SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 55 Sayı: 2

Teachers' Perceptions of Organizational Antifragility: A Q Methodology Study

Öğretmenlerin Örgütsel Antikırılganlığa İlişkin Görüşleri: Bir Q Metodoloji Çalışması

Tuba Akpolat(MİMAR SİNAN GÜZEL SANATLAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5907-6972
Pages
780–818
Publication Date
2026-08-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings emphasize the importance of developing organizational antifragility capacities to respond more effectively to crises, offering valuable implications for educational policies and school management.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to examine teachers' perceptions of their organizations' antifragility capacity using Q methodology.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 20 teachers working in public and private schools across various districts of Istanbul participated in the research.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings emphasize the importance of developing organizational antifragility capacities to respond more effectively to crises, offering valuable implications for educational policies and school management.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Antikırılganlık · Örgütsel dayanıklılık · Q metodoloji

Abstract

This study aims to examine teachers' perceptions of their organizations' antifragility capacity using Q methodology. A total of 20 teachers working in public and private schools across various districts of Istanbul participated in the research. Organizational antifragility was addressed through seven main themes: optionality for gain, embracing disorder, learning and development, collaboration and leadership, resilience and flexibility, systemic factors, and external factors. Based on these themes, a Q sample consisting of thirty-four statements was developed. Data analysis revealed six distinct perspectives regarding teachers' perceptions of their organizations' antifragility capacities. These perspectives provide important insights into how organizations respond to crises, adapt to change, and develop collaboration and leadership dynamics. The six perspectives identified in the study are: fragility, adaptability and flexibility, support and solidarity, digital and strategic resilience, inadequacy in the face of uncertainty, and strategy- and leadership-oriented resilience. The findings emphasize the importance of developing organizational antifragility capacities to respond more effectively to crises, offering valuable implications for educational policies and school management.

Özet

Bu çalışma, öğretmenlerin örgütlerinin antikırılganlık kapasitesine ilişkin algılarını Q metodolojisi kullanarak incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmaya, İstanbul’un çeşitli ilçelerindeki devlet ve özel okullarda görev yapan toplam 20 öğretmen katılmıştır. Örgütlerin antikırılganlığı yedi temel tema üzerinden ele alınmıştır: kazanç için seçeneklilik, düzensizliği kucaklama, öğrenme ve gelişim, iş birliği ve liderlik, dirençlilik ve esneklik, sistemsel faktörler ve dışsal faktörler. Bu temalar doğrultusunda, otuz dört ifadeden oluşan bir Q örneklemi geliştirilmiştir. Verilerin analizi, öğretmenlerin örgütlerinin antikırılganlık kapasitelerine dair altı farklı bakış açısını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu bakış açıları, örgütlerin krizlere nasıl yanıt verdiğine, değişime nasıl uyum sağladığına ve iş birliği ile liderlik dinamiklerini nasıl geliştirdiğine dair önemli ipuçları sunmaktadır. Çalışmada belirlenen altı görüş şunlardır: kırılganlık, uyum sağlama ve esneklik, destek ve dayanışma, dijital ve stratejik dirençlilik, belirsizlik karşısında yetersizlik ve strateji ile liderlik odaklı dirençlilik. Bulgular, örgütlerin antikırılganlık kapasitelerinin geliştirilmesinin krizlere daha etkili yanıt verebilmek açısından önemini vurgulayarak eğitim politikaları ve okul yönetimleri için değerli çıkarımlar sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Akpolat, T. (2026). Teachers' Perceptions of Organizational Antifragility: A Q Methodology Study. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 55 Sayı: 2, 780–818. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.1719985

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (42)

