Yıl 2016, Cilt 24, Sayı 1, Sayfalar 405 - 420 2016-07-15

Modeling The Relationship Between Spiritual Leadership And Organizational Commitment
RUHSAL LİDERLİK İLE ÖRGÜTSEL BAĞLILIK ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN MODELLENMESİ

Kıvanç BOZKUŞ [1] , Yüksel GÜNDÜZ [2]

178 1092

The purpose of the study is to determine the effect of spiritual leadership exhibited by principals on organizational commitment of teachers. This effect was examined through structural equation modeling. The research consisted of two stages as the development and the application of the spiritual leadership scale. The scale that was developed included 13 items in one factor and it was applied along with the Meyer-Allen organizational commitment scale in the second stage. When the relationship between spiritual leadership and organizational commitment was tested thorough structural equation modeling, the model had good fit indexes. It is determined that spiritual leadership affected organizational commitment mainly through affective and normative commitment. Teachers’ perceptions of spiritual leadership varied across branch, seniority and number of teachers in the school variables, but they did not varied across education level and gender variables
Araştırmanın amacı okul müdürlerinin sergiledikleri ruhsal liderliğin öğretmenlerin örgütsel bağlılıklarına olan etkisini belirlemektir. Bu etki yapısal eşitlik modeli kurularak incelenmiştir. Araştırma ruhsal liderlik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi ve uygulanması olarak iki aşamada gerçekleştirilmiştir. Geliştirilen ölçek 13 madde ile tek faktörden oluşmaktadır ve ikinci aşamada Meyer-Allen örgütsel bağlılık ölçeği ile birlikte uygulanmıştır. Ruhsal liderlik ile örgütsel bağlılık arasındaki ilişki yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ile test edildiğinde kurulan modelin uyumlu olduğu saptanmıştır. Ruhsal liderliğin örgütsel bağlılığı en çok duygusal ve normatif bağlılık ile etkilediği belirlenmiştir. Öğretmenlerin ruhsal liderliğe ilişkin algılarının branşa, kıdeme ve okuldaki öğretmen sayısına dayalı olarak farklılaştığı, eğitim durumu ve cinsiyete dayalı olarak ise farklılaşmadığı belirlenmiştir.
  • Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.
  • Bakan, İ. (2011). Örgütsel stratejilerin temeli örgütsel bağlılık: Kavram, kuram, sebep ve sonuçlar. Ankara: Gazi.
  • Bakioğlu, A. (1996). Öğretmenlerin Kariyer Evreleri (Türkiye’de Resmi Lise Öğretmenleri Üze- rinde Yapılan Bir Araştırma). M. Ü. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi 2. Ulusal Eğitim Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 18-20 Eylül, İstanbul.
  • Balay, R. (1999). İşgörenlerin örgütsel bağlılık etkenleri ve sonuçları. Ankara University Educatio- nal Sciences Faculty Journal, 32(1), 237-246.
  • Baugh, S. G. & Roberts, R. M. (1994). Professional and organizational commitment among engineers: Conflicting or complementing? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 41(2), 108-114.
  • Becker, T. E., Randal, D. M, & Riegel, C. D. (1995). The multidimensional view of commitment and theory of reasoned action: A comparative evaluation. Journal of Management, 21(4), 617–638.
  • Burch, P., & Spillane, J. P. (2003). Elementary school leadership strategies and subject matter: Re- forming mathematics and literacy instruction. The Elementary school journal, 103(5), 519-535.
  • Chen, C. & Li, C. (2013). Assessing the spiritual leadership effectiveness: The contribution of follower’s self-concept and preliminary tests for moderation of culture and managerial position. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 240-255.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6. b.). New York: Routledge.
  • Covey, S. R. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York, NY: Free Press.
  • Crossman, J. (2011). Environmental and spiritual leadership: Tracing the synergies from an organi- zational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 553-565.
  • Çelik, H. E. & Yılmaz, V. (2013). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi: Temel kavramlar-uygulamalar-prog- ramlama (2. baskı). Ankara: Anı.
  • Daft, R. L. (2008). The leadership experience (4. b.). Mason: Thomson South-Western.
  • Day, C., Eliot, B., & Kington, A. (2005). Reform standards and teacher identity: Challenges of sustaining commitment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 563-577.
  • Dee, J. R., Henkin, A. B. & Singleton, C. A. (2006). Organizational commitment of teachers in urban schools examining the effects of team structures. Urban Education, 41(6), 603-627.
  • DePree, M. (1992). Leadership jazz. New York: Dell.
  • Dornstein, M., & Matalon, Y. (1998). A comparative analysis of predictors of organizational commitment. A study of voluntary army personnel in Isreal. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 34(2), 192-203.
  • Fairholm, G. W. (1996). Spiritual leadership: Fulfilling whole-self needs at work. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 17(5), 11-36.
  • Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in edu- cation (8. b.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693-727.
  • Fry, L. W. & Slocum, J. W. (2008). Maximizing the triple bottom line through spiritual leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37(1), 86–96.
  • Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and army transformation: Theory, measurement, and establishing a baseline. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 835-862.
  • Fry, L., Hanna, S., Noel, M. & Walumba, F. (2011). Impact of spiritual leadership on unit perfor- mance. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 259-270.
  • Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 95-110.
  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.
  • Henson, R. K. & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research. Educational and psychological measurement, 66, 393-416.
  • House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., Gupta, V. & 170 Country Co-investigators. (1999). Cultural Influences on Leadership and Or- ganizations: Project GLOBE, in W. Mobley, J. Gessner, & V. Arnold (eds.), Advances in Global Leadership, vol. 1, 171-234: Stamford, JAI Press.
  • Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2013). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (9. b.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research (6. baskı). Boston: Pearson.
  • Keyes, M. W., Hanley-Maxwell, C., & Capper, C. (1999). Spirituality? It’s the core of my leadership: Empo- wering leadership in an inclusive elementary school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 203-237.
  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
  • Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  • Law, P. (2008). Developing spiritual leaders for the modern organisation. Management Today, 20-22.
  • Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000a). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational condi- tions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129.
  • Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000b). Principal and teacher leadership effects: a replication. School Leadership & Management, 20(4), 415-434.
  • Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496-528.
  • Meydan, C. H. & Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi: Amos uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay.
  • Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A Tree-component conceptualization of organizational commit- ment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
  • Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538-551.
  • McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based TLCs: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Mitroff, I., & Denton, E. A. (1999). A study of spirituality in the workplace. Sloan Management Review, 40, 83-92.
  • Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W. & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psycho- logy of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
  • Mueller, R. O. (1996). Basic principles of structural equation modeling: an introduction to LISREL and EQS. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Nehmeh, R. (2009). SMC working paper, Swiss management center, 5, 1-11.
  • Northcraft, T., & Neale, H. (1996). Organisation behaviour. London: Prentice-Hall.
  • Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice. California: Sage Publication Inc.
  • Pfeffer, J. (2003). Business and the spirit. In R. A. Giacalone, & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance, 29-45. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
  • Polat, S. (2011). The level of faculty members’ spiritual leadership (sl) qualities display according to students in faculty of education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2033-2041.
  • Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student out- comes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.
  • Quinn, D. (2002). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on instructional practice and student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(4), 447-467.
  • Sanders, J. E., Hopkins, W. E., & Geroy, G. D. (2003). From transactional to transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(4), 21-43.
  • Schumacker, R. E. & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3. b.). New York: Routledge.
  • Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrica, 52(3-4), 591-611.
  • Spillane, J. P., & Zuberi, A. (2009). Designing and piloting a leadership daily practice log. Educati- onal Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 375-423.
  • Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York: Free Press.
  • Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6. b.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
  • Troman, G., & Raggl, A. (2008). Primary teacher commitment and the attractions of teaching. Pe- dagogy Culture & Society, 16(1), 85-99.
  • Wasti, S. A. (2000). Meyer ve Allen’in üç boyutlu örgütsel bağlılık ölçeğinin geçerlilik ve güve- nirlilik analizi. 8. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi, Erciyes Üniversitesi, 401-410.
  • Wasti, S. A. (2003). Organizational commitment, turnover intentions and the influence of cultural values. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 303-321.
  • Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Krüger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-425.
  • Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7. b.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Konular
Diğer ID JA42TZ53NE
Dergi Bölümü Makaleler
Yazarlar

