A SURVEY RESEARCH OF LEADERSHIP STYLES OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

A SURVEY RESEARCH OF LEADERSHIP STYLES OF ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL PRINCIPALS


A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION
OF

MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
BY

MAHÇE DEREL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF


MASTER OF SCIENCE

IN

EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES




SEPTEMBER, 2003

---

Approval of the Graduate School of Education Faculty


________________

Prof.Dr. Sencer Ayata
Director

I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the Master of
Science.



________________

Prof. Dr. Hasan im ek
Head of Department


This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate,
in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.


______________

Prof. Dr. Hasan im ek
Supervisor

Examining Committee Members

Prof. Dr.Hasan im ek ___________________

Prof.Dr Ya ar Özden ___________________

Assist. Prof.Dr. Ercan Kiraz ___________________

---

ABSTRACT




A SURVEY RESEARCH OF LEADERSHIP STYLES OF ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL PRINCIPALS


Dereli. Mahce

Master of Science Department of Education

Supervisor :Prof.Dr Hasan Simsek


September 2003 , 86 pages


The purpose of this survey research is to explore the leadership styles of public
elementary school principals in Turkey as perceived by principals themselves and
teachers.The subjects of this study include 350 public elementary school principals and
700 public elementary school teachers.The questionnaire has two parallel forms, one for
the principals to rate themselves and another in which teachers can rate the
principals.According to Section I and Section II , the principals rated themselves the
highest on the human resource frame. In addition to this, the majority of the principals
consider themselves as being effective leaders and managers. As to teacher ratings of
the principals in relation to leadership frames, the principals were rated the highest on
the human resource frame in Section I and Section II . Moreover, the majority of the
teachers think that the principals that they work with are effective managers and leaders.
Keywords: Leadership, Leadership Styles




iii

---

ÖZ



LKÖ RET M OKULU MÜDÜRLER N N L DERL K DAVRANI LARI


Dereli, Mahçe


Yüksel Lisans, E itim Bilimleri Bölümü

Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Hasan im ek








Eylül 2003, 86 sayfa


Bu ara tırmanın amacı Türkiye’deki ilkö retim okulu müdürlerinin liderlik
davranı larının hem kendileri hem de onlarla çalı an ö retmenler tarafından
de erlendirilerek belirlenmesidir. Ara tırmanın verileri Liderlik Davranı ları
Tanımlama Anketi aracılı ıyla toplanmı tır. Anket hem müdürlerin kendi liderlik
davranı larını hem de ö retmenlerin müdürlerin liderlik davranı larını
de erlendirmeleri için birbirine paralel iki formdan olu maktadır. Anketin birinci ve
ikinci bölümlerinden elde edilen sonuçlara göre müdürler en çok insancıl liderlik
davranı ını sergilediklerini dü ünmektedirler. Buna ek olarak müdürlerin büyük bir
ço unlu u kendilerini etkili bir lider ve yönetici olarak de erlendirmektedirler.
Ö retmenlerin müdürleri de erlendirmeleri ile ilgili sonuçlara göre de müdürler en
çok insancıl liderlik davranı ını sergilemektedirler. Ö retmenlerin büyük ço unlu u
müdürleri etkili bir lider ve yönetici olarak de erlendirmi lerdir.



Anahtar Kelimeler: Liderlik, Liderlik Davranı ları



iv

---

To My Parents and In Memory of My Cousin Meriç Morca
















v

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I express sincere appreciation to Prof. Dr. Hasan im ek for his
guidance and insight throughout the research. Thanks go to another
faculty member Assist. Prof. Dr. Ercan Kiraz for his suggestions and
invaluable comments and to Dr. Atilla Yardımcı without whose
guidance this thesis could not have been completed.The technical
assistance of Murat Kultufan and theoretical asssistance of Figen Kanik
is gratefully acknowledged. I offer my sincere thanks to EARGED,
without their support it would be impossible for me to carry out this
research. To my family, Nalan and efik Dereli, for their unconditional
love and understanding. I also thank to my dear husband Devrim Dural
and precious friend Perihan Çayırezmez for always being there for me.

