Decision Making Process According to Perceptions of School Administrators: A Case Study in Educational Institutions [Okul Yöneticilerinin Algılarına Göre Karar Alma Süreci: Bir Durum Çalışması]

Year 2021, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 44 - 57, 31.12.2021

Alper Uslukaya , Zülfü Demirtaş

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze the perceptions of school administrators who are graduate students in the Department of Educational Administration, about the decision-making process which is considered one of the most important elements of management. Qualitative case study as a method, semi-structured interview forms for data-collection were used, and content analysis was applied to the collected data. The study was implemented with 68 school administrators who are graduate students at the Institute of Educational Sciences, Educational Administration Graduate Programme without thesis. Six main themes were developed as a result of the analysis of the data obtained from the research. As a result of the research, the participants had attitudes which can be considered as authoritarian mostly, during the process of decision making. And it was determined that they approached with problem-solving to the decision-making process. In addition, the participants' emphasis on conservative and nationalist reflexes were identified beside the limited perception of decision.

Keywords

Management Process, Decision Making, Education Management, School Administrator

References

• Aydın, M. (2005). Eğitim Yönetimi. Ankara: Hatipoğlu Yayıncılık.
• Bağırkan, Ş. (1983). Karar Verme. İstanbul: Der Yayınları.
• Bazerman, M. H. ve Chug, D. (2006). Decisions without blinders. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 88-97.
• Bellman, R.E. ve Zadeh, L.A. (1970). Decision making in a fuzzy environment. Management Science, 17 (4), 141-164.
• Bursalıoğlu, Z. (2002). Okul Yönetiminde Yeni Yapı ve Davranış. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
• Can, H. (2005). Organizasyon ve Yönetim. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
• Can, H. ve Tecer, M. (1978). İşletme Yönetimi. Ankara: Doğan Basımevi.
• Chapman, G. ve Niedermayer, L.Y. (2001). What counts as a decision? Predictors of perceived decision making. Psychon Bull Rev, 8,3, 615–621.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (3. baskı). (M. Bütün ve S. B. Demir, Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Siyasal.
• Demirtaş, Z. ve Alanoğlu, M. (2015). Öğretmenlerin karara katılım ve iş doyumu arasındaki ilişki. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(2), 83-100.
• Dewey, J. (1996), Demokrasi ve Eğitim, (Çev. M. Salih Otaran), İstanbul: Başarı Yayımcılık.
• Draft, R.L. (2015). Örgüt Kuramları ve Tasarımını Anlamak. (Ö.N.T. Özmen, Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel.
• Drodge, S. ve Cooper, N. (1998). Strategy and management in the further education sector. (M. Preedy, R. Glatter ve R. Levačić Eds.). Educational Management: Strategy, Quality and Resources içinde.
• Drucker P. F. (1992). Etkin Yöneticilik. (A. Özden ve N. Tunalı, Çev.). İstanbul: Eti.
• Emhan, A. (2007). Karar verme süreci ve bu süreçte bilişim sistemlerinin kullanılması. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6 (21), 212-224.
• Hall, D., Guo, Y. ve Davis, R.A. (2003). Developing a value-based decision-making model for inquiring organizations. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Big Island, Hawai.
• Harrison, E. F. (1987). The Managerial Decision Making Process. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company.
• Hoy, W.K. ve Miskel, C.G. (2012). Eğitim Yönetimi: Teori, Araştırma ve Uygulama. (S. Turan, Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel.
• İnandı, Y. ve Gılıç, F. (2016). Relationship of teachers’ readiness for change with their participation in decision making and school culture. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(8), 823-833.
• Jones, G. R. (1995). Organizational theory: Texts and cases. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
• Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi: İlkeler-Kavramlar-Teknikler. (23. baskı), Ankara: Nobel.
• Knezevich, S. J. (1969). Administration of Public Education. New York: Harper ve Row.
• Koçel, T.(2007). İşletme Yöneticiliği. İstanbul: Arıkan Basın Yayım.
• Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
• Lipham, J. M. (1974). Making effective decisions. (J.A. Culbertson, C. Hensen, C. ve R. Morrison, Eds.), Performance Objectives for School Principals içinde, (83-111). CA: McCuthcan.
• Lunenburg, F. C. ve Ornstein, A. C. (2000). Educational administration: Concepts and practices (3. baskı.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
• Miles, M. B. ve Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. USA: SAGE Publications.
• Moorhead, G. ve Griffin, W.R. (2000). Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organization (5. baskı). Delhi: AITB.
• Mullins, J.L. (2000). Management and Organizational Behavior (9. baskı). London: Pearson Education.
• Preffer, J. ve Sutton, R.I. (2006). Evidence based- management. Harvard Bussiness Review.
• Rogers, P. ve Blenko, M. (2006). Who has the D? How clear decision roles enhance organizational performance, Harvard Business Review.
• Silverman, D. (2015). Interpreting qualitative data. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Susca, P.T. (2018). Using processes to prevent and predict risk. Professional Safety, 63(8), 18-21.
• Sweetland, S.R. ve Hoy, W.K. (2000). School charasteristics and educational outcomes: Toward on organizational model of student achievement in middle schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 703-729.
• Tarter, C.J. ve Hoy, W.K. (1997). Toward a contingency theory of decision making. Journal Of Educational Administration, 36, 212, 212-228.
• Tortop, N., İşbir, E.G. ve Aykaç, B. (1999). Yönetim Bilimi. Ankara: Yargı Yayınevi.
• Weiss, C.H. ve Cambone, J. (1994). Principals, shared decision making, and school reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(3), 287-301.
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (7. baskı). Ankara: Seçkin.