SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1

The Relationship Between Teachers’ Level of Participation in Decision Making and Their Perceptions of Organizational Opposition

Öğretmenlerin Karara Katılma Düzeyleri ile Örgütsel Muhalefet Algıları Arasındaki İlişki

Semih Çayak(MARMARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4360-4288
Ekrem Çetin(MARMARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1672-5140
Emre Dönmez(ÜSKÜDAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0655-5800
Pages
259–276
Publication Date
2025-01-29
🏛️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)

As a result of the research, it was found that teachers' level of participation in decision-making was high and their level of perception of organizational opposition was moderate.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to examine the relationship between teachers' level of participation in decision-making in their schools and their perceptions of organizational opposition.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The research was conducted with 373 teachers working in Istanbul.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of the research, it was found that teachers' level of participation in decision-making was high and their level of perception of organizational opposition was moderate.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Karara Katılma · Örgütsel Muhalefet · Okul Yönetimi

Abstract

This study aims to examine the relationship between teachers' level of participation in decision-making in their schools and their perceptions of organizational opposition. The research was conducted with 373 teachers working in Istanbul. In the study designed in the relational survey model, the "Teacher Decision Participation Scale" developed by Alanoğlu (2019) the "Organizational Opposition Scale" developed by Kassing (2000), and the validity and reliability study conducted by Dağlı (2015) under Turkish conditions were used as data collection tools. As a result of the research, it was found that teachers' level of participation in decision-making was high and their level of perception of organizational opposition was moderate. In addition, it was found that teachers' perceptions of participation in decision-making and organizational opposition did not show a significant difference according to their gender, professional seniority, and educational level. It was found that there was a statistically negative, moderate, and significant relationship between teachers' participation in decision-making and their perceptions of organizational opposition

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı öğretmenlerin okullarında karara katılma düzeyleri ile örgütsel muhalefet algıları arasındaki ilişkiyi incelenmektir. Araştırma İstanbul ilinde görev yapmakta olan 373 öğretmen ile yürütülmüştür. İlişkisel tarama modelinde tasarlanan araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak Alanoğlu (2019) tarafından geliştirilen “Öğretmen Karara Katılma Ölçeği” ile Kassing (2000) tarafından geliştirilen ve Türkiye koşullarında geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması Dağlı (2015) tarafından yapılan “Örgütsel Muhalefet Ölçeği” kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda öğretmenlerin karara katılma düzeylerinin yüksek, örgütsel muhalefet algı düzeylerinin ise orta düzeyde olduğu bulunmuştur. Ayrıca öğretmenlerin karara katılma ve örgütsel muhalefete ilişkin algılarının öğretmenlerin cinsiyetlerine, mesleki kıdemlerine ve görev yaptıkları eğitim kademelerine göre anlamlı bir farklılık göstermediği bulunmuştur. Öğretmenlerin karara katılmaları ile örgütsel muhalefet algıları arasında ise istatistiksel olarak negatif yönlü, orta düzeyde ve anlamlı bir ilişki olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çayak, S., Çetin, E., Dönmez, E. (2025). The Relationship Between Teachers’ Level of Participation in Decision Making and Their Perceptions of Organizational Opposition. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1, 259–276. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.1518748

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (62)

