Next Article in Journal
Exploring Options for Improving Potato Productivity through Reducing Crop Yield Gap in Loess Plateau of China Based on Grey Correlation Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Use of GIS Tools in Sustainable Heritage Management—The Importance of Data Generalization in Spatial Modeling
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 11
Issue 20
10.3390/su11205618
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Transformational and Instructional Leadership on Organizational Silence and Attractiveness and Their Importance for the Sustainability of Educational Institutions

by
Davut Atalay
1,*,
Umut Akçıl
1 and
Ali Efdal Özkul
2
1
Faculty of Education, Near East University NEU, Nicosia 99138, Cyprus
2
Faculty of Arts & Sciences, Department of History Teaching, Near East University NEU, Nicosia 99138, Cyprus
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(20), 5618; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205618
Submission received: 13 August 2019 / Revised: 3 October 2019 / Accepted: 8 October 2019 / Published: 12 October 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Managers are expected to carry various leadership qualities in order to raise the human profiles (professionals) required by society. Leadership becomes even more important when it comes to education as it shapes our future. In educational institutions, especially transformational leadership (TL) and instructional leadership (IL) have a particular importance and play an active role in conveying a classical managerial approach. This as well influences the sustainability of the educational institutions. The managers with these two leadership qualities will contribute to a reduction in their employees’ perceptions of organizational silence (OS) and an increase in the perception of organizational attractiveness (OA). In this paper, we analyzed the effects of transformational and instructional leadership styles of the managers of high schools, which contain the aviation field of study, and their effects on organizational attractiveness and organizational silence. The universe of this study is 1537 teachers working in 21 public high schools in the 2017–2018 academic year in Turkey, and the sample is 749 teachers who responded to the survey. We used a relational model of quantitative research methods. In this study, the Transformational Leadership Scale and the Instructional Leadership Scale were used to determine the leadership styles of the managers according to the perceptions of the teachers, while the Organizational Attractiveness Scale and the Organizational Silence Scale were used to determine the perceived organizational attractiveness and organizational silence of the teachers. Within the scope of reliability analysis, all dimensions of the scales used were found to be reliable. SPSS 24.0 and LISREL 8.1 package programs were used in the analysis of the research data and the relations between the variables were examined by using the Structural Equation Model. As the main finding is the existence of correlation of the elements, specifically, it was found that transformational and instructional leadership have positive effect with same-direction on organizational attractiveness, positive effect with inverse-direction on organizational silence, as well as positive effect with inverse-direction between organizational silence and organizational attractiveness. These findings provide an additional layer of factors to be analyzed that might affect the sustainability of educational institutions. We propose further studies to be carried out on development of new correlation models between sustainability elements on one side, and organizational silence or organizational attractiveness on the other.

