32 SES 04, Diversity and School Development
Paper/Pecha Kucha Session
Rapid developments and changes in every aspect in the environment force educational organizations to adapt to their institutional environment through technical and transformational interdependencies to increase their organizational efficiency and productivity. It is significant to achieve legitimacy for educational organizations in this process called "new institutionalism" and to maintain this legitimacy in good relations with their organizational environment. However, in the process of gaining legitimacy and assimilating into the organizational environment, discrepancies or contradictions can occur between the real actions of educational organizations and their superficial compliance of ideologies and administrative structures (Kılıçoğlu, 2017a, 2017b; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Specifically, decoupling or loose coupling between formal rules and actual practices can be observed in schools (Weick, 1976). Brunsson (1989) described it as “organizational hypocrisy,” a loosely coupled relationship between legitimate statements, ideas, and words with the real activities. Indeed, hypocrisy refers to failing to practice what one preaches, reflecting behavioural inconsistency, which stems from perceptions of disingenuousness (Hale & Pillow, 2015). Thus, hypocrisy is considered as the inconsistency between talk (informal agreements or discussions in and between organizational groups), decisions (formal decisions or policies recorded within the organizational hierarchy and generally enacted through written documents like plans and budgets), and actions (what organizational actors do, as opposed to what they have formally agreed on or informally said they would do) (Fassin & Buelens, 2011).
As organizational hypocrisy is an organizational behaviour type that can be encountered in any organization, it is possible to mention possible antecedents and consequences of it (Kılıçoğlu, 2017a, 2017b). Hypocrisy in organizations often arises from uncoordinated responses to conflicting environmental pressures by loosely coupled or decoupled internal organizational elements (Weick, 1976), and when inconsistent pressures of the organization’s environment are ‘reflected in organisational structures, processes, and ideologies’ (Brunsson, 1989). Organizational hypocrisy can pave the way for various pathological organizational behaviours in educational organizations. In the related studies, organizational cynicism, decrease in workers’ performance, continuance, job security, trust, commitment, job satisfaction, trustworthiness, legitimacy and sense of justice toward the organization can appear in organizations where organizational hypocrisy is common (Brunsson, 1989; Cha & Edmondson, 2006; Fox, 1974; Han & Koo, 2010; Jansen & Van Gilnow, 1985, Kılıçoğlu, Yılmaz Kılıçoğlu & Karadağ, 2017; Naus, Iterson & Roe, 2007; Philippe & Koehler, 2005; Simons, 2002).
Limited theoretical and empirical research examining the concept of organizational hypocrisy in educational setting makes it difficult to investigate which factors organizational hypocrisy affect, what kind of results can be generated and which premises are influenced. In this context, the purpose of this study was to examine educators’ views about antecedents and consequences of organizational hypocrisy in schools. The rationale behind this study is based on the contribution of filling the gap in the conceptual underpinnings and outcomes of organizational hypocrisy in educational setting.
The data from this study was collected from teachers and principals who were working at primary, secondary and high schools in central Anatolia region of Turkey. Participants consist of a total of fifteen people, eight of whom are school principals and twelve of whom are teachers. The age of the participants ranges between 36 and 62 years for the school principals. The ages of the teachers range from 32 to 50 years. Six of the participants are female, nine of them are male. All the teachers are female while one of the school principal is female. Phenomenological research was designed as a research methodology to illuminate and identify the concept of organizational hypocrisy through how it is perceived by the main actors in education. Semi-structured interviews which are flexible with allowing new questions, and provide in-depth investigation of the participants’ perceptions generate data for grounded theory (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Patton, 1990). Participants were asked a range of questions to determine how organizational hypocrisy emerged and what is leads to in schools. The length of the interviews changed between 35 and 54 minutes. In the process of the data analysis, conducted interviews were recorded, transcribed and planned to code into themes. The gathered data was intended to reveal key categories and themes by analyzing understandings and perceptions of school principals and teachers regarding organizational hypocrisy in schools. Content analysis was used to deeply analyze the gathered data, identify the emergent themes and comprehend the findings.
The findings of the study were addressed under three themes: situations, causes and consequences of organizational hypocrisy. In situations theme, when organizational hypocrisy was observed in schools were pointed out. Unfair behaviour of the school principal, role modelling, experiences during the adaptation process of organizational changes, rhetoric discourse, not keeping the words and inconsistent behaviours comprised this theme. In causes theme, the antecedents of organizational hypocrisy were indicated. Bureaucracy, highly centralized structure, problems between school and principal autonomy, budget deficiency, ethical leadership, communication problem of the school principal, rapid radical organizational changes, lack of accountability, and lack of integrity found as antecedents of this pathological behaviour. In consequences theme, the outputs of organizational hypocrisy were specified. Decrease in organizational commitment, trustworthiness, motivation and job satisfaction, academic failure, conflict, poor performance, and teachers’ seeking a leader except than the school principal were stated as consequences of organizational hypocrisy in schools.
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. MA: Ally and Bacon. Brunsson, N. (1989). The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions and actions in organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Cha, S., & Edmondson, A. (2006). When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 57-78. Fassin, Y., & Buelens, M. (2011). The hypocrisy-sincerity continuum in corporate communication and decision making: A model of corporate social responsibility and business ethics practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(3), 425-453. Fox, A. (1974). Beyond contract: Work, power and trust relations. London, UK: Farber & Farber. Hale, W. J., & Pillow, D. R. (2015). Asymmetries in perceptions of self and others’ hypocrisy: Rethinking the meaning and perception of the construct. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 88-98. Han, J., & Koo, J. (2010). Institutional isomorphism and decoupling among Korean firms: Adoption of performance compensation system. Korean Journal of Sociology, 44(3), 27-44. Jansen, E., & Von Gilnow, M. A. (1985). Ethical ambivalence and organizational reward systems. Academy of Management Review, 10, 814-822. Kılıçoğlu, G. (2017a). Consistency or discrepancy? Rethinking schools from organizational hypocrisy to integrity. Management in Education, 31(3), 1-7. Kılıçoğlu, G. (2017b). Organizational hypocrisy and integrity in Turkish context: A theoretical analysis. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 23(3), 465-504. Kılıçoğlu, G., Yılmaz Kılıçoğlu, D., & Karadağ, E. (2017). Do schools fail to “walk their talk”? Development and validation of a scale measuring organizational hypocrisy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, DOI: 10.1080/15700763.2017.1371762 Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. Naus, F., Iterson, A. V., & Roe, R. (2007). Organizational cynicism: Extending the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect model of employees’ responses to adverse conditions in the workplace. Human Relations, 60(5), 683-718. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Phillippe, T. W., & Koehler, J. W. (2005). A factor analytical study of perceived organizational hypocrisy. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 70(2), 13-20. Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18-35. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- 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.