  1. Alanoğlu, M. (2019). Algılanan okul müdürü yönetim tarzları ile öğretmenlerin karara katılma, örgütsel adalet, iş doyumu ve tükenmişlik algıları arasındaki ilişkinin analizi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Fırat Üniversitesi, Elazığ.
  2. Alıç, M. (1991). Eğitim bilimlerinde çağdaş gelişmeler. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları. Yayın No: 444.
  3. Aloka, P. J. O. & Bojuwoye, O. (2013). Gender, age and teaching experiences differences in decision-making behaviours of members of selected kenyan secondary school disciplinary panels. Asian Social Science, 9(10). https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n10p43
  4. Assiri, M. (2018). School leaders’ practice of the ethics of educational leadership to make decisions. Journal of Education in Black Sea Region, 4(1), 10-34. https://doi.org/10.31578/jebs.v4i1.151
  5. Ata, S. & Yürür, Ş. (2021). The role of organizational culture in forming organizational dissent: a research on white-collar employees. International Journal of Management Economics and Business, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.813385
  6. Aydın, M. (1998) Eğitim Yönetimi, (5. Baskı). Ankara: Hatiboğlu Yayınları.
  7. Baydar, H., Akfırat, B., Şahin, E., Danacı, E., & Şayan, A. (2023). The Role of ethical leadership in teachers' organizational dissent behaviors: a comparative analysis. International Journal of Education and Humanities, 3(1), 14-23.
  8. Bhatti, M. A., Mat, N., & Juhari, A. S. (2018). Effects of job resources factors on nurses job performance (mediating role of work engagement). International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 31(8), 1000-1013. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhcqa-07-2017-0129
  9. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
  10. Can, A. (2013). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
  11. Chiles, A. M., & Zorn, T. E. (1995). Empowerment in organizations: Employees’ perceptions of the influences on empowerment, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23(1), 1-25, DOI: 10.1080/00909889509365411 Court, M. (1994). Removing macho management: Lessons from the field of education. Gender, Work & Organization, 1(1), 33-49.
  12. Croucher, S. M., Kelly, S., Chen, H., & Ashwell, D. (2020). Examining the relationships between face concerns and dissent. International Journal of Conflict Management, 32(1), 20-38. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma-11-2019-0215.
  13. Dağlı, A. (2015). Örgütsel muhalefet ölçeğinin Türkçe’ ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(53), 198-218.
  14. De Dreu, C. K. W. D. & West, M. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191-1201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191.
  15. Dessler, G. (2004). Management. New Jersey: Pearson Education Ltd.
  16. Fairhurst, G. T. & Putnam, L. L. (2018). An integrative methodology for organizational oppositions: aligning grounded theory and discourse analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 917-940. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118776771
  17. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Dhami, M. K. (2013). On avoiding framing effects in experienced decision makers. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(4), 829-842.
  18. George, D. and Mallery, M. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA
  19. Goldman, Z. W. and Myers, S. A. (2014). The relationship between organizational assimilation and employees’ upward, lateral, and displaced dissent. Communication Reports, 28(1), 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2014.902488
  20. Gökçe, F. (2005), Bir değişim aracı olarak güç alanı analizi tekniği ve eğitimsel değişmenin yönetimi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 43, 327-354.
  21. Gökçe, S. (2019). Orta düzey yönetim/yönetici üzerine bir literatür araştırması. Business and Economics Research Journal, 10(5), 1155-1166.
  22. Göksoy, S. (2014). Okul yönetiminde karara katılım. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 253-268.
  23. Gyamfi, A., Langee, P., & Yeboah, A. (2023). Senior high school heads’ perception on predominant forms of continuous professional development in ghana. Archives of Current Research International, 23(4), 41-50. https://doi.org/10.9734/acri/2023/v23i4568
  24. Haddaway, N. R., Kohl, C., Silva, N. R. d., Schiemann, J., Spök, A., Stewart, R., … & Wilhelm, R. (2017). A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management. Environmental Evidence, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-017-0089-8
  25. Hendrick, C. E. & Marteleto, L. J. (2017). Maternal household decision-making autonomy and adolescent education in honduras. Population Research and Policy Review, 36(3), 415-439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-017-9432-6
  26. Iacobucci, T. A., Daly, B. J., Lindell, D., & Griffin, M. T. Q. (2012). Professional values, self-esteem, and ethical confidence of baccalaureate nursing students. Nursing Ethics, 20(4), 479-490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733012458608
  27. Karasar, N. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel Yayın.
  28. Kassing, J. W. (1998). Development and validation of the organizational dissent scale. Management Communication Quarterly, 12(2),183-229.
  29. Kassing, J. W. (2000). Investigating the relationship between superior-subordinate relationship quality and employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 17(1), Pp: 58-69.
  30. Kassing, J. W., & Armstrong, T. A. (2002). Someone’s going to hear about this: Examining the association between dissent-triggering events and employee’s dissent expressions. Management communication quarterly, 16, 39-65.
  31. Lewis, P. S.; Goodman, S. H. & Fandt P. M. (2004). Management Challenges in The 21st Century.St.Paul: West Publishing Company.
  32. Lin, Y., Wang, L. S., Yarbrough, S., Alfred, D., & Martin, P. (2010). Changes in taiwanese nursing student values during the educational experience. Nursing Ethics, 17(5), 646-654. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733010373011
