Session Information
26 SES 01 B, Reflection, Enjoyment and Organizational Health.
Paper Session
Contribution
Public schools are considered domesticated and protected organizations (Carlson, Gallaher, Miles, Pellegrin & Rogers, 1965) and as such, their continuation and existence hardly depends on the quality of their performance and outcomes. They are sponsored by the state and are therefore operating in a rather stable organizational environment (Eyal & Inbar, 2003; Mayer & Rowan, 1977).
In recent years, however, it appears that these circumstances are gradually changing. Schools need to cope with a dynamic reality characterized by technological innovations, increased social heterogeneity, a variety of needs, competition and an increasing amount of contradictory expectations, all contributing to the instability and uncertainty shared by school level educators (Goldring, 1996; Hallinger & Bridges, 1997; Nir, 2003).Studies have confirmed that public school leaders consistently define their role as a political one (Blase, 1995; Lindle & Mawhinney, 2003) and are continuously evaluating checks and balances (Ball, 1987) when attempting to succeed in their turbulent work environment (Lindle & Mawhinney, 2003).
These changes inevitably influence schools' inner dynamic and are therefore assumed to also influence schools' organizational health. This assumption follows previous publications suggesting that the relationship between schools and their environment is a crucial junction when attempting to explain and understand school's organizational health (Korkmaz, 2005; Cemaloglu, 2011). The literature also advocates for the crucial role school leaders play in buffering external influences and shaping school's organizational health (Hoy & Sabo, 1998; Korkmaz, 2004; 2007; Cemalogu, 2011, Khademfar & Idris, 2012; Cemalogu, 2011).
Nevertheless, although the changing context in which public schools operate seems to produce constraints and opportunities likely to influence schools’ inner dynamics, previous research has not yet explored the impact of the growing uncertainty characterizing public schools' context on their organizational health. Research also lacks evidence testifying to the mediating role transformational leadership plays in buffering these influences.
Hence, the current study proposes to fill this gap. Specifically, it attempts to shed light on the significance of school principals when public schools confront environmental uncertainty and assess the mediating effect of the transformational leadership style on the relation between environmental uncertainty and school’s health.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Ball, S. J. (1987). The Micro-Politics of the School: Towards a Theory of School Organization. London: Methuen. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990).Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, Cal.: Consulting Psychologists Press Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182. Ben-Moshe, G. (1996). A Study of Contingency Theory: The Moderating Influence of the Physical Setting. A thesis submitted to Tel-Aviv University (Hebrew). Carlson, R. O., Gallaher, A., Miles, M. B., Pellegrin, R. J., & Rogers, E. M. (1965).Change Processes in the Public Schools. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration. Ensley, M. D., Pearce, C. L., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2006).The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the relationship between entrepreneur leadership behavior and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 243-263. Hallinger, P., & Bridges, E. M. (1997). Problem-based leadership development: Preparing educational leaders for changing times. Journal of School Leadership, 7 (6), 592-608. Hoy, W. K. and Fedman, J. A. (1987). Organizational health: The concept and its measure. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20(4), 30–37. Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A. and Bolger, N. (1998). “Data analysis in social psychology”, in D. Gilbert, D. S. Fiske and G. Lindzey (Eds.). The handbook of social psychology (4th Ed.), McGraw-Hill, Boston, Mass., (pp. 233-65). Korkmaz, M. (2004). The relationship between organizational health and robust school vision in elementary school. Journal of Educational planning and Administration, 18(4), 437-488. Meyer, J. & Rowan, B. (1977). ‘Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–63. Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect & response uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 12 (1), 133-143. Nir, A. E. (2003). Quasi-Market: The changing context of schooling. The International Journal of Educational Reform, 12 (1), 26-39. Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 679-706. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Lee, J. Y. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879-903.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.