coefficient between perceived initiation of structure
behavior and expressed intrinsic motivation (r = .406) indicated a positive correlation
between the two variables, the partial correlation (after partialling the effects of
consideration behavior) between them (r = -.031) signified no relationship between
the two variables.
5. The bivariate correlations results of multiple linear regression analysis between the
perceived consideration and initiation of structure behaviors of school principals and
expressed extrinsic motivation of public school teachers in Northern Cyprus were
positive R = .429). The predictors consideration and initiation of structure
behavior) together indicated a high relationship to expressed extrinsic motivation R
= .429, R2 = .184, p = .000, p < .01). The positive beta coefficients B = .084,
= .457) indicated that perceived consideration behavior of public school principals in
Northern Cyprus seems to make a considerable contribution to the prediction of
teachers’ expressed extrinsic motivation, whereas, initiation of structure behavior of
public school principals seems to have no contribution to expressed extrinsic
motivation of teachers on its own (B = 0.006, = -.02). Therefore, if the predictors
were to be relatively ordered in importance, it can be stated that consideration
behavior is more important in predicting extrinsic motivation of teachers in Northern
Cyprus than initiation of structure behavior of public school principals in Northern
Cyprus.
28
When significance of regression coefficients are considered, the only important
variable in predicting extrinsic motivation of teachers was consideration behavior t =
5.077, p = .000, p < .01). Initiation of structure behavior seems to have no effect on
predicting the expressed extrinsic motivation of public school teachers in Northern
Cyprus (t = -.341, p = .733, p > .5).
Partial correlations between the independent variables/predictors (consideration and
initiation of structure behaviors) and the criterion (teachers’ expressed extrinsic
motivation) signified that there is a positively high and significant correlation (r
= .429, p = .000) between perceived consideration behavior of public school
principals and extrinsic motivation of public school teachers in Northern Cyprus even
after partialling out the effects of initiation of structure behavior (r = .204). Although
the correlation coefficient between perceived initiation of structure behavior and
expressed extrinsic motivation (r = .386, p = .733) signaled a positive correlation
between the two variables, the partial correlation (after partialling the effects of
consideration behavior) between them (r = -.013) demonstrated no significant
relationship between public schoolteachers’ expressed extrinsic motivation and
initiation of structure behavior of public school principals in Northern Cyprus.
In summary, although school principals seem to display high consideration and high
initiation of structure behaviors in Northern Cyprus, they seem to display more consideration
behavior than initiation of structure behavior. The mean score for perceived consideration
behavior of school principals in Northern Cyprus is M = 56, (above the norm mean score of M =
44.7), and the mean score for initiating structure behavior is M = 54, (again above the norm
mean score of M = 37.9). This means that school principals in North Cyprus display considerate
29
behavior while being directive on task performance. The data also indicated that there is a
significant positive correlation between teachers perception of public school principals’
consideration behavior and expressed teacher overall job satisfaction, intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. Findings displayed that consideration behavior was a more important variable in
predicting teacher job satisfaction, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Teachers participating in
the study also expressed higher intrinsic motivation than extrinsic motivation pointing to the fact
that they valued the teaching profession.
Conclusions
The literature review section of the paper summarized studies in the field of leadership
thorough out history. It can be concluded from what has been stated that leadership can take
different forms in different contexts. As far as leading the way is concerned, personal traits such
as self-awareness, social-intelligence and emotional intelligence gains importance along side
with administrative and managerial skills. In relation to this, the following conclusions were
drawn from the findings of the study.
1. It appears from the findings that public school principals were perceived to display
consideration and high initiating structure behavior throughout Northern Cyprus. Based
on the data from the 599 respondents there was a higher perceived consideration mean
score than perceived initiation of structure mean score. The norm mean score for
consideration was M = 44.70 and the sample mean score of public school teachers’ rating
of public school principals was M = 56. The norm mean score for initiation of structure
was M = 37.90and the sample mean score of the public school teachers’ rating of public
school principals initiation of structure behavior was M = 54. Even though both scores
30
are above the norm mean scores, indicating that school principals in Northern Cyprus are
imposing a structure while considering teachers needs and wants, it can be concluded that
public school principals were perceived to be more concerned with interpersonal aspects
of their role than organization of tasks. This could be the way public school principals
preferred getting tasks done which is in the line with what Halpin 1955) suggests.