  33. Luz, L. & Agadjanian, V. (2015). Women’s decision-making autonomy and children’s schooling in rural mozambique. Demographic Research, 32, 775-796. https://doi.org/10.4054/demres.2015.32.25
  34. Mountford, M. & Brunner, C. C. (2010). Gendered behavior patterns in school board governance. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 112(8), 2067-2117. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811011200804
  35. Mulford B. (2003). School leaders: Changing roles and impact on teacher and school effectiveness. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/61/2635399.pdf
  36. Nanayakkara, J., Margerison, C., & Worsley, A. (2017). Food professionals’ opinions of the food studies curriculum in australia. British Food Journal, 119(12), 2945-2958. https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-02-2017-0112
  37. NEA (2016), Stakeholder involvement in decision making: A short guide to issues, approaches and resources, Radioactive Waste Management, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/791983ee-en.
  38. Ngussa, B. M., & Gabriel, L. (2017). Participation in decision making and teachers’ commitment: a comparative study between public and private secondary schools in Arusha Municipality, Tanzania. American Journal of Educational Research, 5(7), 801-807.
  39. Nilsson, M. S. & Pilhammar, E. (2009). Professional approaches in clinical judgements among senior and junior doctors: implications for medical education. BMC Medical Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-25
  40. Nuaimi, S. A., Chowdhury, H., Eleftheriou, K., & Katsioloudes, M. I. (2015). Participative decision-making and job satisfaction for teachers in the UAE. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(5), 645-665. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-07-2014-0090
  41. Oetjen, R., Oetjen, D., & Rotarius, T. (2008). Administrative decision making. The Health Care Manager, 27(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hcm.0000285026.95009.19
  42. Ogbonnaya, C. & Valizade, D. (2015). Participatory workplace activities, employee-level outcomes and the mediating role of work intensification. Management Research Review, 38(5), 540-558. https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-01-2014-0007
  43. Özdemir, M. (2010). Ankara ili kamu genel liselerinde görev yapan yönetici ve öğretmenlerin örgütsel muhalefete ilişkin görüşleri. Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  44. Özdemir, M. (2013). Genel liselerde görev yapan öğretmenlerin örgütsel muhalefete ilişkin görüşleri (Ankara ili örneği). Eğitim ve Bilim, 38(168), 113-128.
  45. Petersen, K., Badampudi, D., Shah, S. M. A., Wnuk, K., Gorschek, T., Papatheocharous, E., … & Cicchetti, A. (2018). Choosing component origins for software intensive systems: in-house, cots, oss or outsourcing? A case survey. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 44(3), 237-261. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2017.2677909
  46. Rice, E. M. & Schneider, G. T. (1994). A decade of teacher empowerment: an empirical analysis of teacher involvement in decision making, 1980‐1991. Journal of Educational Administration, 32(1), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239410051844
  47. Sarafidou, J. & Chatziioannidis, G. (2013). Teacher participation in decision making and its impact on school and teachers. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(2), 170-183. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541311297586
  48. Schulz‐Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2006). Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1080-1093. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1080
  49. Scott‐Ladd, B., Travaglione, A., & Marshall, V. (2006). Causal inferences between participation in decision making, task attributes, work effort, rewards, job satisfaction and commitment. Leadership &Amp; Organization Development Journal, 27(5), 399-414. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730610677990
  50. Shahinpoor, N. & Matt, B. F. (2007). The power of one: Dissent and organizational life. Journal of Business Ethics (74), 37-48.
  51. Somech, A., & Bogler, R. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational and professional commitment. Educational administration quarterly, 38(4), 555-577.
  52. Starratt, R.J. (2004). Ethical Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  53. Sukirno, D. S., & Siengthai, S. (2011). Does participative decision making affect lecturer performance in higher education?. International journal of educational management, 25(5), 494-508.
  54. Tootell, B., Croucher, S. M., Cullinane, J., Kelly, S., & Ashwell, D. (2023). The overlap between workplace bullying and organizational dissent in New Zealand. International Journal of Conflict Management, 34(5), 961-981.
  55. Truong, Q. D. & Manh, N. T. (2021). The importance of decision making in public organizations. Journal of Asian Multicultural Research for Social Sciences Study, 2(1), 16-20. https://doi.org/10.47616/jamrsss.v2i1.87
  56. Turnage, A. K. & Goodboy, A. K. (2014). E-mail and face-to-face organizational dissent as a function of leader-member exchange status. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(3), 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525456
  57. Türk Dil Kurumu (2023). Güncel Türkçe Sözlük. https://sozluk.gov.tr/
  58. Uras, M. (1995). Karara katılmada kabul alanı modeli. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 1(1), 121-130. 183.
  59. Vural, Z. B. A., & Değirmen, G. C. (2007). Örgüt kültürü-iletişim, liderlik, motivasyon, bağlılık, performans açısından değerlendirme. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Basım Yayın.
  60. Wilhelm, T. (2013). How principals cultivate shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 71(2), 62-66.
  61. Yazıcıoğlu, Y. & Erdoğan, S. (2004). Spss uygulamalı bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  62. Ye, P., Liu, L., & Tan, J. (2022). Influence of leadership empowering behavior on employee innovation behavior: the moderating effect of personal development support. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1022377