1. Introduction

In today’s changing world, schools that provide basic and formal education to develop the necessary human resources as specific profiles have great responsibilities [1]. Their leaders and managers are at the forefront and are challenged to meet these societal needs in a sustainable way. One way to ensure that leaders of educational institutions have the foundation for sustainable decision-making and transformative change that is needed is through a fundamental change in their behavior [2]. Previous research done by Leithwood and Jantzi on organizational commitment showed consistent evidence that transformational leadership has a direct positive effect on various dimensions of teachers’ commitment [3], making it a potential factor for sustainability. In addition to that, the managers of the educational institutions need to reflect the spirit of change.
Peter Senge, in his book The Fifth Discipline [4], states that schools in complex, knowledge-based societies should become learning organizations. This concept has been further elaborated by a number of influential writers such as Fullan, Leithwood and Louis, Mitchell and Sackney [5,6,7]. As learning organizations, the educational institutions should develop enabling processes and innovative structures for flexibility in the unpredictable and changing environments of today [8,9]. In their flexibility and adaptiveness, these institutions should operate as genuine communities that draw on collective power of a shared vision and collective intelligence [10] of their human resources in pursuit of continuous improvement [11]. As well, the connections between people’s personal and interpersonal learning, and how the organization learns collectively, are the key to change and success [7,12].
How these various factors found in existing research can be influenced by the degree of organizational silence within the organization and how they can contribute to the organizational attractiveness is what our research focuses on.
In his work, Hallinger introduces the “leadership for learning” approach to school leadership, which represents a combination of two earlier leadership conceptualizations [13]: instructional leadership and transformational leadership. This approach among other concepts highlights the importance of learning for teachers and the staff [14,15] which we build upon in the recommendations from our research. Robinson, in her study, found that transformational leadership had a moderate positive effect on the staff attitudes and perceptions of the school climate and organization [16]. We used this as a basis for the design of the research specifically in defining the hypothesis that organizational attractiveness is positively linked to the degree of transformational leadership in the organization. Robinson’s follow-up meta-analysis of 27 published studies of the impact of leadership showed that the impact of instructional leadership was between two and three times greater than that of transformational leadership on the student outcomes, but that transformational leadership nevertheless has a moderate impact on teachers’ attitudes and satisfaction [17].
Transformational leaders direct the efforts of subordinates (teachers in our case) towards a vision rather than concrete goals [18]. As well, transformational leaders, who have a long-term perspective, reveal all the talents and skills of their subordinates and increase their self-confidence and aim to get more results than they normally expect [19]. On the other hand, as found by Çelik in his research, instructional leadership defines the efforts to create the necessary working environment which is satisfying and productive in order to provide the conditions for teachers to develop themselves as well as their ability to train students [20].
Tangirala and Ramanujam, in their work, describe organizational silence as the fact that employees do not share important situations, issues, or events related to their work or organization, but keep it to themselves [21], while Zheng et al. stated that organizational silence is the avoidance of expressing their thoughts for various reasons in the face of problems and events that may arise in their business life.
Within the scope of the reviewed literature, there is no concrete definition of the concept of organizational attractiveness. The concept is usually described as “positive attitude of the individual towards the organization” [22] or “seeing the organization as an attractive place to work” [23].
The concepts of organizational attractiveness and silence are influenced by many variables within the organization and affect teachers’ performance, organizational commitment, motivation, and many organizational behavior factors [24].
Based on these findings, managers and leaders of educational institutions need to demonstrate both instructional and transformational leadership behaviors to improve the perception of organizational silence and organizational attractiveness. Aviation educational institutions, as part of the overall education sector, should follow this globally recognized approach as well.
The geographical scope of our research is the aviation education sector in Turkey, but we believe that the results are relevant in other contexts as well. The change experienced in the aviation sector due to increasing use of technology is in the direction of developing personnel who have the ability to do better quality work in a highly complex field. This led to establishment of educational institutions providing education at various levels, such as universities and colleges, as well as high schools. In Turkey, there are 45 high schools providing education in aviation, of which 21 are state-owned and 24 are privately owned. The leadership in these institutions is seen as an important factor for sustainable education, and it is important to investigate the effects of the leadership styles on the teaching staff in the schools.
Various authors have identified that the investigation of the effects of the concepts of organizational silence (OS), which is seen as a negative value, and organizational attractiveness (OA), which is seen as a positive value, can contribute to the quality of the educational institutions and the improvement of the quality of the professionals developed by these organizations [25,26,27]. Although there have been many studies on transformational and instructional leadership both in Turkey and abroad, there is no research conducted in the aviation sector within the framework of these two concepts. In addition, regardless of the type of educational institutions, we could not find any research that observed the effects of instructional and transformational leadership on organizational attractiveness and organizational silence concepts, or the relationships and the influences among these factors. In particular, when this study was evaluated in terms of the selected sample group, it has been found out that the effect of leadership style and leadership on organizational attractiveness and organizational silence, which includes the organizations giving aviation training, has not yet been investigated.

2. Method

Based on the factors highlighted during the literature review, we wanted to investigate the relationship between the leadership styles and the sustainability factors of organizational silence and organizational attractiveness. That led to the definition of the following hypotheses:
Among teachers;
Hypothesis H1.
Organizational silence decreases while transformational leadership increases.
Hypothesis H2.
Organizational attractiveness increases while transformational leadership increases.
Hypothesis H3.
Organizational attractiveness decreases while organizational silence increases.
Hypothesis H4.
Organizational silence decreases while instructional leadership increases.
Hypothesis H5.
Organizational attractiveness increases while instructional leadership increases.
The research was conducted using the quantitative research method known as the Relational Screening Model. The Relational Screening Model is defined as a research model aiming to determine the existence and/or degree of covariance between two or more variables [28]. In the Relational Screening Model, the degree of covariance is aimed at determining the level of the relationship by correlation or further statistical analysis [29].
The field study was carried out with the quantitative research method (quantitative data collection method) based on questionnaire. During the analysis, we investigated if there was a correlation between transformational and instructional leadership behaviors of school administrators, and the teachers’ perceived organizational attractiveness and organizational silence, with the focus being on the level and direction of the influence within the scope of determined hypotheses. The research model is shown in Figure 1.

