|
Alternatif Dilde Özet:
|
Background. Leadership approaches have been described in four distinct categories: (a) qualities approach, (b) behavioral approach, (c) situational approach and (d) modern approach. According to the qualities approach, the leader’s personal qualities, individual abilities, and physical attributes are distinct from those of the observers (Aksel, 2003: 176). The administrator’s ability to lead depends on the presence these qualifications. According to the behavioral approach, a leader’s effectiveness is defined by the consistency between his/her leadership behavior and the maturity level of the individuals of those he/she leads. A widely respected research conducted under Likert’s leadership at the University of Michigan has determined two categories of leadership behavior: ‘profession oriented’ and ‘individual oriented’. While the ‘profession oriented’ leader displays behavior that draws power from his status, keeps a close watch on whether his staff fulfill their duties and when needed takes on an authoritarian and punitive role, the ‘individual oriented’ leader displays behavior based on rotation of authority, has a high regard for his staff’s personal improvement and progress, and values their emotional well being. Situational approach indicates that there can be no single leadership approach appropriate in every situation and condition. Instead, the appropriate approach may change according to the situation at hand, and it is impossible to predict which approach will be effective beforehand (Çelik, 1999: 16-31). “Means-goal” model which was developed based on the situational approach handles the leader’s behavior from the “mission” and “relationship” dimensions and adds that leaders ability to motivate his staff towards the goal is the third dimension of leadership (Çelik, 1999: 17). According to this model, the three main responsibilities of a leader are attain organizational objectives, provide a sense of job satisfaction for his staff, and provide appropriate strategies to motivate those he leads (Eren, 2001: 461).
Since the 1980’s, parallel to the developments in the area of social sciences and especially in the science of administration, along with traditional approaches, there have been significant developments in leadership research. These perspectives that can be classified as modern approaches, transformative leadership, interactional leadership, charismatic leadership (Serinkan, 2002: 73), have been cited in the science of administration.
A leader’s most important responsibility is to utilize professional motivation factors to enable the employees to actively participate and attain job satisfaction. For this reason, in order to increase productivity and quality in education, school administrators as leaders must provide better working conditions and help teachers meet their personal and professional expectations (Karakose, & Kocabas, 2006: 5). In other words, in order to have a successful system, it is essential for educational leaders to work towards creating a work environment in which teachers can realize their personal expectations and provide professional motivation, and job satisfaction, while meeting organizational goals. The leaders’ ability to provide such working environments in their institutions depends on the quality of their leadership behavior. The nature of these behaviors can vary based on their approach to leadership.
Purpose. The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between primary school administrators’ leadership behavior and job satisfaction of teachers who work under their leadership.
Method. This study which is a scientific field research, explores teachers’ job satisfaction levels and administrators’ leadership behavior levels. In light of the purpose of the study, the relationship between teachers’ job satisfaction and administrators’ leadership behavior is examined. For collecting the data; the 14 item “Job Satisfaction Inventory” (Cronbach’s Alpha =.95) developed by Taşdan (2008) and the 22 item “Leadership Behavior Level Measure” (Cronbach’s Alpha =.96) developed by researchers were used. The questionnaires were administered to 804 teachers and 153 administrators of primary schools in the Samsun province. Statistical analysis of the collected data was performed by application software (SPSS).
Findings and results. The analysis of the findings indicate that the fact that there are significant differences between the level of job satisfaction among teachers of different content areas prove that every subject teacher has an individual set of needs and expectations. The fact that some content area teachers are more likely to be able to meet these needs within the school setting, enables them to attain higher levels of job satisfaction. Findings also indicate that gender variable has no effect on teacher satisfaction, thus gender does not play a role in teachers’ job satisfaction levels. In addition, one must keep in mind that there may be personal factors that contribute to the levels of job satisfaction.
Findings also indicate that there is a positive relationship between the level of leadership behavior teachers perceive in their administrators and the level of their job satisfaction. In other words, one may conclude that, teachers’ own sense and perceptions have an effect on their level of job satisfaction. This finding supports Fiedler’s Situational Leadership Model. Regardless of leadership qualities one may possess, displaying the inappropriate leadership behaviors in different situations will not yield to a positive outcome. For this reason, in order to improve the level of job satisfaction, teachers’ perception of their administrators must be changed. It is the leader who must strive to initiate this change in perception. Kocak’s research (2006), has shown that school administrators have failed to convey clear and healthy messages to teachers, through their leadership behaviors they display at school settings. This research has resulted in similar findings. The fact that the administrators have assigned higher scores to their profession oriented and individual oriented leadership qualities than teachers’ perception of profession oriented and individual oriented leadership qualities of their administrators, point to this reality.
|