  1. Altıntaş, M., & Özata, M. (2022). Covid-19 pandemi döneminde eğitim kurumlarında örgütsel dayanıklılık ve örgütsel sağlık ilişkisi. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(2), 787-810. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.1062251
  2. Andersson, T., Cäker, M., Tengblad, S., & Wickelgren, M. (2019). Building traits for organizational resilience through balancing organizational structures. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 35(1), 36-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2019.01.001
  3. Bajaba, A., Bajaba, S., & Simmering, M. J. (2024). When resilience is not enough: Theoretical development and validation of the antifragility at work scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 231, 112818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112818
  4. Balaman, F., & Hanbay Tiryaki, S. (2021). Corona virus (COVID-19) nedeniyle mecburi yürütülen uzaktan eğitim hakkında öğretmen görüşleri. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(1), 52-84.
  5. Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16(3/4), 91-138.
  6. Can, H. (2011). Organizasyon ve yönetim. Siyasal Kitabevi.
  7. Chroust, G., & Finlayson, D. (2016). Anticipation and systems thinking: A key to resilient systems. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the ISSS-2016 Boulder, CO, USA (Vol. 1, No. 1).
  8. Chroust, G., Aumayr, G., Haider, G., Randus, R., & Thür, A. (2016). Prozessmanagement im Katastropheneinsatz: Agil, strikt, tolerant und robust? M. Engstler, M. Fazal-Baqaie, E. Hanser, O. Linssen, M. Mikusz, & A. Volland (Eds.), Projektmanagement und Vorgehensmodelle 2016 – Arbeiten in hybriden Projekten. Das Sowohl-als-auch von Stabilität und Dynamik (ss. 93–107). Gesellschaft für Informatik.
  9. Dahlberg, R. (2015). Resilience and complexity: Conjoining the discourses of two contested concepts. Culture Unbound, 7(3), 541-557. https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.1572541
  10. Demir, S., & Kale, M. (2020). Öğretmen görüşlerine göre COVID-19 küresel salgını döneminde gerçekleştirilen uzaktan eğitim sürecinin değerlendirilmesi. Turkish Studies, 15(8), 3445-3470. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.44492
  11. Elliott, D., & Macpherson, A. (2010). Policy and practice: Recursive learning from crisis. Group and Organization Management, 35(5), 572–605.
  12. Hernantes, J., Rich, E., Lauge, A., Labaka, L., & Sarriegi, J. M. (2013). Learning before the storm: Modeling multiple stakeholder activities in support of crisis management, a practical case. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(9), 1742–1755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.01.002
  13. Hespanhol, L. (2017, June). More than smart, beyond resilient: Networking communities for antifragile cities. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (pp. 105–114). Association for Computing Machinery.
  14. Hudtohan, E. T. (2023). Agency theory and antifragility: Formation of Filipino teachers. International Journal of Management and Education in Human Development, 3(02), 902-921.
  15. Jaaron, A., & Backhouse, C. J. (2014). Building antifragility in service organisations: going beyond resilience. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 19(4), 491-513. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2014.065671
  16. Jendza, J. (2023). Between chaos, instability, change and antifragility: A qualitative study of working conditions and everyday reality of Polish Montessori early childhood education teachers. Prima Educatione, 7(1), 39–48.
  17. Kendra, J., & Wachtendorf, T. (2003). Elements of resilience after the World Trade Center disaster: Reconstituting New York City’s Emergency Operations Center. Disasters, 27(1), 37–53.
  18. Labaka, L., Hernantes, J., & Sarriegi, J. M. (2016). A holistic framework for building critical infrastructure resilience. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 103, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.005
  19. Lau, A. (2023). A conceptual exploration of anti-fragility in the context of confucian heritage culture education. Journal of Research Initiatives, 7(2), 7.
  20. Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management review, 21(3), 243-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001
  21. Mardaras, E., Artola, G., Duarte, S., & Otegi-Olaso, J. R. (2021). Antifragile philosophy in R&D projects: Applying Q methodology and the possibility of open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(4), 209-229. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7040209
  22. McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology. Sage.
  23. McManus, S., Seville, E., Vargo, J., & Brunsdon, D. (2008). Facilitated process for improving organizational resilience. Natural Hazards Review, 9(2), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2008)9:2(81)
  24. Meyer, A. D. (1982). Adapting to environmental jolts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(4), 515–537.
  25. Paraskevas, A., & Quek, M. (2019). When Castro seized the Hilton: Risk and crisis management lessons from the past. Tourism Management, 70, 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.007
  26. Powley, E. H. (2009). Reclaiming resilience and safety: Resilience activation in the critical period of crisis. Human Relations, 62(9), 1289–1326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709334881
  27. Ramezani, J., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2020). Approaches for resilience and antifragility in collaborative business ecosystems. Technological forecasting and social change, 151, 119846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119846
  28. Ruiz-Martin, C., López-Paredes, A., & Wainer, G. (2018). What we know and do not know about organizational resilience. International Journal of Production Management and Engineering, 6(1), 11-28. https://doi.org/10.4995/ijpme.2018.7898
  29. Russo, D., & Ciancarini, P. (2016). A proposal for an antifragile software manifesto. Procedia Computer Science, 83, 982-987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.04.196
  30. Saygı, H. (2021). Covid-19 pandemi uzaktan eğitim sürecinde sınıf öğretmenlerinin karşılaştığı sorunlar. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi (AUAd), 7(2), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.51948/auad.841632
  31. Simpson, J., Oosthuizen, R., El Sawah, S., & Abbass, H. (2021). Agile, antifragile, artificial-intelligence-enabled, command and control. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2109.06874
  32. Smetana, M., & O'Mahoney, J. (2022). NPT as an antifragile system: How contestation improves the nonproliferation regime. Contemporary Security Policy, 43(1), 24-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1978761
  33. Stachowiak, A., & Pawłyszyn, I. (2021). From fragility through agility to resilience: The role of sustainable improvement in increasing organizational maturity. Sustainability, 13(9), 4991. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094991
  34. Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 501–524.
  35. Sysoieva, S., & Kunytsia, T. (2025). Fragility, resilience, anti-fragility: How war shapes new challenges in educating resilience in children and youth. Osvitolohiya, 14, 7–20. https://doi.org/10.28925/2412-124X.2025.14.1
  36. Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: How to live in a world we don't understand. Allen Lane.
  37. Tseitlin, A. (2013). The antifragile organization. Communications of the ACM, 56(8), 40-44. https://doi.org/10.1145/2492007.2492022
  38. Vakilzadeh, K., & Haase, A. (2021). The building blocks of organizational resilience: A review of the empirical literature. Continuity & Resilience Review, 3(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/CRR-04-2020-0002
  39. Vale, L. J., & Campanella, T. J. (2005). The resilient city: How modern cities recover from disaster. Oxford University Press.
  40. Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 357–381.
  41. World Economic Forum. (2020). The global risks report 2020 (15th ed.). https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risk_Report_2020.pdf
  42. Yavuz, Y., & Çetin, E. (2022). Öğretmen ve okul yöneticilerinin gözünden COVID-19: Kriz yönetimi. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 13(1), 354-377.