2.1. Universe and Sample

The universe of the study was 1537 teachers working in 21 public high schools with an aviation focus and affiliated to the Turkish Ministry of National Education. The sample was 749 teachers who responded to the survey in the 2017–2018 academic year in Turkey.
Information on demographic characteristics of the research participants is presented in Table 1.

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis

In this research, as data collection tools, the following form and scales have been used. (1) Personal Information Form developed by the researcher. (2) Instructional Leadership Scale, developed by J.M. Alig-Mielcarek in 2003 [30], adapted to Turkish by Şahin in 2011 [31], composing 23 questions and 3 sub-dimensions. (3) Transformational Leadership Scale, developed by Brestrich in 1999 [32], composing 23 questions and 6 sub-dimensions. (4) Organizational Attractiveness Scale, developed by Highhouse et al. in 2003 [33], adapted to Turkish by Dural et al. in 2014 [34], consisting of 15 questions and 3 sub-dimensions. (5) Organizational Silence Scale, developed by Dyne et al. in 2003 [35], adapted to Turkish by Erdoğan in 2011 [36] and again validated by Çatır in 2015 [37], consisting of 15 questions and 3 sub-dimensions. The data collected were analyzed using SPSS 24.0 and the Structural Equation Model with LISREL 8.7 software.
Within the scope of reliability analysis, all dimensions of the four scales used were found to be reliable. Cronbach’s Alpha statistics were calculated between 0.865 and 0.939 for the leadership scales, between 0.703 and 0.780 for the organizational silence scale, and between 0.763 and 0.948 for the organizational attractiveness scale.
Within the context of confirmatory factor analysis, a variable in “vision and inspiration” dimension of the Transformational Leadership Scale was removed and the scale was validated. Compliance measures for confirmatory factor analysis were calculated as χ2/sd = 1.94, RMSEA = 0.036, NFI = 0.99, CFI = 1.00, IFI = 1.00, and RMR = 0.022. In the instructional leadership scale, a variable in the “Feedback” dimension was removed from the scale and the scale was validated. Compliance measures for confirmatory factor analysis were calculated as χ2/sd = 2.01, RMSEA = 0.037, NFI = 0.99, CFI = 1.00, IFI = 1.00, RMR = 0.022, and GFI = 0.95. The organizational silence scale was validated after subtracting a variable in the “Accepted Silence” dimension. Compliance measures for confirmatory factor analysis were calculated as χ2/sd = 4.49, RMSEA = 0.068, NFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.97, IFI = 0.97, RMR = 0.036, and GFI = 0.94. Finally, the scale was validated after subtracting one variable from “Intention to follow” and “Prestige” dimensions. Compliance measures for confirmatory factor analysis were calculated as χ2/sd = 4.55, RMSEA = 0.069, NFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, IFI = 0.99, RMR = 0.037, and GFI = 0.95.

