KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 1

The Relationship between Sustainable Leadership and Perceived School Effectiveness: The Mediating Role of Work Effort

Şenay Sezgin Nartgün(BOLU ABANT İZZET BAYSAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)
İbrahim Limon(T.C. MİLLİ EĞİTİM BAKANLIĞI)0000-0002-5830-7561
Ümit Dilekçi(BATMAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6205-1247
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2020-02-05
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Finally, it was determined that work effort did not have a mediator role in the relationship between sustainable leadership and perceived school effectiveness.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study investigates the mediator role of teachers’ work effort in the relationship between sustainable leadership and perceived school effectiveness.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The data was obtained from a study group of 411 teachers.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Finally, it was determined that work effort did not have a mediator role in the relationship between sustainable leadership and perceived school effectiveness.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Teacher · Sustainable leadership · Work effort

Abstract

This study investigates the mediator role of teachers’ work effort in the relationship between sustainable leadership and perceived school effectiveness. It employs the relational survey model. The data was obtained from a study group of 411 teachers. Three different measures were used in the study: “Sustainable Leadership Scale”, “Perceived School Effectiveness Scale” and “Work Effort Scale”. The findings showed that principals’ sustainable leadership scores were above moderate level except for social sustainability. On the other hand, teachers perceived their school as effective and their work effort above moderate level. It was also found that there were significant positive high and moderate level correlations among variables. Sustainable leadership predicted both perceived school effectiveness and work effort. Finally, it was determined that work effort did not have a mediator role in the relationship between sustainable leadership and perceived school effectiveness.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Nartgün, Ş. S., Limon, İ., Dilekçi, Ü. (2020). The Relationship between Sustainable Leadership and Perceived School Effectiveness: The Mediating Role of Work Effort. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume: 9 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.653014

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (83)