Administrators in education demonstrate good leadership behavior while considering the
feelings, needs, wants, aspirations and motivations of their members of staff, while
initiating structure to as great an extent as it is probably desirable.
One reason for school principals to display high consideration and high initiating
structure behavior might be that they are a part of a closely knit society living in a part of
a small island state in which human relations are intimate, and warm, which might urge
them to be considerate of peoples feelings, wants and needs. The reason for them to
display high initiating structure behavior may be that they are appointed officials by the
Civil Service Commission whose members are appointed by the President of Northern
Cyprus. Being both appointed officials and teachers at the same time, they might have
come to realize that the two tasks, managing tasks and managing people management
and leadership) might overlap. They might have a holistic concept of school culture that
enables them to perceive school as a complex phenomenon, a small picture of the society
embodying students, teachers, administrators, the community and the relations between
them. Thus, based on the above discussion, the overlapping areas of function of school
principals force them to improve human relations, motivate teachers, as well as follow
instructions, follow dead lines, or improve or at least maintain standards and quality
while exerting equity.
31
2. Findings showed that public school teachers expressed high overall job satisfaction,
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The teachers also expressed having significantly
higher intrinsic motivation than extrinsic motivation throughout Northern Cyprus.
Findings also indicated that perceived consideration behavior of school principals
affected teachers’ job satisfaction, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Perceived
consideration behavior of school principals seemed to significantly positively affect
teachers’ expressed overall job satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation
whereas initiation of structure had no significant relation to and had negative effect on
each.
Therefore, as it was hypothesized, it may be speculate that teachers in Northern
Cyprus tended to be relations oriented and preferred consideration behavior and when
such behavior was practiced they seemed to have more overall job satisfaction, intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation. This may be due to the fact that, as in the case of Filipinos
(Andreas & Ilada-Andreas, 1987; Allegre, 1994), Northern Cyprus being an island state,
holds a very small population, thus social structure, which is very closely knit, urge
people to have more friendly relations and people expect to have this in their work
environment, too.
The results clearly indicated that perceived leadership styles of the public school
principals in Northern Cyprus correlated with teachers’ expressed overall job satisfaction,
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. It was observed from the findings that perceived
consideration behavior was important in assuring overall teacher job satisfaction, intrinsic
32
motivation and extrinsic motivation, whereas, initiation of structure behavior had no contribution
to teachers’ overall job satisfaction, intrinsic or extrinsic motivation.
Recommendations for Further Research
The analysis of the descriptive data and findings of this study have formed the basis for
the following recommendations.
1. This study excluded private schools, special education schools, and public technical/
vocational schools and reveals leadership behaviors consideration and initiating
structure) of public elementary and secondary school principals as perceived by public
elementary and secondary school teachers, and their expressed overall job satisfaction,
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation levels. Thus, to be able to have a full picture of the
school principals perceived leadership behaviors in relation to teacher job satisfaction
throughout North Cyprus, it is recommended that the study be replicated using a sample
of teachers working in private schools, special education schools, and public
technical/vocational schools to obtain data on their perceptions of their school principals’
leadership styles and their levels of overall job satisfaction, intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation.
2. The study took place only on one part of the island Northern Cyprus) and reveals the
perceptions and job satisfaction levels of public school teachers only on this part. It only
discusses the findings on these teachers’ perceptions of their school principals’ leadership
styles in relation to their expressed levels of job satisfaction, intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. It is recommended that the study be replicated using a sample of Greek
33
Cypriot public school teachers employed at Greek Cypriot public schools to find out if
the findings are consistent throughout the island.