3. Findings and Results

In the study, the relationships between latent variables were investigated with Structural Equation Model (SEM). There being 76 items and 4 factors in the scales used in the research, these factors were measured with 14 dimensions. Each dimension was aggregated and averaged in itself because of difficulties in calculating the dimensions and difficulties in reading the screen output of 76 items. Thus, each dimension was transformed into one observed variable.
We used the SEM to test the model shown in Figure 2, which we created in order to determine the effect of Transformational and Instructional Leadership on Organizational Silence and Organizational Attractiveness and obtained statistically significant results. The obtained compliance measurements for Figure 2 calculated as: χ2 = 152.87; sd. = 69; χ2/df = 2.22, RMSEA = 0.040, NFI = 0.99, NNFI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00, IFI = 1.00, RFI = 0.99, GFI = 0.97, RMR = 0.014. Except for the path between TL and OS for the model, the other paths have been found statistically significant.
According to Figure 2:
  • A correlation of 0.06 units (inverse direction) was found between teachers’ perceptions of transformational leadership and organizational silence. This relationship was not statistically significant (t = −0.46 p > 0.05). H1 was therefore not supported.
  • A correlation of 0.42 units (same direction) was found between teachers’ perception of transformational leadership and organizational attractiveness. A one-unit increase in teachers’ perception of transformational leadership caused an increase of 0.42 units in organizational attractiveness perception (t = 5.32 p < 0.01). H2 was therefore supported.
  • A correlation of 0.32 units (inverse direction) was determined between teachers’ perception of organizational silence and organizational attractiveness. A one-unit increase in teachers’ perception of organizational silence caused a decrease of 0.32 units in the perception of organizational attractiveness (t = −5.08 p < 0.01). H3 was therefore supported.
  • A correlation of 0.61 units (inverse direction) relationship was found between teachers’ perceptions of instructional leadership and perceptions of organizational silence. A one-unit increase in teachers’ perceptions of instructional leadership caused a decrease of 0.61 units in their organizational silence (t = −4.01 p < 0.01). H4 is therefore supported.
  • A correlation of 0.23 units (same direction) was determined between teachers’ perceptions of instructional leadership and organizational attractiveness. A one-unit increase in teachers’ perceptions of instructional leadership caused an increase of 0.23 units in the perception of organizational attractiveness (t = 2.62 p < 0.01). H5 is therefore supported.
The results obtained for the hypotheses tested in the research model are given in Table 2. R2 in the table shows the variances explained by the model.
The Mann–Whitney U test was used to investigate whether the responses of the teachers to the scales differed according to gender. Statistically significant differences were found in terms of gender for all dimensions except for the organizational silence. Male teachers’ perceptions on transformational leadership (Z = −2.678 p = 0.007), instructional leadership (Z = −2.543 p = 0.011) and organizational attractiveness (Z = −1.973 p = 0.049) were found to be higher than those of female teachers. The results obtained are presented in Table 3.
In addition, the Kruskal–Wallis test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between teachers’ perceptions of variables according to age distribution. In the analysis, significant differences were found, specifically regarding transformational leadership, instructional leadership and organizational attractiveness where the factors were the highest in the 22–27 age group (X = 4.1297 X = 3.9495 X = 3.9857), while organizational silence is the highest in the 40–45 age group (X = 2.8834).
Critically reviewing the findings of our field research, we summarized the following results:
  • It was determined that teachers had medium-level perceptions of transformational leadership, instructional leadership, organizational silence, and organizational attractiveness. These results coincide with the studies of Berdebek [38], Arslan [26], Kurşunoğlu and Tanrıöğen [39].
  • An inverse relationship was found between teachers’ perceptions of transformational leadership and organizational silence, but this was not statistically significant. When compared to other studies in the literature, it has been observed that our results coincide completely with the studies of Günay and Köroğlu [40], Karabağ, K.E. [41], Ünlüönen and Çatır [42], and Batmunkh’s [25] (inverse relationship, statistically insignificant), while partially coincide with the studies of Demir [43], Atar [44], and Bogasian and Stefanchin [45] (inverse relationship, statistically significant). It was determined that there exists a same-direction relationship between transformational leadership perceptions and organizational attractiveness, that is, when the perceptions of transformational leadership increased, so did the perceptions of organizational attractiveness.
  • A reverse direction relationship between teachers’ perceptions of instructional leadership and organizational silence, and a same-direction relationship between their perceptions of instructional leadership and perceptions of organizational attractiveness were found. In other words, an increase in instructional leadership perceptions leads to a decrease in perceptions of organizational silence and an increase in perceptions of organizational attractiveness. This is in line with the results of Berdebek [38], Arslan [26], Kurşunoğlu and Tanrıöğen [39], and Batmunkh [27].

