Examining the Relationship Between School Administrators’ Chaotic Leadership and Organizational Anomie According to Teachers’ Perceptions

Duygu Şallı

doi:10.37609/akya.2957

Yazarlar

Duygu Şallı

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8126-7131

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37609/akya.2957.c8760

Özet

In the field of leadership, chaos is a critical juncture where principles blur, demanding that a leader's actions take precedence in bewildering rather than clear-cut scenarios. Such unpredictable circumstances call for chaotic leadership, marked by its dynamic nature. Navigating leadership in chaos is arduous yet essential for effective guidance. It entails steering teams through tumultuous environments, where incessant change renders conventional methods obsolete. Leaders in chaotic situations must possess unique skills, including the capacity to handle complexity, and the ability to stabilize and guide their entire team. Organizational anomie often emerges in these chaotic contexts, characterized by a dearth of norms and values, breeding uncertainty among employees. Addressing such environments necessitates a specific leadership style. This study delves into the correlation between school administrators' chaotic leadership and organizational anomie from the perspective of teachers. Utilizing a relational survey model, a quantitative research approach, the study focuses on schools under the Ministry of National Education across various Istanbul districts. Data was gathered using the "Chaotic Leadership Scale" and "Organizational Anomie Scale." The findings reveal a significant inverse relationship between managers' chaotic leadership and organizational anomie, leading to recommendations based on these insights.

Referanslar

Aras, M. (2021). Leadership and leadership qualities in chaos management. Management – strategy – organization: In theory and practice (Ed. Şahin Karabulut). Ankara: Gazi Bookstore.

Arıcıoğlu, M.A., H. Ç. Karabıyık (2019). Understanding chaos theory and the phenomenon of chaos as a proposition for the future of organizations. Journal of Civilization and Society (JCISO), 3(2), 145-156.

Aslan, Ö. E. (2018). The relationship between organizational justice, organizational anomie and organizational trust: A research in hotel businesses. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Gazi University, Ankara.

Averbek, E. (2016). The relationship between organizational alienation and organizational citizenship behaviors of primary school teachers. (Unpublished master's thesis). Dicle University, Diyarbakır.

Baker, S. B. (1995). Chaos theory in educational systems; principals' perceptions of sensitive dependence on initial conditions. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). East Tennessee State University.

Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2015). Manual of data analysis for social sciences. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

Çakır, H. (2020). A chaotic analysis in the context of management and leadership: Dede Korkut stories, International Journal of Leadership Studies: Theory and Practice, 3 (1), 25-44.

Doğan, Ü. (2021). Examining the relationship between teachers' perceptions of chaotic leadership, organizational alienation and organizational happiness using structural equation modeling. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). İnönü University, Malatya.

Durkheim, E. (1986). Suicide: A social scientific review. (Translated by: Ö. Ozankaya) Ankara: Turkish Historical Society Printing House.

Ertürk, A. (2012). Chaos theory: Reflections in management and education. Kastamonu Education Journal, 20 (3), 849-868.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2007). SPSS for windows step by step. A simple study guide and reference (7th Edition). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. https://archive.org/stream/sppssicforwindow0000geor#page/n1/mode/2up

Gleick, J. (2011). Chaos making a new science. New York: Yiking Penguin Ine

Heydari, A., Davoudi, I., Teymoori, A. (2011). Revising the assessment of feeling of anomie: Presenting a multidimensional scale. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1086-1090.

Karasar, N. (2014). Scientific research method (26th Ed.). Ankara: Nobel Publications.

Lorenz, E. (1995). The essence of chaos. United Kingdom: UCL Press.

Manrique-de-Lara, P.Z., Espino-Rodríguez, T.F. (2001). Organizational anomie as moderator of the relationship between an unfavoable attitudinal environment and citizenship behavior (OCB). Personnel Review, 36 (6), 843-866. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480710822391.

Mansfield, P. (2004). Anomie and disaster in corporate culture: The impact of mergers and acquisitions on the ethical climate of marketing organizatons. Marketing Management Journal, 14 (2), 88-99.

Morrison, K. (2008). Educational philosophy and the challenge of complexity theory. Mason, M. (Ed.), Complexity theory and the philosophy of education, United Kingdom: Wiley-Backwell.

Northouse, P. (2014). Liderlik kuram ve uygulamalar. (Çev: Cengiz Şimşek). İstanbul: Sürat Üniversite Yayınları.

Özdamar, K. (2017). Statistical data analysis with package programs. Eskişehir: Kaan Bookstore.

Parker, M. W. (1998). Did Poincaré really discover chaos?. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 29(4).

Ruelle, D. (2006). Randomness and chaos. (Translated by Deniz Yurtören). Ankara: Tübitak Publications.

Şenel, D., Kalfa, V. R. (2023). Investigation of faculty members' attitudes towards organizational anomie. Hacettepe University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Journal, 41 (1), 294-315.

Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

Töremen, F. (2000). Chaos theory and the role of the educational administrator. Educational Management in Theory and Practice, 22, 203-219.

Yarım, M. A., Çelik, S. (2021). Organizational anomie: A qualitative research on educational ınstitutions. Open Journal for Educational Research, 5 (2), 161-176.

Yarım, M. A., Akan, D. Morkoç, S. (2021). A scale development study: Organizational anomie scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 14 (2), 381-421.

Yavas, T. (2022). Chaos at school: A qualitative study on ıts causes and effects. International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Researches, 7(18), 1240- 1257.

Yeşilorman, M. (2006). To whom does the butterfly flap its wings? Chaos and social sciences on the edge of unified science. Istanbul: Kültür University Publications, 3, 77-86.

Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Chaos and the strange attractor of meaning. Leadershıp and the new scıence discovering order in a chaotic world third edition içinde (ss. 115-134). California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.