The findings of this study should be used as a guide in the selection and training and
appointment of school principals because awareness of teachers’ perceptions and
expectations could lead to better school administration and principal-teacher relations,
thus increased teacher motivation and productivity.
3. The results of this study should be made available to authorities responsible for
educational policy-making and/or school principal appointment and to everyone
interested.
4. Another study should be conducted to collect data on school administrators’ perceptions
of the leadership styles of the educational policy makers, their trainers, and mentors if
there are any) and the findings of this study could be matched and compared with the
findings of this study, thus conclusions and recommendations can be drawn for all type of
educational administrators and policy makers in Northern Cyprus, and for those
interested.
5. Although a numerable research has been done in the field, there are still gaps in our
existing knowledge about effective educational leadership. Other studies such as ‘how
can educational leader balance their leadership and management responsibilities to make
schools innovative institutions’ or ‘if teachers too embody leadership skills and attributes
in different areas, how can these be coordinated and who could take responsibility for
what’ could be conducted as further research to contribute to the area.
6. The different definitions in leadership, intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation
may result in researchers asking different questions and interpreting results in
34
different ways. Because of the differences in definition some contradictions may
appear with similar research done in the field. Thus, one challenge is that further
researchers should be cognizant of how their questions are shaped by definitions they
are using.
35
REFERENCES
Allegre, E.N. 1994). Pinoy na pinoy! Essays on national culture. Metro Manila, Philippines:
Anvil.
Andreas, T.D. & Ilada-Andreas, P.B. 1987). Understanding Filipino values: A management
approach. Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers.
Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organizational effectiveness. Homewood, IL:
Irwin-Dorsey.
Argyris, C. 1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: Wiley.
Bare-Oldham, K. (1998). “An examination of the perceived leadership styles of Kentucky
public school principals as determinants of teacher Job satisfaction”. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, West Virginia University.
Barbuto, J.E. & Burbach, M.E. (2005). The emotional intelligence of transformational leaders: a
field study of elected officials. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 1, 51-56.
Bass, B.M. 1960). Leadership psychology and organizational behavior. New York: Harper.
Bass, B.M. (Ed.) (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s hand book of leadership: Theory, Research, and
Managerial Applications. New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1997). A new paradigm of leadership: an inquiry into transformational leadership.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bennis, W.G.(1990). Why leaders can’t lead: the unconscious conspiracy continues. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bergen, H.B. (April, 1939). Finding out what employees are thinking. Conference Board
Management Record, 53-58.
36
Bhella, S. Summer, 1982). Principals’ leadership style: Does it affect teacher morale?
Education, 102 4), 369-376.
Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing
Company.
Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1982). Management by grid principles or situationalism: Which?
Group and Organization Studies, 7, 207-210
Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1994). The managerial grid: leadership styles for achieving
production through people. Huston: Gulf.
Boyer, J.A. 1982). “Leadership and motivation: A study of relationship style and the perceived
need satisfactions of administrative subordinates”. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Akron). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43 03, 599A) order no. 8216741.
Brown, A.F. (1967). Reactions to leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 3, 62-73.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Caldwell, D. (2000). Scenarios for leadership and abandonment in the transformation of
schools. Retrieved November 24, 2005 from
http://www.apapdc.edu,au/archive/ASPA/conference2000/papers/art_4_14.htm
Campbell, D. (2002). Campbell leadership descriptor participant’s Package (J-B CCL (Center
for Creative Leadership)). Jossey Bass Wiley.
David, M.A.M. 1990). “Factors affecting the organizational and occupational commitment of
lay teachers of the RUM schools in the Philippines”. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
College of Education, University of Philippines.
Drucker, P. (1999). Leadership challenge for the 21st century. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
37
Drysdale, L., Ford, P., Gurr, D. & Swann, R. (2003). Successful School Leadership: an
Australian perspective. Retrieved November 24, 2005 from www.acel.org.au
Etzioni, A. (1975. A comprehensive analysis of complex organizations, rev. ed. New York: Free
Press.
