Sakarya University Journal of Education, 4/1 (Nisan /April 2014) ss. 49-61.

School As A Social

Kıvanç BOZKUŞ*

Abstract

Social system perspective which belongs to theory has been elaborated comprehensively using its founders’ ideas, and characteristics of schools have been explained consulting to this perspective. The course of idea has been reviewed along with its relation to other systems. How researchers who assumes schools as social systems define the main components of the school has been reviewed. By attaching importance to the humane side of school, social systems perspective differentiates school from for profit organizations. For this reason, social has been one of the most realistic models for schools. The assumptions behind this assertion are examined. It is probable that this perspective sheds light on research conducted in educational organizations.

Key Words: Social systems, systems theory, schools.

Bir Sosyal Sistem Olarak Okul Özet

Sistemler kuramına ait olan sosyal sistem görüşü, kurucularının fikirlerinden yararlanılarak kapsamlı bi- çimde ele alınmış ve bu kuram ile okulların özellikleri açıklanmıştır. Sosyal sistem fikrinin gelişim süreci, diğer sistemlerle olan ilişkisiyle birlikte incelenmiştir. Okulları sosyal sistemler olarak ele alan araştırmacı- ların, okulun temel parçalarını nasıl tanımladıkları da ele alınmıştır. Sosyal sistem görüşü okulun insani yönüne dikkat çekerek okulu kar amaçlı kurumlardan ayrı tutmuştur. Bu nedenle sosyal sistemler kuramı okulları en gerçekçi açıklayabilen modellerden birisi olagelmiştir. Bu savın arkasındaki varsayımlar ince- lenmiştir. Bu görüşün eğitim kurumlarında yürütülen araştırmalara ışık tutması mümkün görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Sosyal sistemler, sistemler teorisi, okullar.

* Arş. Gör., Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi, [email protected] SAÜ Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü

50 INTRODUCTION tability. For this reason, school systems were associated with open systems perspective Schools are important organizations that pre- which is considered an integration of both pare our children for adult roles. Their working former systems (Hoy & Miskel, 2005). Besides mechanism has a strong effect on the quality of organizational roles, behaviors of individuals education. There are many theories that try to were also ruled by personal needs. explain the nature of the school organizations. Among them, social systems theory has been Researchers needed to explain how schools one of the most realistic models for schools. work under a more comprehensive model This paper examines the assumptions behind called social systems theory. Parsons, Getzels, this assertion and tries to find out the characte- Guba, Lipham, Campbell, Hoy and Miskel ristics of schools that can be explained or inter- were the leading researchers that adapted this preted using social systems theory. theory to schools. This theory inherits key con- cepts from its predecessors. Therefore, we was the first formulator of should explore rational, natural, and open Social systems. They are based on interpersonal systems theories in order to understand social relationships regardless of their size and com- systems. plexity, and they consists of individual actors interacting in a culturally structured system The purpose of this paper is twofold: (a) to full of shared symbols (Parsons, 1951). Social elaborate social systems theory and (b) to in- systems have three basic characteristics called vestigate how scholars who accept schools as the interdependence of the parts, their organi- social systems define basic characteristics of zation into some sort of whole, and the intrinsic schools and relate them with the theory, or to presence of both individuals and institutions learn how they visualize schools as social sys- (Getzels, Lipham & Campbell, 1968). tems.

After the Second World War, schools were Systems Theory considered as formal organizations that are Scholars have developed various perspectives structured to accomplish organizational goals. under the systems theory to analyze organiza- Organizational behavior was assumed to be tions through different lenses. In this section, rational and consisted of rational interactions of perspectives of rational systems, natural sys- individuals. However, schools’ goals and activ- tems, open systems and social systems will be ities were not linked with clear lines of com- elaborated. munication, so people within schools were not acting to achieve collective goals which are Rational systems essential in rational systems. Apparently, Rational systems perspective views organiza- schools had resemblance to natural systems tions as machines built to achieve some desired which contain groups that work to achieve not ends. Their main purpose is to mold every only organizational goals but also their own aspect of an organization specifically in respect goals. to a proven prescription in order to ensure its Schools had features of both rational and natu- working in a solid and stable fashion. By utiliz- ral systems and also have strong relationships ing what already is known to be working, any with their external environment that stems risk of failure and emergence of undesired from the dependence on resources and accoun- outcomes are eliminated. The assumption is Sakarya University Journal of Education