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

In summary, the effect of transformational and instructional leadership on organizational attractiveness was found to be positive in the same direction, and negative on organizational silence in reverse direction. In other words, an increase in transformational and instructional leadership behaviors increases organizational attractiveness and decreases organizational silence. In addition, the relationship between organizational silence and organizational attractiveness perceptions were found to be positive in reverse-direction. That is to say, high organizational perception reduces organizational silence.
The adoption of instructional and transformational leadership skills, which are among the contemporary leadership theories, in all educational institutions in general and in educational institutions within the aviation field in particular, will cause a decrease in the perception of organizational silence of the employees within the institution. Decreasing the perception of organizational silence will increase the organizational attractiveness of the institution. Increased organizational attractiveness will be an indicator of the high level of internal motivation. Since all these positive factors will create a positive organizational environment within the institution, they will increase the students’ academic achievements in a positive way.
Based on the results of our study and the findings from other research in this field in support to the main hypothesis, we can discuss the influence of the organizational silence on the sustainability of the academic organizations, as it influences the enabling processes and innovative structures mentioned by Lipton and Melamede [8] and Strain [9], and the collective intelligence as mentioned by Brown and Lauder [10]. The strength of the influence should be further investigated through additional field surveys. The managerial styles positively affecting organizational attractiveness are expected to also influence the sustainability positively through the pursuit of continuous improvement mentioned by Deming [11].
These academic findings can lead to practical recommendations for leaders of educational institutions. The recommendations focus on the importance of organizational attractiveness for teachers, and indirectly for students as well. Each educational institution wants to attract the best students and the best teachers. The leadership methods as shown by our research and supported by the research of others have a significant influence on attractiveness. Based on this, further investment in trainings of the teachers’ staff to improve the skills for transformational and instructional leadership will have a direct influence in lowering the organizational silence in their organizations and in improving the organizational attractiveness.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.A., U.A. and A.E.Ö.; Methodology, D.A. and U.A; Formal Analysis, D.A. and U.A.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, D.A.; Writing-Review and Editing, D.A. and U.A.; Supervision, U.A. and A.E.Ö.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We deeply thank anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions and constructive comments. We are grateful to the editors for their patient work on our manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Toprak, M.; Erdoğan, A. Yaşam boyu öğrenme: Kavram, politika, araçlar ve uygulama. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Derg. 2012, 2, 69–91. [Google Scholar]
  2. James, C.D.; Schmitz, C.L. Transforming sustainability education: Ethics, leadership, community engagement, and social entrepreneurship. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2011, 2, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  3. Leithwood, K.; Jantzi, D. A review of transformational school leadership research 1996–2005. Leadersh. Policy Sch. 2005, 4, 177–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Senge, P.M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  5. Fullan, M. Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform; Falmer: Bristol, PA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  6. Leithwood, K.; Louis, K.S. (Eds.) Organizational Learning in Schools; Swets and Zeitlinger: Downington, PA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  7. Mitchell, C.; Sackney, L. Profound Improvement: Building Capacity for a Learning Community; Swets and Zeitlinger: Downington, PA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  8. Lipton, L.; Melamede, R. Organizational learning: The essential journey. In The Process-Centered School: Sustaining a Renaissance Community; Costa, A.L., Liebmann, R.M., Eds.; Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  9. Strain, M. Schools in a learning society: New purposes and modalities of learning in late modern society. Educ. Manag. Admin. 