Everett, G. (1987). “A study of the relationship between the principals’ leadership styles and the
level of motivation of the teaching staff”. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Tennessee
State University.
Everett, G.L. 1987). A study of the relationship between the principals’ leadership style and the
level of motivation of the teaching staff. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Tennessee
State University.
Everett, G.L. 1991). Teacher attitudinal commitment: A function of the school, the teacher, and
the principal’s leadership. CD-ROM. Abstract From Pro-quest File: Dissertation
Abstracts International, item: 52/08.
Fast, R.G. (1964). “Leader behavior of principals as it relates to teacher satisfaction”. Masters’
Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
Fiedler, F.E. 1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, vol.1, NY: Academic Press.
Fiedler, F.E. and Chemers, M. M. (1997). Improving leadership effectiveness, 2nd ed. Paramus,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fisher, B.M. & Edwards, J.E. (1988). Consideration and Initiating Structure and Their
Relationships with Leader Effectiveness: A Meta-Analysis. Best Papers Proceedings,
Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA, 201-205.
38
Fjelstad, N.L. 1990). Superintendent leadership behavior and its relationship to trust and
commitment of Wisconsin principals. CD-ROM Abstract from: Pro-Quest Dissertation
Abstracts International, item, 52/03.
Fleishman, E.A., Harris, E.F. & Burtt, H.E. 1955). Leadership and supervision in industry.
Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Fowler, W.J. 1991). What are the characteristics of principals identified as effective by
teachers? ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 347695).
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The Theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books
Gardner, J.W. (1986). The task of leadership (Leadership Paper No.2) Washington D.C.:
Independent Sector.
Goelman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. London:
Bloomsbury.
Green, M.F. (1988). Leaders for a new era: strategies for higher education. New York: Collier-
Macmillan Publishers.
Greenfield, T.B. (1968). Research on Behavior of Educational Leaders: Critique of Tradition.
Alberta Journal of Educational Research. 14, 55-76.
Gulick, L. and Urwick, L. (eds.). (1937). Papers on the science of administration. New York:
Colombia University Press.
Hall, V. 1994). Making a difference: Women head teachers’ contribution to schools as learning
institutions. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, no. ED 376579).
Halpin, A.W. (1959). The leadership behavior of school superintendents. Chicago: Midwest
Administration Center, The University of Chicago.
39
Halpin, A.W. (1966). Theory and research in administration. New York: Macmillan.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. 1969). Lifecycle theory of leadership. Training and Development
Journal, 23, 26-34.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1977). The management of organizational behavior, 4th ed.,
Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Houser, J.D. (1927). What the Employer Thinks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
John, M.C., & Taylor, J.W. (Apr. 1999). Leadership Style, School Climate, and the Institutional
Commitment of Teachers. INFO, 25-57.
Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, (1999). “Sculpting the Learning Community: New Forms of
Working and Organizing”. NASSP Bulletin, 83, no. 604, 78-87.
Keeler, B.T. & Andrews, J.H.M. (1963). Leader Behavior of Principals, Staff Morale, and
Productivity. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 9, 179-191.
Klawitter, P.A. 1985). “The relationship between principals leadership style and teacher job
satisfaction”. Doctoral Dissertation, West Virginia University).
Kornhouser, A.W. & Sharp, A.A. (1932). Employee Attitudes. Personnel Journal, 10, 393-404.
Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (1993). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Kosmitzki, C., & John, O.P. (1993). The implicit use of explicit conceptions of social
intelligence. Personality & Individual Differences, 15, 11-23.
Krook, S.E. 1989). Leadership and learning: A measurement-based approach for analyzing
school effectiveness and developing effective school leaders. Advance in Motivation and
Achievement: Motivation Enhancing Achievements, 6, 249-277.
40
Leithwood, K. & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership: A report
by Division A of AERA, autumn 2003, NCSL.
Likert, R. 1961). An emerging theory of organizations, leadership and management, in: L.