vi

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS




ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………...i
ÖZ………………………………………………………………………………...ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………..iii
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………..vi
CHAPTER
1.INTRODUCTION………………………………………….…………………....1
1.1 Background to the study ………………………………….……………..….1
1.2 Purpose of the study …………………………………….…..………………6
1.3 Significance of the study ……………………………..….……………….…7
2.REVIEW OF LITERATURE ………………………………………….………..8
2.1 Introduction ……………………………………………….………………...8
2.2 Leadership Theories ………………………………………………………...9
2.2.1 Trait Theories of Leadership …………………………………………..9
2.2.2 Behavioral Theories of Leadership ……………………………… …..10
2.2.2.1 The Hawthorne Studies …………………………………… …...11
2.2.2.2 The Iowa Studies …………………………………………… ….11
2.2.2.3 The Ohio State Studies ……………………………………… …12
vii

---

2.2.2.4 University of Michigan Studies ……………………………… ..13
2.2.2.5 The Managerial Grid ………………………………………….. .13
2.2.3 Contingency Theories of Leadership ……………………………… ..14
2.2.3.1 Fiedler’s Contingency Model …………………………….……..14
2.2.3.2 Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory ……………..……...15
2.2.3.3 Leader Member Exchange Model ……………….………..……..16
2.2.3.4 House’s Path Goal Theory ……………………….……...…….....16
2.2.3.5 Leader Participation Model ……………………….……………………..17
2.2.4 Recent Approaches to Leadership …………………………………………18
2.2.4.1 Attribution Theory of Leadership …………………………………18
2.2.4.2 Charismatic Leadership Theory …………………………………...18
2.2.4.3 Transactional and Transformational Approaches………………….20
2.2.4.4 Visionary Leadership …………………………….………………..22
2.2.4.5 Educational Leadership Theory……………………………………22
2.2.5 Leadership Frames …………………………………………………………27
2.2.5.1 Structural Leadership………………………………………………29
2.2.5.2 Human Resource Leadership………………………………………30
2.2.5.3 Political Leadership……………………………………………….31
2.2.5.4 Symbolic Leadership………………………………………………31
2.2.6 Research on Educational Leadership in Turkey……………………...…….33
2.2.7 Summary …………………………………………………………………..38
3.METHOD ………….……………………………………….………………….39
3.1 Overall Design of the Study ………………………………………………….39
3.2 Research Questions ………………………………………………………….40
3.3 Context and Sample Selection………………………………………………..40
3.5 Data Collection Instruments………………………………………………….42
3.6 Piloting of the Data Collection Instrument…………………………………...44
3.7 Data Collection Procedures …………………………………………………..44
3.8 Data Analysis Procedures ……………………………………………………44
3.9 Definition of Terms ………………………………………………………...45
3.10 Limitations of The Study …………………………………………………...45
4.RESULTS……………………………………………………………….………...46
4.1 An Overview of the Participants in the Study……………….……………….47
4.2 Principal Ratings in Relation to Leadership Frames………………………....48
viii

---

4.3 Teacher Ratings in Relation to Leadership Frames………………………….57
5.CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS…………………………………………..66
5.1 Implications for Practice…………………………………………………….....70
5.2 Implications for Research………………………………………………………71
REFERENCES ………………………………………………….………………..72
APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………...…79
Leadership Orientations Questionnaire (Self) ………………………………...………79
Leadership Orientations Questionnaire(Other)……………………….……………….83



















ix

---

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE
1.1.1 Salience of frames …………………………...…..4
3.4.1 Number of Teachers and Principals …………...41
4.1.1 The Distribution of the Participants in Terms of
Gender………………………..………………….......46
4.1.2 The Distribution of Principals in Relation to Their
Work Experience……………..…………………47
4.1.3 The Distribution of Teachers in Relation to Their
Work Experience……………….……………….47
4.1.4 The Distribution of Teachers in Relation to Their
Work Experience with Principals………………..48
4.2.1 Leadership Orientations of the
Principals Section I……………………………....49
4.2.2 The Relationship of Principals’ Work Experience
Related to Leadership Frames……………………51
4.2.3 Leadership Orientations of the Principals
Section II………………………………………….53
4.2.4 The Relationship of Principals’ Work Experience
Related to Leadership Frames ……………………54
4.2.5 Principals’ Ratings on Effectiveness as
a Leader and Manager……………………………..56
4.3.1 Teacher Ratings of the Principals’ Leadership
Orientations Section I…………………………..….57
4.3.2 The Relationship of Teachers’ Work Experience
Related to Leadership Frames ……………………..58
x

---