Yazar: Kıvanç BOZKUŞ
Kurum: ARTVİN ÇORUH ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ

Yazar: Yüksel GÜNDÜZ
Kurum: ARTVİN ÇORUH ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ

Bibtex @ { kefdergi241603, journal = {Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi}, issn = {}, eissn = {2147-9844}, address = {Kastamonu Üniversitesi}, year = {2016}, volume = {24}, pages = {405 - 420}, doi = {}, title = {RUHSAL LİDERLİK İLE ÖRGÜTSEL BAĞLILIK ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN MODELLENMESİ}, key = {cite}, author = {GÜNDÜZ, Yüksel and BOZKUŞ, Kıvanç} }
APA BOZKUŞ, K , GÜNDÜZ, Y . (2016). RUHSAL LİDERLİK İLE ÖRGÜTSEL BAĞLILIK ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN MODELLENMESİ. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24 (1), 405-420. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/kefdergi/issue/22606/241603
MLA BOZKUŞ, K , GÜNDÜZ, Y . "RUHSAL LİDERLİK İLE ÖRGÜTSEL BAĞLILIK ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN MODELLENMESİ". Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi 24 (2016): 405-420 <http://dergipark.gov.tr/kefdergi/issue/22606/241603>
Chicago BOZKUŞ, K , GÜNDÜZ, Y . "RUHSAL LİDERLİK İLE ÖRGÜTSEL BAĞLILIK ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN MODELLENMESİ". Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi 24 (2016): 405-420
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - RUHSAL LİDERLİK İLE ÖRGÜTSEL BAĞLILIK ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN MODELLENMESİ AU - Kıvanç BOZKUŞ , Yüksel GÜNDÜZ Y1 - 2016 PY - 2016 N1 - DO - T2 - Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 405 EP - 420 VL - 24 IS - 1 SN - -2147-9844 M3 - UR - Y2 - 2019 ER -
EndNote %0 Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi RUHSAL LİDERLİK İLE ÖRGÜTSEL BAĞLILIK ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN MODELLENMESİ %A Kıvanç BOZKUŞ , Yüksel GÜNDÜZ %T RUHSAL LİDERLİK İLE ÖRGÜTSEL BAĞLILIK ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN MODELLENMESİ %D 2016 %J Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi %P -2147-9844 %V 24 %N 1 %R %U
ISNAD BOZKUŞ, Kıvanç , GÜNDÜZ, Yüksel . "RUHSAL LİDERLİK İLE ÖRGÜTSEL BAĞLILIK ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN MODELLENMESİ". Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi 24 / 1 (Temmuz 2016): 405-420.