Petrullo & B.M. Bass Eds) Leadership and inter-personal behavior. New York: Holt,
Reinhart, & Winston.
Likert, R. 1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lunenburg, F.C. & Ornstein, A. C. 2000). Educational administration: Concepts and practices.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Maslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper.
Maslow, A.H. (1965). Eupsychian Management: A Journal. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: Mcmillan.
Mazarella, J.A., & Grundy, T. (1989). Portrait of a Leader, in: S.C. Smith and P.K. Piele (Eds)
School Leadership: Handbook for Excellence (2nd ed.), 9-27. Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, Washington, D.C.: OERI Contract, R-86-0003.
McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.
McGregor, D. 1966). Leadership and motivation. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
McGregore, D. (1967). The professional manager. New York: McGraw-Hill
Moss, F.A. & Hunt, T. (1927). Are you socially intelligent? Scientific American, 137, 108-110.
Murphy, A. J. (1941). A study of the leadership process. American Social Review, 6, 674-687.
Nunnaly, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory, (2nd Ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Orlik, P. (1978). [Social Intelligence.] In K.J. Klauer (Ed.), [Handbook of pedagogical diagnosis]
(pp. 341-354). Dusseldorf: Schwann.
41
Reddin, W.J. (1970). Managerial effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reyes, P. & Shin, H.S. January, 1995). Teacher commitment and job satisfaction: A casual
analysis. Journal of School Leadership, 5, 22-39.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Salovey, P. & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 9, 185-211.
Sansone, C. & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The search for
optimal motivation and parameters. San Diego, CA.: Academic Press.
Sashkin, M., & Walberg, H.J. (1999). Educational Leadership and School Culture. Berkeley,
CA.: McCutchan Publishing Co.
Seeman, M. (1957). A comparison of general and specific leader behavior descriptions, in: R.M.
Stogdill & E.A. Coons (Eds) Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement.
Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Shartle, C.L. (1950). Studies of Leadership by Interdisciplinary Method, in: A.G. Grace (Ed).
Leadership in American Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sternberg, R.J., Conway,B.E., Ketron, J.L., & Bernstein, M. (1981). People’s conceptions of
intelligence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 41, 37-55.
Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature.
Journal of Psychology, 25, 276-286.
Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership (1st ed.) New York: Free Press.
42
Stogdill, R.M., & Coons, A.E. (1957). Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement.
Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business.
Stromberg, R.P. (1967). Value orientation and leadership behavior of school principals.
Dissertation Abstracts, 27, 2811.
Thorndike, E.L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s Magazine, 140, 227-235.
Viteles, M.S. (1953). Motivation and morale in industry. New York: W.W. Norton.
Vroom, V and Jago, A. (1988). The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
Weber, Max. (1947) The theory of Social and Economic Organization,trans. Talcott Parsons.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1947.
Wren, J. Thomas. (1995). The leader’s companion: Insights on leadership throughout the ages.
New York, N.Y. The Free Press.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55(5),
67-80.
43
Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti’nde Okul Müdürlerinin Önderlik Davranışlarına Bağlı olarak Öğretmenlerin İş Doyumu
Mine [email protected]ğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi
Eğitim FakültesiEğitim Bilimleri Bölümü
Gazimağusa, KKTC
ÖZET
Anahtar Sözcükler: önderlik, iş merkezci, insan merkezci, güdülenme, iş doyumu
Araştırma Sorusu
Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti’ndeki devlet okullarında görev yapmakta olan öğretmenlerin iş doyumları
ile bu okullarda görev yapmakta olan okul müdürlerinin önderlik davranışları (iş merkezci ve insan
merkezci) arasında bir ilişki var mıdır?