51 that if everything stays within the lines of logic, Natural Systems so will the outcomes. While rational systems emphasize goals, natu- Goals ral systems propose that organizations, in fact, strive to survive and the goals are meaningful Organizations are formed for a main purpose: as long as they help the organization’s survival. to accomplish goals. Goals specify the out- Therefore, the organization may modify or comes to be achieved through organizational even remove the goals when necessary. Organ- activities. The nature of activities and the orga- izations are consist of social nizational structure to carry out activities de- elements and therefore cannot be used as tools pend on the specificity of the goals. Less speci- and thrown away when the goals are accom- ficity makes it harder to design a structure plished. They tend to exist even after there while allowing choosing among various activi- remain no more goals to achieve (Gouldner, ties. However, “vague goals do not provide a 1959). Natural systems emphasize the human solid basis for formal organizations. Either the side of organizations, and they reject the dual- goals become more specific and limited over ism that splits people and organizations time… or the structures developed are likely to (Greenfield & Ribbins, 1993). be unstable and amorphous” (Scott, 1998, p. 35). Informal organization

Formal organization Individuals have to interact with each other to carry out organizational goals. They learn each Formalization derives from the bureaucratic other’s personal life, habits, feelings etc. Some structure of rational systems. Within rational people are liked and respected while others are systems there are hierarchies of authority, divi- not. Those who are followed have an informal sion of labor, work specialization, rules and authority over others. Those who are disliked regulations. All these are typically associated may be alienated. Also, when personal interests with bureaucracy. Organizational goals require differ from those of organizations, informal obedience to clear rules which leave little room structures are more likely to occur. Research for interpretation. Obedience is enforced shows that within each formal organization, through rewards and sanctions. informal structures occur inevitably (Hoy & Individuals within organizations are assigned Miskel, 2005). to specific roles that are independent of their Although informal organization is first empha- personality. The goal here is to make behavior sized by natural systems theory, it should not predictable by standardizing roles (Scott, 1998). be conceived of unique to natural systems. So, each person does exactly what s/he is pre- While being a formal organization, social sys- scribed to do and produces only the desired tems too are to some extent informal organiza- outcomes that are essential to working of the tions. To understand a social system as a organization. This resembles to a machine. whole, one should look at both formal and Each part does its job and the machine works in informal organizations within it. Social systems a linear fashion. However, human beings are cannot survive without an informal organiza- not as simple as the parts of a machine and tion that allows “maintenance of group cohe- they cannot be expected to be always rational sion through regulating the willingness to serve and work like robots. This assumption was later defended by advocates of natural systems. SAÜ Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü

52 and the stability of objective authority” (Get- role and personality. The amounts of contribu- zels, Lipham & Campbell, 1968, p. 42). tions of these two factors vary according to persons and actions, but never only one of Individual needs and social behavior them rules the behavior. One can act according Getzels and Guba (1957) define the administra- to the role more than personality while another tive process as strongly related to social beha- individual’s behavior is affected mostly by vior of individuals within organizations. They personality. For the authors, the administration propose a social system theory for settings with process in social systems is nothing but under- a hierarchy of relationships. Two components standing why organizational behavior cannot of their theory are institutions and individuals. be associated with only either role or personali- Each of them has two sub-components. Institu- ty. tional roles and role expectations constitute the Open Systems nomothetic, and individual personality and need-dispositions constitute the idiographic Open systems theory was developed as a reac- dimension of social behavior. The authors arti- tion to former rational and natural system culate characteristics of institutions and indi- theories that described schools as independent viduals. Institutions have purposes to meet of their external environment. Open systems specific ends, have people to achieve purposes, are affected from outer forces while being si- have organizational structure which assigns multaneously dependent on them. Their boun- roles to people and makes rules to achieve daries are broader than those of classical closed purposes, have norms that are represented as school systems, and hard to identify clearly. roles that impose specific behavior on individ- The main element that distinguishes open sys- uals, are sanction-bearing which means apply- tems from the others is the transformation ing positive and negative sanctions to make process. It is the process of raw materials (in- sure that norms are conformed. Roles prescribe puts) into products (outputs). In an educational the behavior of individuals. They refer to posi- setting (e.g. school), inputs can be considered tional authority, complement each other, and as pupils and outputs as graduates. Therefore, adhere to role expectations defined by the insti- the system continuously takes sources from its tution. Personality is a combination of need environment and then transforms them accord- dispositions that direct a person to accomplish ing to the environment’s needs. An important a desired end. element of this interaction called feedback, information about the quality of the process, In short, Getzels and Guba (1957) define social lets the system correct and enhance itself. behavior as a result of the interaction between Sakarya University Journal of Education

53

Figure 1. Schematization of open systems.

Early theorists of social systems identified them held in common were unimportant relative to as closed systems (Getzels & Guba, 1957; Luh- the other variables, then the principal can be mann, 1995). That perspective did not work for regarded as being loosely coupled with the schools as they are strongly interrelated to their teacher” (p.3). environment. Schools are dependent on exter- Regarding to the amount of autonomy that nal sources by nature. In a simplistic sense, subsystems have, the school structure can be they need funds and children from the outside described as loosely or tightly coupled. Since of their boundaries. They are accountable for never a single form of coupling suits well to producing ends that are not specified by them- every situation, leaders should exercise both selves but by their communities. By acknowl- forms as needed (Kowalski, 2010). Open sys- edging these realities, Hoy and Miskel (2005) tems tend to be loosely coupled. Scott (1998) assert that social systems are, at the same time, explains this by stating that “one of the main open systems. contributions of the open system perspective is Loose Coupling the recognition that many systems-especially social systems-contain elements that are only Research reveals that connections between weakly connected to other elements and that rules and behaviors and among structural units are capable of fairly autonomous actions” may not consist of solid lines, and schools have (p.88). As a result, teachers got freedom in their little coordination within the subsystems of the classroom activities under weak administration organization, a situation known as loose coupl- scrutiny. This is useful because teachers are ing. Glassman (1973) was one of the first re- experts of instruction while principals are searchers who used the term, and he asserts skilled at administration. Thus, teachers can that “the degree of coupling, or interaction, make use of their expertise if they are not dis- between two systems depends on the activity rupted by the administration. Some researchers of the variables which they share” (p. 84). Thus, supported teachers’ freedom and little accoun- if there are few variables to be shared between tability for their professional activities to let systems then they are independent of each them utilize various student abilities (Dellar, other. Weick (1976) adapts this to schools by 1994). Other than teacher autonomy, loosely remarking that “…if we did not find many coupled structures of schools increase decentra- variables in the teacher's world to be shared in lization and adaptation (Weick, 1976). Tight the world of a principal and/or if the variables SAÜ Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü

54 coupling is a result of rationalization. There- These assumptions help us grasp the common fore, schools that are less rational systems tend characteristics of social systems. These charac- to be loosely coupled. teristics are elaborated under related sections of this paper. Social Systems Hoy and Miskel (2005) visualize the elements To understand social systems, it is helpful to of social systems. Their model resembles Getzel delve into the main characteristics that asserted and Guba’s (1957) open systems model. How- by researchers contributing to the development ever, they incorporate their own perspective of of this theory. Hoy and Miskel (2005) bring social systems by blending rational and natural together the assumptions of various researchers systems models. They inject four sub-systems and incorporate them into educational settings. into the transformation process. Each sub- Many researchers assert that social systems are system will be elaborated according to their peopled, goal oriented, structural, normative, view. sanction bearing, political, and open systems.