  1. Ahmed, Q. E. (2016). Ethics as a major element of sustainability in educational leadership across Finnish education. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Education University of Jyvaskyla.
  2. Alanoğlu, M., & Demirtaş, Z. (2016). The relationships between organizational learning level, school effectiveness and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(4), 35-44. doi: 10.11114/jets.v4i4.1262
  3. Argon, T., & Limon, İ. (2017). The Relationship between psychological climate and teachers work effort. 3 Rd Internatıonal Conference on Lıfe long learnıng and Leadershıp for All. 12-14.09.2017 - Lisbon, Portugal.
  4. Arovic, A. (2018). Sürdürülebilir liderlik uygulamaları ile örgütsel bağlılık arasındaki ilişki. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  5. Ayık, A., & Ada, Ş. (2009). İlköğretim okullarında oluşturulan okul kültürü ile okulların etkililiği arasındaki ilişki. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2), 429-446. Avery, G. C., & Bergsteiner, H. (2011). Sustainable leadership practices for enhancing business resilience and performance. Strategy & Leadership, 39(3), 5-15. doi: 10.1108/10878571111128766
  6. Balcı, A. (2014). Etkili Okul ve Okul Geliştirme: Kuram Uygulama ve Araştırma. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  7. Balcı, A. (2016). Açıklamalı Eğitim Yönetimi Terimleri Sözlüğü. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  8. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
  9. Behling, O., & Starke, F. A. (1973). The postulates of expectancy theory. Academy of Management Journal, 16(3), 373-388.
  10. Brockner, J., Grover, S., Reed, T. F., & DeWitt, R. L. (1992). Layoffs, job insecurity, and survivors work effort: Evidence of an inverted-U relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 413-425.
  11. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258.
  12. Bryne, Z. S., Stoner, J., Thompson, K. R., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2005). The interactive effects of conscientiousness, work effort, and psychological climate on job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 326-338. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.005
  13. Burns, H. L. (2016). Learning sustainability leadership: An action research study of a graduate leadership course. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2). doi: 10.20429/ijsotl.2016.100208
  14. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  15. Cerit, Y., & Yıldırım, B. (2017). İlkokul müdürlerinin etkili liderlik davranışları ile okul etkililiği arasındaki ilişki. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6(3), 902-914. doi: 10.14686/buefad.312405
  16. Cohen, S. A., DeFrancia, K. L., & Martinez, H. J. (2016). A positive vision of sustainability. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6(1), 231-238. doi: 10.1007/s13412-016-0368-7
  17. Cook, J. W. (2014). Sustainable school leadership: the teachers’ perspective. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 9(1).
  18. Čiegis, R., Ramanauskienė, J., & Martinkus, B. (2009). The concept of sustainable development and its use for sustainability scenarios. Inžinerinė Ekonomika, 2(62), 28-37.
  19. Çayak, S. (2018). Okul müdürlerinin sürdürülebilir liderlik davranışlarının incelenmesi: Bir karma yöntem araştırması. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  20. Çayak, S., & Çetin, M. (2018). Sürdürülebilir liderlik ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(11). doi: 10.7827/TurkishStudies.13703
  21. Çetin, M., & Çayak, S. (2018). Sürdürülebilir Liderlik. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  22. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal Bilimler için Çok Degiskenli İstatistik SPSS ve Lisrel Uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  23. De Cooman, R., De Gieter, S., Pepermans, R., Jegers, M., & Van Acker, F. (2009). Development and validation of the work effort scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 266-273. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.25.4.266
  24. Gardner, D., Dunham, R., Cummings, L., & Pierce, J. (1989). Focus of attention at work: Construct definition and empirical validation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 61-77.
  25. Green, F. (2004). Why has work effort become more intense? Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 43(4), 709-741.
  26. Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publications: Los Angeles.
  27. Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable leadership and development in education: Creating the future, conserving the past. European Journal of Education, 42(2), 223-233.
  28. Hargreaves. A., & Fink. D. (2003). The seven principles of sustainable leadership. http://jotamac.typepad.com/jotamacs_weblog/files/seven_principles.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  29. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable Leadership. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
  30. Herrera, R. (2010). Principal leadership and school effectiveness: perspectives from principals and teachers. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Western Michigan University, Michigan.
  31. Hoy, W. K. & Ferguson, J. (1985). A theoretical framework and exploration of organizational effectiveness in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21, 117-134.
  32. Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  33. Hu, Li-tze, & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit ındexes in covariance structure analysis:conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
  34. Iliško, D., & Badyanova, Y. (2014). A case study of ESD implementation: Signs of sustainable leadership. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 5(1), 38-48. doi: 10.2478/dcse-2014-0004
  35. Karabatak, S., Alanoğlu, M., & Şengür, D. (2018). The effect of teachers' organizational citizenship behaviors and stress levels on school effectiveness. European Journal of Education Studies, 5(4), 67-82. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1464115
  36. Kantabutra, S., & Saratun, M. (2013). Sustainable leadership: Honeybee practices at Thailand's oldest university. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(4), 356-376. doi: 10.1108/09513541311316304
  37. Kuvaas, B., & Dysvik, A. (2009). Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic motivation and work performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(3), 217-236. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x
  38. Lago, P., Aklini Kocak, S., Crnkovic, I., & Penzensradler, B. (2015). Framing sustainability as a property of software quality. Communications of the ACM, 58(10), 70-78. doi: 10.1145/2714560
  39. Lambert, S. (2012). The perception and implementation of sustainability leadership strategies in further education colleges. Journal of Leadership Education, 11(2), 102-119.
  40. Lee, H. W. (2017). Sustaınable leadership: An empirical investigation of its effect on organizational effectiveness. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 20(4), 419-453. doi: 10.1108/IJOTB-20-04-2017-B001
  41. McCann, J. T., & Holt, R. A. (2010). Defining sustainable leadership. Int. J. Sustainable Strategic Management, 2(2), 204-210.
  42. Memduhoğlu, H. B. & Karataş, H. (2017). Öğretmenlere göre çalıştıkları okullar ne kadar etkili? Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 7(2), 227-244.
  43. Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
  44. Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R.A. (2005). Advanced and Multivariate Statistical Methods: Practical Application and Interpretation. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
  45. Miskel, C., Fevurly, R., & Stewart, J. (1979). Organizational structures and processes, perceived school effectiveness, loyalty, and job satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 15, 97-118.
  46. Morris, R.J. (2009). Employee work motivation and discretionary work effort. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Brisbane Graduate School of Economics, Queensland.
  47. Mott, P. (1972). The Characteristics of Effective Organizations. New York: Harper and Row.
  48. Negiş Işık, A., & Gümüş, E. (2017). Investigation of relationship between principals’ self efficacy and school effectiveness. Kastamonu Education Journal, 24(4), 419-434.
  49. Okechukwu, G. P., Chinyere, N., & Ikechukwu, O. U. (2015). Motivation and sustainable leadership in Nigeria: The implications for service delivery in the health sector. Public Policy and Administration Research, 5(10), 29-37.
  50. Özdemir, A. (2013a). Okul yöneticilerindeki adalet ve liyakat ile öğretmenlerdeki sadakat ve gayret arasındaki ilişki. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi [Educational Administration: Theory and Practice], 19(1), 99-117.
  51. Özdemir, S. (2013b). Eğitimde Örgütsel Yenileşme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  52. Özdemir, S., & Sezgin, F. (2002). Etkili okullar ve öğretim liderliği. Kırgızistan Manas Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(3), 266-282.
  53. Pandey, S. (2018). Points of Intersection between Transformational, Entrepreneurial and Sustainable Leadership Models. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 5(4), 242-259.
  54. Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 426-452.
  55. Ramberg, J., Låftman, S. B., Fransson, E., & Modin, B. (2019). School effectiveness and truancy: A multilevel study of upper secondary schools in Stockholm. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 24(2), 185-198. doi: 10.1080/02673843.2018.1503085
  56. Rapp, G. C. (2000). Agency and choice in education: Does school choice enhance the work effort of teachers? Education Economics, 8(1), 37-63. doi: 10.1080/096452900110292
  57. Rashidfarokhi, A., Yrjänä, L., Wallenius, M., Toivonen, S., Ekroos, A., & Viitanen, K. (2018). Social sustainability tool for assessing land use planning processes. European Planning Studies, 26(6), 1269-1296. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2018.1461811
  58. Russo, R. (2003). Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences: An Introduction. Essex, UK: Psychology Press.
  59. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
  60. Singh, K. (2007). Quantitative Social Research Methods. Sage Publications: New Delhi.
  61. Singh, B., & Keitsch, M. M. (2016). Cultural sustainability and space - a comparison of two cases in Kathmandu, Nepal. Sustainable Development, 24(5), 307-318. doi: 10.1002/sd.1631
  62. Šimanskienė, L., & Župerkienė, E. (2014). Sustainable leadership: The new challenge for organizations. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 2(1), 81-93.
  63. Sivri, H., & Şahin, S. (2019). Ortaokul yöneticilerinin ve öğretmenlerinin okullarının etkililiğine yönelik algıları. The 14th International Congress on Educational Administration, 91-94, 2-4.05.2019 - Izmir, Turkey.
  64. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological Methodology, 290-312. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  65. Suriyankietkaew, S., & Avery, G. C. (2014). Employee satisfaction and sustainable leadership practices in Thai smes. Journal of Global Responsibility, 5(1), 160-173. doi:10.1108/JGR-02-2014-0003
  66. Suriyankietkaew, S., & Avery, G. C. (2016). Sustainable leadership practices driving financial performance: Empirical evidence from Thai smes. Sustainability, 8(327), 2-14. doi:10.3390/su8040327
  67. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
  68. Şenel, T., & Buluç, B. (2016). İlkokullarda okul iklimi ile okul etkililiği arasındaki ilişki. TÜBAV Bilim, 9(4), 1-12.
  69. Tatlah, I. A., & Iqbal, M. Z. (2012). Leadership styles and school effectiveness: Empirical evidence from secondary level. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 790-797.
  70. Tummers, L. G., & Den Dulk, L. (2013). The effects of work alienation on organisational commitment, work effort and work‐to‐family enrichment. Journal of Nursing Management, 21, 850-859. doi: 10.1111/jonm.12159
  71. Turhan, M., Demirli, C., & Nazik, G. (2012). Factors impactıng class teachers’ job commitment: The case of Elazığ. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(21), 179-192.
  72. Turhan, M., Şener, G., & Gündüzalp, S. (2017). Türkiye’de okul etkililiği araştırmalarına genel bir bakış. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, 4(2), 103-151.
  73. Uğurlu, C. T., & Abdurrezzak, S. (2016). Etkili okul ve okul liderliğine ilişkin öğretmen görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 22(3), 401-428. doi:10.14527/kuey.2016.016
  74. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838. doi: 10.1177/0011000006288127
  75. Yangil Mısırdalı, F. (2016). Bilgi toplumunda liderlik: Sürdürülebilir liderlik. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 48, 128-142.
  76. Yeo, G., & Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance effects of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 231-247. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.231
  77. Yıldırım, İ. (2015). Okul yöneticilerinin kişilik ve denetim odağı özelliklerinin öğretmenlerin iş doyumu ve okul etkililiği açısından incelenmesi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü,Erzurum.
  78. Yıldırım, İ., & Ada, Ş. (2018). Algılanan okul etkililiği ölçeği’nin (SE-Index) Türkçe’ye uyarlanması. Milli Eğitim, 219(Yaz), 19-32.
  79. Yıldırım, İ., Akan, D., & Yalçın, S. (2017). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin iş doyumu ve okul etkililiği algıları arasındaki ilişki. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 70-81. doi: 10.17556/erziefd.308643
  80. Yılmaz, K. (2015). Öğretmenlerin örgütsel farkındalık ve örgütsel güven algıları ile okulların örgütsel etkililik düzeyleri. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Aydın.
  81. Yollu, S. (2017). Okul müdürlerinin sürdürülebilir liderlik stratejilerini uygulama düzeyleri. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  82. Zembat, R., Koçyiğit, S., Tuğluk, M. N., & Doğan, H. (2010). The Relationship between the effectiveness of preschools and leadership styles of school managers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 2269-2276. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.321
  83. Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R.A. (2005). Advanced and Multivariate Statistical Methods: Practical Application and Interpretation. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.