Çalışmanın Amacı
Konuyla ilgili farklı bağlamlarda yapılan çalışmalara dayalı olarak, bu çalışma Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk
Cumhuriyeti’nde(K.K.T.C.’de) okul müdürlerinin önderlik davranışları ve bu davranışların öğretmenlerin iş
doyumu ile ilişkisini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu çalışma K.K.T.C.’de öğretmenlerin okul müdürlerinin
önderlik davranışlarını algılayışı ile öğretmenlerin bulundukları konumda dile getirdikleri iş doyumu
düzeyleri arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olup olmadığını araştırmaktadır.
Yöntem
Okul müdürlerinin önderlik davranışlarının öğretmenler tarafından algılanışı, ‘Önder Davranışı Betimleme
Ölçeği’ (Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ)) öğretmenlerin genel iş doyumu, işsel ve
dışsal güdülenme düzeyleri ise ‘Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman-İş Doyumu Ölçeği’ ile ölçülmüştür. K.K.T.C.
Milli Eğitim ve Kültür Bakanlığı kayıtlarından edinilen bilgiye göre, bu araştırmanın yapıldığı 2002-2003
Akademik yılında, devlet okullarında görev yapmakta olan öğretmen sayısı 2200 civarındadıri. Bu
öğretmenlerin bin yetmiş yedisi (1077) seksen yedi (87) devlet ilkokulunda, ve bin ikiyüz yetmişi (1270)
ise yirmi altı (26) devlet orta okul ve liselerinde görev yapmaktadıri. Bu çalışmada, sayının çok olması
44
nedeni ile, beş ilçeyi de içine alacak şekilde, ilkokulların %25’i, ve bu okullarda görev yapan öğretmenlerin
sayılarının azlığı nedeni ile hepsi katılımcı olarak seçilmiştir. Araştırmanın amaçları doğrultusunda, orta
dereceli okulların sayısının azlığı nedeni ile hepsi, ancak çalışan öğretmenlerin sayısının çok olması
nedeni ile bu okullarda görev yapan öğretmenlerin de % 25’i, rastgele seçim yöntemi ile, katılımcı olarak
seçilmişlerdir. Dolayısı ile rastgele seçilmiş yirmi bir (21) devlet ilkokulunda çalışan üçyüz elli sekiz (358)
öğretmen ve yirmi altı (26) orta dereceli okulda görev yapmakta olan rastgele seçilmis dörtyüz elli iki (452)
öğretmen bu araştırmada katılımcı olmuş ve hepsine araştırma amaçları için kullanılan ölçekler
ulaştırılmıştır (toplam 810 adet). Bu ölçeklerin geri dönüş oranı, ilkokul öğretmenlerinden %77 (274), orta
dereceli okul öğretmenlerinden ise % 72 (325) olmuştur. Bu rakamlarla birlikte, bu araştırmaya konu olan
ilkokul öğretmenleri beşyüz doksan dokuz (n=599) toplam katılımcının %46’sını oluştururken, orta
dereceli okul öğretmenleri bu rakamın %54’ünü oluşturmuşlardır.
Bu araştırmanın bulgularını hesaplamak için SPSS (Sosyal Bilimller İçin İstatistik Paketi)
programı kullanılmıştır. Katılımcılardan dönen ölçeklerde verilen yanıtlar programa girilmiş, araştırma
sorularından 1. ve 2. soruyu yanıtlamak için frekans hesaplamaları, 3. ve 4. soruyu hesaplamak için ise
regresyon analizi hesapları uygulanmıştır.
Ölçeklerin Türkçe çevirilerinde kaynaklanacak sorunları görmek açısından, ilk olarak ölçeklerin
güvenilirliklerini ölçmek için alfa katsayısı (coefficient alpha) testi uygulanmıştır. Her iki ölçek için de içsel
tutarlılık hesaplaması yapılmıştır. Önder Davranışı Betimleme Ölçeğinde (LBDQ) hem ‘insan merkezci’
hem de ‘iş merkezci’ davranış algılamasını ölçen maddeler için alfa değeri .95 ve yönetsel yeterlik
algılamasını ölçen maddeler için ise alfa değeri .83 olarak bulunmuştur. Mohrman-Cooke-Mohrman İş
Doyumu Ölçeğinde toplam iş doyumu ile ilgili alfa değeri .90, içsel güdülenmeyi ölçen maddelerle ilgili alfa
değeri .86, ve dışsal güdülenmeyi ölçen maddelerle ilgili alfa değeri .90 olarak bulunmuştur.
Bulgular
Yapılan analizler sonucunda öğretmenlerin genel iş doyumu, içsel ve dışsal güdülenme düzeyleri ile okul
müdürlerinin ‘insan merkezci’ ve ‘iş merkezci’ davranışlarının algılamaları arasında doğrudan ve olumlu
bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Ancak, iki önderlik davranışının bir birlerine olan etkisi soyutlandığı zaman ‘insan
merkezci’ davranışların, tek başına, öğretmenlerin genel iş doyumu, içsel ve dışsal güdülenmeleri ile
doğrudan, olumlu ve anlamlı bir ilişkisi olduğu gözlenirken, ‘iş merkezci’ davranışların, tek başına,
45
öğretmenlerin genel iş doyumu, içsel be dışsal güdülenmeleri ile arasında doğrudan ve anlamlı bir ilişki
görülmediği gibi, bu tür davranışların öğretmenlerin genel iş doyumu, içsel ve dışsal güdülenmelerini
olumsuz etkilediği görülmüştür.
Tartışma ve Öneriler
Yapılan çalışma,, K.K.T.C. genelinde, okul müdürlerinin öğretmenler tarafından yüksek düzeyde ‘insan
merkezci’ ve yüksek düzeyde ‘iş merkezci’ davranış sergiliyor olarak algılandıklarını göstermektedir. Bu
çalışma ayni zamanda K.K.T.C.’de öğretmenlerin yüksek düzeyde genel iş doyumuna, içsel ve dışsal
güdülenmeye sahip olduklarını ancak içsel doyum düzeylerinin, dışsal doyum düzeylerinden anlamlı
olarak daha yüksek olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu bulgulara bağlı olarak, K.K.T.C.’ de öğretmenlerin, önceden
de varsayıldığı gibi, insan ilişkilerine önem verdiği, ‘insan merkezci’ davranışları tercih ettiği, ve bu
davranışların sergilendiği iş ortamlarında iş doyumu ve güdülenme düzeylerinin yüksek olduğu
vurgulanmaktadır. Bunun da nedeni, böylesine küçük bir toplumda insan ilişkilerinin sıkı, sıcak ve yakın
olması, ve iş ortamlarında da bu tür ilişkilerin tercih ediliyor olması olabilir.
Bu çalışma başlangıç alınarak benzeri bir çalışma K.K.T.C. genelindeki tüm okulları ve tüm öğretmenleri
kapsayacak şekilde yeniden yapılabilir. Çalışma Kıbrıs’ta iki kesimi de kapsayacak, Kıbrıs genelinde bir
sonuca varacak ve iki toplumu karşılaştıracak şekilde genişletilebilir. Geleceğe yönelik daha doğru
kararlar alabilmek için, eğitim polikalarını belirleyen, okul yöneticilerini seçip, atayan üst düzey yöneticiler
ve bu konuya ilgi duyan herkes bu araştırmanın sonuçları konusunda bilgilendirilebilir. Okul müdürü
adayları seçilirken, atanırken ve/veya okul müdürlerine yöneticilik/önderlik eğitimi verilirken, bu araştırma
sonucunda elde edilen bulgular dikkate alınabilir. Daha iyi yapılandırılmış ve daha iyi çalışan bir eğitim
sisteminin oluşturulabilmesine yönelik yorum ve önerilerin yapılabilmesi için, okul müdürlerine yönelik,
onların, üst yöneticilerini, eğitim politikası belirlenmesinde söz sahibi olanları, eğitim müfettişlerini ve
bakanlığa bağlı öğretmen eğitmenlerini önderlik davranışları açısından nasıl algıladıklarını araştırmaya
yönelik çalışmalar yapılabilir.
46