Figure 2. The elements of social systems (Hoy & Miskel, 2005, p. 31).

Structural system

The structural system is similar to those of Similar to the emergence of informal organiza- formal organizations. Bureaucratic expectations tions, emerges from interactions of rule organizational behavior. Roles that are individuals within a system. As individuals derived from those expectations are interact, they share values, beliefs, habits and represented by positions in a hierarchy. The gain an identity as a group. This is a natural hierarchy distributes tasks to specialized indi- outcome of all social systems. Culture is the viduals, and the Organization is a result of the most visible aspect of the organizational life division of labor (Parsons, 1960). The structure that distinguishes it from others. Culture signif- of social systems inherits many elements from icantly affects behavior through establishing rational, natural and open systems theories. For commitment to shared norms among individu- example, social systems have both formal and als. In other words, culture represents the un- informal organizations within them. written, feeling part that is the set of values, Sakarya University Journal of Education

55 norms and beliefs of the organization (Daft, profit their private affairs at the expense of the 2009). organization. It is illegitimate because it is not stemmed from any formal authority, therefore Hofstede (1991) defines culture as “the collec- it does not have to be in accordance with ac- tive programming” of the members of an or- cepted standards of the organization. Hence, it ganization (p. 262). They have attitudes which is immune to the sanctions of formal authority. stimulate them to act on a favorable fashion Also, from the social behavior perspective, (Rokeach, 1972). It can be said that attitude utilizes the absolute use of individualis- governs one’s mind while culture governs the tic needs, and thus ignores the organizational organizational mind. Therefore, each member’s role expectations. Consequently, it benefits attitudes gathered in a pool called culture. individual interests only. However, this does Individual system not mean that politics is always harmful to the Each individual has a different set of needs and organization. Mintzberg (1983) claims that beliefs that affect behavior. Unlike organiza- politics can provide the organization with tional expectations, individual needs and ex- many advantages. One advantage of the politi- pectations are flexible and adaptable to formal cal system is that it forces a school to be re- roles, and thus they provide a room for discre- sponsible to its environment. Schools must pay tion in behavior. Individuals interpret their attention to external pressures, respond to their roles according to their behavior. Confirming demands, and produce outcomes. In other Getzel and Guba’s (1957) idea, Hoy and Miskel words, schools are compelled to be open sys- (2005) claim that social behavior is formed by tems by political forces. Actually, the political the interaction of bureaucratic expectations and system is in strong relation with the open sys- individual needs. Along with behavior, indi- tem, and share many similarities. It is clear that vidual needs and beliefs also form feelings. politics is informal and illegitimate, yet an Social systems have strong links with “the inevitable factor affecting organizational beha- attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, motivations, vior (Hoy & Miskel, 2005). habits, and expectations of human beings” Characteristics of Schools (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p. 37). Since people are an important element of social systems, their posi- In this section, some characteristics of schools tive feelings toward the organization signifi- including structure, culture, climate, leader- cantly affect the overall health of the system. ship, decision making and relationships among personnel will be elaborated from the perspec- tive of the social systems theory.

Politics inevitably appear in organizations Structure (Senge, 1990). Politics emerges from the interac- tion of authority and power within an organi- As social systems, schools’ structures have zation. There are three sources of power in an characteristics of rational, natural, and open organization. Formal power originates from the systems. They have hierarchies of authority, structural system, the cultural system produces goals, and role expectations similar to bureau- informal power, and individuals have the pow- cratic organizations. Individual needs affect er of expertise. Politics is the way of how some employee behavior, organizational goals are individuals use their influence for their inter- not firm, informal organizations derive from ests. They often use their power at backstage to interactions among individuals, and schools SAÜ Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü

56 have to interact with their environment. Ko- For instance, since teachers work alone instead walski (2010) asserts that schools are social of in teams, the structure of schools tends to be systems and have three qualities: arbitrary and hierarchically flat because it has few hierarchic- consequential boundaries, interrelated subsys- al levels (Ben-Baruch, 1983). However, creating tems, and multiple causation- events happen as work groups and freeing them from intense a consequence of more than one cause. supervision let teachers be more creative and responsible for teaching (Kinsler & Gamble, Schools are staffed by professionals, so they 2001). have some disadvantages of professionalism such as unions’ striving to limit principals’ When a bureaucratic organization relies heavi- control over teachers, uneven distribution of ly on sanctions to ensure performance and pay, teachers’ lack of skills in professionalism obedience of staff, a process called “decadence (Dornbusch & Glasgow, 1996). As open sys- of the hierarchy” becomes inevitable (Ben- tems, schools have relationships with external Baruch, 1983, p. 112). Individuals who fear agencies like unions. Exertion of political pow- their superiors tend to be safe by selecting er and authority between schools and the agen- subordinates who are less competent than they cies becomes an element of the school structure. should be. This leaves the lower ranks of the hierarchy staffed by unskilled people. To avoid Schools are institutional organizations whose this, recruitment of superintendents and prin- structures are formed by societal rules and cipals should be done by the community (Ben- beliefs, so an emphasis on how schools re- Baruch, 1983). sponse to those rules and beliefs becomes a main aspect to explain and evaluate their struc- Schools in decentralized education systems that tures (Dornbusch & Glasgow, 1996). School as allow them to be locally involved in social an institution is “a natural product of social needs of people around them are more likely to needs and pressures” (Selznick, 1957, p. 5). This be open and social systems. Community mem- too proves that schools are open systems that bers have an impact on educational decisions are dependent on and affected by their envi- made in schools. Schools are obliged to pro- ronment. For example, in low socio economic duce outcomes that are desirable by their envi- status communities, parents often do not de- ronments. To please parents, schools must mand high academic quality from schools. continuously interact with them to learn their Because of this weak external pressure, schools needs and to get feedback on educational in those communities expect less performance processes. Since education is complicated and from students and have low standards (Dorn- not routine, schools can perform better with a busch & Glasgow, 1996). decentralized structure (Bolman & Deal, 1984). On the other hand, in centralized educational Ben-Baruch (1983) asserts that schools have six systems, environmental pressures are directed basic traits. They are people-processing organi- to departments of education, and thus schools zations, goal oriented, structural, and consist of are completely responsible to the department. processes, communication and decision making This results in a formation of a pyramidal hie- activities. The structure of social organizations rarchy that limits community intervention. is related to relationships of professionals with- However, in decentralized systems, hierarchy in the organizations. Thus, the structure is is flat, so schools are in direct interaction with closely aligned with the nature of interactions their communities. and it is affected by working styles of people. Sakarya University Journal of Education

57 Culture and Climate (Kowalski, 2010). New teachers learn shared values, beliefs and norms when they interact Distinguishing culture from the climate is a and build relationships with their colleagues. difficult one and vice versa. They share many During conversations, they are informally things in common, but still there are differences taught ways of accepted behavior. This brings between them “whereas climate is about feel- us back to the natural systems theory which ings and behavior, culture is more focused on admits informal socialization among individu- values, beliefs, and assumptions underlying als within an organization. feelings and behavior…” (Kowalski, 2010, p. 43). Leadership and Decision Making