2000, 28, 281–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Brown, P.; Lauder, H. Capitalism and Social Progress: The Future of Society in a Global Economy; Palgrave: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  11. Deming, W.E. Out of the Crisis; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  12. Mulford, W. Organizational learning and educational change. In International Handbook of Educational Change; Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., Hopkins, D., Eds.; Kluwer Academic: Norwell, MA, USA, 1998; pp. 616–641. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hallinger, P. Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Camb. J. Educ. 2003, 33, 329–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Barth, R. Improving School from Within; Jossy-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fullan, M. Leading in a Culture of Change; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  16. Robinson, V. The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: Making Sense of the Evidence; ACEReSearch: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  17. Robinson, V.M. Forging the links between distributed leadership and educational outcomes. J. Educ. Adm. 2008, 46, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Díaz-Sáenz, H.R. Transformational Leadershsip. In The SAGE Handbook of Leadership; Bryman, A., Collinson, D., Grint, K., Jackson, B., Uhl-Bien, M., Eds.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 299–310. [Google Scholar]
  19. Tabak, A. Lider ve Takipçileri; Asil Yayın Dağıtım: Ankara, Turkey, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  20. Çelik, V. Eğitimsel Liderlik, 2nd ed.; Pegem Yayıncılık: Ankara, Turkey, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  21. Tangirala, S.; Ramanujam, R. Employee silence in critical work issues: The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Pers. Psychol. 2008, 61, 37–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Aiman-Smith, L.; Bauer, T.N.; Cable, D.M. Are you attracted? Do you intend to pursue? A recruiting policy-capturing study. J. Bus. Psychol. 2001, 16, 219–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rynes, S.L. Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A call for new research directions. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Dunnette, M.D., Hough, L.M., Eds.; Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1991; pp. 399–444. [Google Scholar]
  24. Vakola, M.; Bouradas, D. Antecedents and consequences of organisational silence: An empirical investigation. Empl. Relat. 2005, 27, 441–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Akçay, A.D. Örgütsel çekicilik bağlamında otel işletmelerini rakiplerinden ayıran özellikler. Anadolu Uni. J. Soc. Sci. 2012, 14, 175–186. [Google Scholar]
  26. Arslan, M. Yeni İlköğretim Programının Uygulanmasında İlköğretim Okulu Yöneticilerinin Öğretimsel Liderlik Rollerine İlişkin Öğretmen Görüşleri. Master’s Thesis, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Turkey, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  27. Batmunkh, M. Liderlik Tarzları İle Örgütsel Bağlılık ve Örgütsel SessizlikArasındaki İlişki ve Bir Araştırma. Master’s Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul, Turkey, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  28. Karasar, N. Bilimselaraştırma Yöntemi: Kavramlar, Ilkeler, Teknikler; 3A Eğitim Danışmanlık: Ankara, Turkey, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  29. Creswell, J.W. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research; Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  30. Alig-Mielcarek, J.M. A Model of School Success: Instructional Leadership, Academic Press, and Student Achievement. Ph.D. Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  31. Şahin, S. Öğretimsel liderlik ve okul kültürü arasındaki ilişki (İzmir ili örneği). Kuram ve Uygul. Eğitim Bilimleri Derg. 2011, 11, 1909–1928. [Google Scholar]
  32. Brestrich, E.T. Yönetim Düşüncesinin Evriminde Liderliğin Gelişimi ve Dönüşümcü Liderlik ve bir Uygulama Örneği. Ph.D. Thesis, Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara, Turkey, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  33. Highhouse, S.; Lievens, F.; Sinar, E.F. Measuring attraction to organizations. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2003, 63, 986–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dural, S.; Aslan, G.; Alinçe, M.; Araza, A. Örgütsel çekicilik: Bir ölçek uyarlama çalışması. Doğuş Univ. Derg. 2014, 15, 141–154. [Google Scholar]