Climate represents an organization’s distin- In social systems of schools an important aspect guishing characteristics, feeling and behavior of leadership is the quality and systematic that can be presented with a framework which effects of functions and behaviors of principals consists of four elements: physical frame is the as leaders. Principals’ behaviors can be in- physical factors of a school like equipment, spected under social systems theory. In many classrooms etc., social frame is the social envi- schools, principals’ social behavior surrounds ronment mostly related to social behavior of all other individuals and processes from deci- individuals within a school, structural frame sion making to the evaluation of organizational represents factors such as hierarchy, authority, efficiency. role, and symbolic frame is the parts of culture Kowalski (2010) offers school improvement like believes, norms, values (Kowalski, 2010). through decision making as the main focus of Kowalski (2010) categorizes school climate school leadership. However, there may be according to disposition to interactions. He times when teachers do not agree and follow. categorizes interactions as internal and exter- The functional perspective of Getzels, Lipham nal. Internal interactions consist of interactions and Campbell’s (1968) administrative process among teachers, and between teachers and the may shed light on these situations. Functions principal while external interactions consist of are considered as the allocation of roles and interactions with parents and other stakehold- facilities. Therefore, principals should revise ers outside the school. He puts both internal the functions of administrative processes. and external interactions on the same conti- Leaders in similar social systems exhibit diver- nuum. Therefore, individuals in schools that gent behavior which is associated with organi- have open climates have to interact with other zational role and personality (Getzels & Guba, individuals from both inside and outside of the 1957; Kowalski, 2010). Kowalski (2010) explains school. However, this can be generalized to why school principals even in the same districts open systems only. A school that is closed to its behave differently. He extends Getzels and external environment may have a great amount Guba’s (1957) social behavior theory by adding of interactions among individuals inside the a new dimension called work context. Formal building. Therefore, we can assume that the role expectations and personal facets are the author already considers schools as open social dimensions inherited from the social behavior systems. theory. Work context consists of culture and School culture is preserved and transferred to politics within and around (e.g. community) new members by the socialization process schools. His assertion is based on open systems SAÜ Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü

58 theory and is an attempt to conceive of social political forces even when they are inconsistent systems as open systems opposing to Getzels with the principal’s formal role expectations and Guba’s (1957) closed social systems pers- and personal facets. For example, a principal pective. Therefore, he implies that schools inte- who expresses his ideas about sex education ract with their environments, and they are which are incongruent with the local values under the influence of outer forces just like any may be chastised by the local community and other open and social system. Principals’ lea- be given a formal warning by the superinten- dership is influenced by cultural standards and dent.

Figure 3. Principal behavior (Kowalski, 2010, p. 52)

Individuals and organizations try to impose Relationships their motives on each other. The process done Social organizations like schools are stemmed by the organization is called the socializing from interaction among people both within and process, and the personalizing process when it outside of the organization. Relationships with- is done by the individual. Problems occur if in school building and with the community are there is discordance between the two processes. essential elements of socialization and have a Therefore, leaders should seek harmony be- significant impact on many vital processes. tween them (Getzels, Lipham & Campbell, Building and maintaining relationships can be 1968). In addition, there are two views about considered as a process by which principals the ownership of leadership. One view asserts and teachers link learning that occurs inside that an individual who has the greatest influ- and outside of the building (Kowalski, 2010). ence and leadership capabilities is the leader of Since the social behavior forms those interac- a group. The other view claims that leadership tions, its perspective can be useful to some naturally occurs and shared within a social extent in analyzing relationships. For example, group. Therefore, leadership belongs to the problems may occur when roles and personali- group instead of a single individual (Hoy & ty conflict (Getzels, Lipham & Campbell, 1968). Miskel, 2005). The shared leadership aspect of Compatibility of personality with organiza- the second view is related to the distributed tional roles is so important that administrators leadership framework. Spillane and Healey must consider it from the beginning of staff (2010) assert that individuals without any for- relationships that is the recruitment. It is wise mal leadership designation can be leaders too. to hire people who fit best to the school’s goals Therefore, even teachers and students may take to maintain smooth relationships and educa- responsibility for leadership roles. tional operations. However, given the complex- ity of personality, some incompatibilities are inevitable, so people who can tolerate them and Sakarya University Journal of Education

59 make compromises would be targeted when clarify role expectations and increase two-way hiring (Getzels, Lipham & Campbell, 1968). communication opportunities within schools. After hiring people whose personalities let In some large educational settings, the recruit- them adapt to their roles, administrators must ment process is standardized and strongly clarify the roles in detail by engaging new staff aligned with organizational needs neglecting in two-way communication that requires let- personal aspects. Protesting this notion, Get- ting them express their feedback. Otherwise, zels, Lipham and Campbell (1968) propose a administrators cannot feel certain that they are model for the recruitment of new personnel. understood. Two-way communication is also People are very important. Social organizations important in daily organizational life. To over- are peopled and every action is carried out by come problems caused by lack of communica- them. Their needs should be taken into consid- tion, the authors suggest dividing the organiza- eration when choosing their future peers. After tion into subunits, so the staff may find more all, the new staff will interact with them more opportunity for face to face conversations. The than with their administrators. Therefore, the division of labor and work specialization plays prospective staff should be informed of perso- a role here. nality requirements for the job and encouraged to interact with the already-employed staff Conclusions before the recruitment to learn informally how Social systems theory has been a sound pers- the school works. Otherwise problems result- pective to explain the working of schools. It ing from conflicts between roles and personali- offered scholars to consider the many aspects of ties may occur. school organizations which are full of social Their model makes sense from the point of beings. Schools are different from for profit social systems, but it is hard to implement in organizations, for they produce public service centralized educational settings in where instead of goods. Mechanistic views fail to people are hired through standardized focus on human relations side of educational processes due to the vast amount of prospects settings. Therefore it is more rational to think entering into the profession each year. Especial- schools through the lens of social systems ly in the countries where principals have no theory. Vast amount of research are carried out power to hire teachers and other staff, the re- to investigate teachers’, administrators’, stu- cruitment is carried out by the departments of dents’ and parents’ perceptions of many va- education, so this model has limited applicabil- riables mostly related to interactions among ity in those countries. To avoid problems re- those people in schools. Social systems perspec- sulting from role-personality conflicts, the tive can set the stage for constructing a back- authors suggest that administrators should ground and rationale for those research.

References Ben-Baruch, E. (1983). Schools as social systems. Beersheba: Ben Gurion University. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Campbell, R. F., Cunningham, L. L., Nystrand, R. O., & Usdan, M. D. (1990). The organization and control of American schools. New York: Macmillan. Daft, R. L. (2009). Organization theory and design. (10 ed.). Mason: South-Western College Publishing. SAÜ Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü

60 Dellar, G. B. (1994). Schools as open social systems: A study of site specific restructuring. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA, April 4-8, 1994. Dornbusch, S. M., & Glasgow, K. L. (1996). The social structures of schooling. Annual Review of Psycholo- gy, 47(1), 401. Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1957). Social behavior and the administrative process. The School Re- view, 65(4), 423-441. Getzels, J. W., Lipham, J. M. & Campbell, R. F. (1968). Educational administration as a social process. New York, Harper & Row. Glassman, R. B. (1973). Persistence and loose coupling in living systems. Behavioral Science, 18, 83-98. Gouldner, A. W. (1959). Organizational analysis. In R. K. Merton (Ed.). today (pp. 400-428). New York: Basic Books. (As cited by Scott, 1998). Greenfield, T., & Ribbins, P. (1993). Greenfield on educational administration. London: Routledge. Hofstede, G. (1991). and organizations: software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill UK. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C.G. (2005). Educational administration. (7 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2 ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kinsler, K., & Gamble, M. (2001). Reforming schools. New York: Continuum. Kowalski, T. J. (2010). The school principal: Visionary leadership and competent management. New York: Rout- ledge. Luhmann, N. (1995), Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York: Free Press. Parsons, T. (1958). Some ingredients of a general theory of formal organization. In A.W. Halpin (Ed.). Administrative theory in education. Chicago: University of Chicago. (As cited by Getzels, Lipham, & Campbell, 1968). Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern . New York: Free Press. Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations. (4 ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday. Spillane, J. P., & Healey, K. (2010). Conceptualizing school leadership and management from a distri- buted perspective. The Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 253-281. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quar- terly, 21(1), 1-19.