  35. Dyne, L.V.; Ang, S.; Botero, I.C. Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. J. Manag. Stud. 2003, 40, 1359–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Erdoğan, E. Etkili Liderlik Örgütsel Sessizlik ve Performans Ilişkisi. Master’s Thesis, Gebze Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü, Gebze, Turkey, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  37. Çatır, O. Dönüşümcü ve Etkileşimci Liderliğin Örgütsel Sessizlik Üzerine Etkisi: Otel Işletmelerinde bir Uygulama. Ph.D. Thesis, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Turkey, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  38. Berdebek, H. İlköğretim Okul Müdürlerinin Öğretimsel Liderlik Özelliklerinin Öğretmenlerin öz Yeterlikleri Üzerindeki Etkileri. Master’s Thesis, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Denizli, Turkey, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kurşunoglu, A.; Tanrıoğen, A. The relationship between teachers’ perceptions towards instructional leadership behaviors of their principals and teachers’ attitudes towards change. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2009, 1, 252–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Günay, E.; Köroğlu, A. Liderlik tarzları ve örgütsel sessizlik ilişkisi: Otel işletmelerinde bir araştırma. Seyahat ve Otel İşletmeciliği Derg. 2013, 10, 45–64. [Google Scholar]
  41. Karabağ Köse, E. İlköğretim Kurumu Öğretmenlerine Göre Okul Yöneticilerinin Liderlik Stilleri İle Örgütsel Öğrenme Arasındaki İlişkide Örgütsel Sessizlik ve Karara Katılımın Aracı Etkisi. Ph.D. Thesis, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Turkey, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ünlüönen, K.Ü.; Çatır, O. Dönüşümcü ve Etkileşimci Liderliğin Örgütsel Sessizlik Üzerine Etkisi: Otel İşletmelerinde Bir Araştırma. Seyahat ve Otel İşletmeciliği Derg. 2016, 13, 37–68. [Google Scholar]
  43. Demir, B. Dönüşümcü Liderlik ile Örgütsel Sessizlik Arasındaki İlişkiler Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Master’s Thesis, Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Samsun, Turkey, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  44. Atar, A. Etkileşimci ve Dönüşümcü Liderliğin Örgütsel Sessizlik, Örgütsel Sinizm ve Psikolojik İyi Oluş Üzerine Etkisi. Ph.D. Thesis, Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara, Turkey, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bogasian, R.; Stefanchin, J. Silence is not always consent: Employee silencebarrier to knowledge transfer. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Organisational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities, Washington, DC, USA, 25–27 April 2013. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 11 05618 g001 550
Figure 1. Research Model.
Figure 1. Research Model.
Sustainability 11 05618 g001
Sustainability 11 05618 g002 550
Figure 2. Relationships on the Effect of TL and IL on OS and OA.
Figure 2. Relationships on the Effect of TL and IL on OS and OA.
Sustainability 11 05618 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographic Distribution of Participants.
Table 1. Demographic Distribution of Participants.
Total
Gender MaleFemale
n384365 749
%51.348.7 100
Age 22–2728–3334–3940–4546–5152+
n37213189685930749
%49.717.511.79.184100
Education GraduateMasterDoctorate
n57115820 749
%76.221.12.7 100
Duration
of Service		 0–56–1112–1718–2324–2930+
n219292115524427749
%29.23915.475.83.6100
Duration of Service in the Assoc. 1–56–1011+
n356289104 749
%47.538.613.9 100
Branch Ground ServicesAircraft EngineAircraft ElectronicsOther
n333722657 749
%4.44.9387.7 100
Table
Table 2. Results Related to Hypotheses, Standardized Parameter Estimation Values and Structural Equations.
Table 2. Results Related to Hypotheses, Standardized Parameter Estimation Values and Structural Equations.
HypothesesRelationsStd. Loadst ValuesR2Results
H1TL → OS−0.46−0.060.0036NOT Supported
H2DL → OA0.425.320.180Supported
H3OS → OA−0.32−5.080.102Supported
H4IL → OS−0.61−4.010.372Supported
H5IL → OA0.232.620.053Supported
Structural Equations
OS = −0.029 * TL − 0.29 * IL, R2 = 0.45
OA = −0.64 * OS + 0.40 * TL + 0.22 * IL, R2 = 0.78
Table
Table 3. Differences Between Gender Responses to Scales.
Table 3. Differences Between Gender Responses to Scales.
ScalesGenderNMeanStd. Dev.ZP
TLMale3843.79520.89984−2.6780.007
Female3653.57111.02837
ILMale3843.65590.79599−2.5430.011
Female3653.46700.92910
OSMale3842.73830.28547−0.3870.698
Female3652.74230.32321
OAMale3843.71530.81974−1.9730.049
Female3653.58170.89825

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Atalay, D.; Akçıl, U.; Özkul, A.E. Effects of Transformational and Instructional Leadership on Organizational Silence and Attractiveness and Their Importance for the Sustainability of Educational Institutions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5618. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205618

AMA Style

Atalay D, Akçıl U, Özkul AE. Effects of Transformational and Instructional Leadership on Organizational Silence and Attractiveness and Their Importance for the Sustainability of Educational Institutions. Sustainability. 2019; 11(20):5618. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205618

Chicago/Turabian Style

Atalay, Davut, Umut Akçıl, and Ali Efdal Özkul. 2019. "Effects of Transformational and Instructional Leadership on Organizational Silence and Attractiveness and Their Importance for the Sustainability of Educational Institutions" Sustainability 11, no. 20: 5618. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205618

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop