The Impact of Leadership Styles on Groupthink : the Case of Turkish

Home , Groupthink, Kilis Province

THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLES ON GROUPTHINK:

THE CASE OF TURKISH TEACHERS

Adem Kaya

APPROVED BY SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:

______Meghna Sabharwal, Chair

______Doug Goodman

______R. Paul Battaglio, Jr.

Adem Kaya

support, and affection. THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLES ON GROUPTHINK:

THE CASE OF TURKISH TEACHERS

ADEM KAYA, BA, MS

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Faculty of

The University of Texas at Dallas

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN

PUBLIC AFFAIRS

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS

August 2020 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my deep and unlimited gratitude to my Chair, Dr. Meghna

Sabharwal. This study would never be complete without her help, encouragement and patience.

Secondly, I would like to give my special thanks to Dr. Paul Battaglio who is the inspiration behind this research. My PhD education would definitely be incomplete without him. Also, I am grateful to my committee members, Dr. Doug Goodman and Dr. Sarah Maxwell for their guidance.

I joined this program with a group of Turkish District Governors. Being the last one to start in the program, everything was a lot more difficult in the beginning; however, I will forever be indebted to Samil Horasanli, Cahit Celik, and Salih Gelgec for their constant help and guidance.

I would also like to acknowledge my dear friend Musa Sari, District Governor of Arsus; without his help and assistance, the research process in Turkey would be extremely difficult.

Lastly, I would like to thank my wife for her unconditional, permanent and everlasting understanding and help; and to my beloved daughter’s, Zeynep and Ayse, always motivating me with their existence.

May 2020

v THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLES ON GROUPTHINK:

THE CASE OF TURKISH TEACHERS

Adem Kaya, PhD The University of Texas at Dallas, 2020

Supervising Professor: Meghna Sabharwal

The purpose of this study is to investigate the perceptions of transformational leadership and transactional leadership on groupthink among Turkish teachers in Gaziantep, one of the largest provinces of Turkey. This study examines two main research questions using structural equation modeling: (1) How does leadership style i.e., perceived transformational and transactional leadership affect groupthink of the participants? (2) How does leadership style and groupthink differ by participants’ gender, education, type of school they work, the college/field they graduate, the school location of participants, the desire of being a manager, and tenure of the participants?

The findings of the study revealed that the impact of the participants’ perceptions on transformational leadership on all sub-dimensions of groupthink is statistically significant.

Contrary to common belief, this study found that transformational leadership style led to higher groupthink among Turkish teachers. Additionally, transactional leadership is a significant predictor of the groupthink sub-dimensions of Concurrence Seeking, Group Identity, Symptoms

vi of Defective Decision Making, and External Activities, while it is not a significant predictor of the sub-dimensions of External Activities and Team Performance.

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... v

ABSTRACT ...... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... xiv

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Purpose of the Study ...... 2

Significance and Contribution of the Study ...... 3

Research Questions ...... 5

Organization of the Chapters ...... 6

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 7

Groupthink ...... 7

Antecedents ...... 10

Symptoms of Groupthink ...... 11

Type I: Overestimation of the Group ...... 11

Type II: Closed-Mindedness ...... 12

Type III: Pressure toward Uniformity ...... 13

Groupthink Research ...... 14

Analysis of Groupthink Research and Implications ...... 21

Leadership Theories in the Context of Transformational Leadership ...... 23

Leadership ...... 23

The Theory of Transformational Leadership ...... 25

viii Components of Transformational Leadership ...... 27

Empirical Support for the Theory ...... 29

Transformational Leadership Theory and Groupthink ...... 31

Hypotheses of the Study and Conceptual Formulation with Causal Specifications ...... 33

Hypotheses of the Study ...... 37

CHAPTER 3 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY ...... 39

General Structure of the Turkish Government ...... 39

A Brief Overview of the Turkish National Education System ...... 42

Collectivist Culture and Dominant Leadership in Turkish Society ...... 43

CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY ...... 47

Study Participants and Data Collection ...... 47

Study Scales ...... 48

Measurement Tools ...... 49

Transformational Leadership Scale (TLS) ...... 49

Groupthink Scale by Choi and Kim (1999) ...... 50

Validity and Reliability ...... 52

Statistical Analysis ...... 53

Human Subjects ...... 53

CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS ...... 54

Descriptive Analysis ...... 54

Validity and Reliability Results ...... 60

Transformational Leadership Scale (TLS) ...... 61

ix Groupthink Scale (GTS) ...... 65

Statistical Analysis ...... 69

Descriptive Analysis ...... 72

Structural Equation Modeling ...... 72

Confirmatory Factor Analysis ...... 72

Findings on Sub-problems ...... 73

CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 106

Summary of the Findings and Discussion ...... 106

Implications ...... 109

Study Limitations and Directions for Future Studies ...... 113

APPENDIX A TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP SCALE ...... 116

A.1 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP SCALE (TLS) (ENGLISH) ...... 116

A.2 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP SCALE (TLS) (TURKISH) ...... 119

APPENDIX B GROUPTHINK SCALE ...... 124

B.1 GROUPTHINK SCALE (ENGLISH) ...... 124

B.2 GROUPTHINK SCALE (TURKISH) ...... 126

APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE STUDY (TURKISH) ...... 129

REFERENCES ...... 135

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 151

CURRICULUM VITAE ...... 152

x LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Antecedent conditions and observable consequences...... 9

Figure 2. Hypothetical representation of the study model ...... 38

Figure 3. Histogram graph of the age distribution of participants...... 55

Figure 4. Histogram graph of the distribution of participants' tenure...... 56

Figure 5. Histogram graph of distribution of scores for the TFL sub-dimension...... 73

Figure 6. Histogram graph of distribution of scores for the TAL sub-dimension ...... 74

Figure 7. Histogram graph of distribution of scores for the CS sub-dimension ...... 75

Figure 8. Histogram graph of the distribution of scores for the GI sub-dimension ...... 76

Figure 9. Histogram graph of the distribution of scores for the SDDM sub-dimension ...... 76

Figure 10. Histogram graph of the distribution of scores for the IA sub-dimension ...... 77

Figure 11. Histogram graph of the distribution of scores for the TP sub-dimension ...... 78

Figure 12. Histogram graph of the distribution of scores for the EA sub-dimension ...... 78

Figure 13. Hypothetical representation of the first model ...... 100

Figure 14. Structural model of the study ...... 102

xi LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. The Frequency Distribution of Total Teachers ın Gaziantep and Participants by Gender ...... 48

Table 2. The Study Variables ...... 50

Table 3. The Frequency Distribution of Participants by Gender ...... 54

Table 4. The Frequency Distribution of Participants by College ...... 56

Table 5. The Frequency Distribution of Participants by the Degree Level ...... 57

Table 6. The Frequency Distribution of Participants by the Type of School ...... 57

Table 7. Frequency Distribution of Participants by Region ...... 58

Table 8. Frequency Distribution of Participants by their Previous Managerial Status ...... 59

Table 9. Frequency Distribution of Participants’ Desires to Become Managers in the Future .... 59

Table 10. Distribution of the Frequency of Participants’ Contacts with their Managers ...... 60

Table 11. Model Fit Indices of the TLS Scale ...... 61

Table 12. Parameter Estimates and Factor Loadings for TLS ...... 63

Table 13. Model Fit Indices of the GT Scale ...... 66

Table 14. Parameter Estimates and Factor Loadings for the GT Scale ...... 66

Table 15. Correlations Between the Sub-dimensions of the GT Scale ...... 68

Table 16. K-S Test Results for the Eight Sub-dimensions of the Study ...... 70

Table 17. Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Total Score Distribution of the Sub-dimensions ... 71

Table 18. The Independent Sample T-test Results for the TLS Sub-dimensions by Gender ...... 79

Table 19. The Independent Samples T-Test Results for the GT Sub-dimensions by Gender ...... 80

Table 20. Independent Sample T-Test Results for the TLS Sub-dimensions by Degree Level ... 81

xii Table 21. Independent Sample T-Test Results for the GTS Sub-dimensions by Degree Level ... 83

Table 22. Independent Sample T-Test Results for the TLS sub-dimensions by the Type of School ...... 84

Table 23. Independent Sample T-Test Results for the GTS Sub-dimensions by the Type of School ...... 85

Table 24. Independent Sample T-Test Results for the TLS Sub-dimensions by College/Field ... 86

Table 25. Independent Sample T-Test Results for the GTS Sub-dimensions by College/Field ... 87

Table 26. One-Way ANOVA Test Results for the TLS Sub-dimensions by School Location .... 89

Table 27. One-Way ANOVA Test Results for the GT Sub-dimensions by School Location ...... 90

Table 28. One-Way ANOVA Test Results for the TLS Sub-dimensions by Management Status/Desires ...... 92

Table 29. Post-hoc Test Results for the TFL and TAL Sub-dimensions of TLS ...... 93

Table 30. One-Way ANOVA Test Results for the GT Sub-dimensions by Management Status 94

Table 31. Post-hoc Test Results for the IA Sub-scale of GT ...... 97

Table 32. Correlations Between Tenure and the Sub-dimensions of the Scales ...... 98

Table 33. Model Fitness Indices for the First Model ...... 99

Table 34. Model Fitness Indices for the Revised Model ...... 100

Table 35. Predictive Correlation Coefficients Between Latent Variables in the Structural Model ...... 101

Table 36. Variance Explained for Internal Variables ...... 103

xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AGFI Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index

AMOS Analysis of Moment Structures

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

BFI The Big Five Inventory

CEO Chief Executive Officer

C.R Critical Value

CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CFI Comparative Fit Index

CMIN Model Chi-square

CMIN/df Relative Chi-square

CS Concurrence Seeking

CSM Covariance Structure Model d Measurement Error

DF Degree of Freedom e Error Term (Disturbance)

EA External Activities

FRL Full Range of Leadership

GFI Goodness of Fit Index

GI Group Identity

GTLI Global Transformational Leadership Scale

GOF Goodness of Fit

xiv H Hypothesis

IA Internal Activities

IRB Institutional Review Board

K-S The Kolmogorov-Simirnov test

LAI Leadership Assessment Inventory

LMX Leader-Member Exchange theory

LPI Leadership Practices Inventory

MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

MI Modification Indices

NFI Normed Fit Index

NNFI Normed Fit Index

RFI Relative Fit Index

RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

RQ Research Question

RW Regression Weight

SDDM Symptoms of Defective Decision Making

SRMR Standardized Root Mean Square Residual

SE Standard Error

SEM Structural Equation Modeling

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

SRW Standardized Regression Weight

Std. Dev. Standard Deviation

xv TAL Transactional Leadership Scale

TLI Tucker-Lewis Index

TLI Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory

TLQ-LGV The Transformational Leadership Questionnaire—Local Government

Version

TLS Transformational Leadership Scale

TMoNE Turkish Ministry of Education

TP Team Performance—Four Items

URW Unstandardized Regression Weight

χ2 Chi-square

χ2/df Chi-square / Degree of Freedom

xvi CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Optimization techniques widely used in Economics were transferred to Management

Sciences in the early 1950s due to the successful application of these methods to decision- making procedures during the Second World War (Barry et al., 2009). Hence, in the second half of the 20th century, a rational-choice perspective dominated the scope of decision-making (Hart,

2001).

The Rational Model maintains that decisions are made through a six-phased process which is: (1) Problem Definition, (2) Identification of the Criteria, (3) Weighing the Criteria, (4)

Generating Alternatives, (5) Rating each alternative on each criterion, (6) Computing the optimal decision (Bazerman & Moore, 2012). The model assumes that all of these stages are precisely and smoothly passed during any decision process.

The Rational Choice Perspective, however, has been widely and severely criticized since its very formulation, as well as being approved by a score of scholars. One significant threat to the theory was posited by Irving L. Janis (1972). He coined the term “Groupthink,” which is also the focus of this research, to refer to the threats which might impede the rational model’s assumptions in decision-making groups.

According to Janis (1972), “Groupthink” is an impatient and painless concurrence- seeking (CS) tendency, which might lead to policy fiascoes and which stems from three antecedent conditions: cohesiveness, provocative situational context, and structural faults of the organization. These antecedents lead to a defective decision-making process and, in turn, faulty decisions become very likely to occur.

1 This new concept immediately drew attention and, since its very formulation, has been the subject of numerous researches. Nevertheless, research has provided inaccurate evidence, or only partial support at best, in favor of the theory. However, almost all of the existing research reveals that leadership is of significant importance in the occurrence and avoidance of groupthink. Thus, there seems to be unanimity amongst the scholars that leadership style is directly related to groupthink and vice versa. On the other hand, there is no one single research that explores the interaction of groupthink and leadership in the context of an existing leadership theory. Rather, some researchers preferred to use very loose terms such as ‘open,’ ‘participative,’ and ‘directive’ leadership.

Hence, this research investigates the relationship between leadership and groupthink in the context of transformational leadership theory, which was originally formulated by Burns

(1978) and developed by Bass (1985a; 1985b), utilizing the survey method.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to examine if there is a meaningful relationship between leadership style and groupthink, and if so, how and in what ways leadership style impacts occurrence of groupthink. To find this out, the study employs a survey method amongst Turkish teachers in Gaziantep, one of the largest provinces of Turkey. The study aims to reveal the participants’ perceptions on transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and groupthink in order to find out, firstly, whether leadership style and groupthink are related to each other, and secondly, whether transformational leadership elicits groupthink of Turkish teachers. This study also investigates whether the gender, education level, experience, and age of the participants affect the examined relationship.

2 Significance and Contribution of the Study

The Groupthink Model was perceived as a very intriguing one because it involved challenging claims against existing group-decision-making literature. Therefore, it stimulated scholars of the field to test the model. However, a glance at the groupthink literature indicates that a vast majority of research consists of experiments and historical case analyses.

Nevertheless, the results of these differently designed studies did not confirm each other. While experiments found little evidence supporting Janis’ suggestions (Callaway & Esser, 1984;

Callaway et al., 1985; Flowers, 1977; Fodor & Smith, 1982; Leana, 1985; Moorhead &

Montanari, 1986; Postmes et al., 2001; Turner et al., 1992), the historical case analyses mostly found supporting evidence (Hensley &Griffin, 1986; Herek et al., 1987; Tetlock et al., 1992).

In fact, due to its complexity and because a precise test of Groupthink in an experiment requires a 3*8 factorial design, an entire experimental check of the model has never been done in laboratory conditions (Esser, 1998; Fuller, 1993; Park, 2000). However, on the other hand, case analyses may have been exposed to selective bias. Therefore, it does not seem plausible to rely on the results of either type of research. Janis himself, together with Herek and Huth (Herek et al.

1987), tested the model through employing a qualitative case study onto 19 policy failures in the recent American politics and could not find absolute support for the theory.

Besides, Janis (1972), when formulating the model, diligently questioned the capabilities of the group members. For instance, in the case of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy’s team consisted of

Harvard professors and experienced politicians who also worked in the preceding administration.

Thereby, he implies that if the members are not qualified according to the task they are performing, the failure may have derived from anything else. Nevertheless, almost all of the

3 studies have ignored this crucial point. The case for laboratory tests is even worse because, in most of the experiments, undergraduate students are assumed to be capable of decision-making through proper processes, and this poses a significant threat to the reliability of the experiments.

This current study contributes to the usage of different methods in Groupthink research by using a survey method. Indeed, this method might help decrease the above-mentioned negative effects. First of all, the respondents are actual decision-makers. Also, the model was tested in its entirety. This research also contributes to the groupthink literature by incorporating the transformational leadership theory. As mentioned above, the construct of leadership style has been ignored so far. İn this regard, to the best of my knowledge, this study is the first to simultaneously investigate the phenomenon of groupthink along with existing leadership theory.

Just like the phenomenon of Groupthink, transformational leadership theory has been vastly examined and tested since its very formulation. Amongst numerous leadership theories, this theory has been the one which has been examined and supported the most by research data.

In this sense, this study proposes that the studies on transformational leadership can be expanded to group settings to gauge its effect on groupthink. When the main difference between transformational and transactional leadership emerges in the transformational leaders’ ability to increase the employees’ commitment on a collective goal, more researches should examine the transformational leadership in group context, articulating its role in group setting and the impact of transformational leadership on groups. Therefore, the main contribution of this study is to examine the relationship between two widely researched theories on groupthink.

Another important contribution of the research is to implement a structural equation modeling (SEM) method, as it is ideal when testing theories with latent variables. This research

4 is the first to conduct an SEM technique to investigate the hypothesized relationships among

Turkish teachers in the Gaziantep province of Turkey. In addition, the study also examines whether the age, gender, education level, and tenure of the participants impact the researched relationship through employing these parameters as control variables. Based on the findings of

Orhan (2013), Orhan (2016), Tas and Cetiner (2011), Uzun (2005), and Sahin (2005), incorporating these demographic, socio-economic and cultural parameters into the research gives more reliable results. From this point of view, this study also contributes to the literature showing the effects of these variables both on leadership style and groupthink.

Research Questions

The research questions guiding this study are as follows:

RQ 1: How does perceived transformational and transactional leadership affect the

perceived groupthink of the participants?

RQ 2: How does leadership style and groupthink differ by:

• Participants’ gender

• Educational degree of participants

• Type of school they work

• The college/field they graduated

• The school location of participants

• The desire of being a manager or previously held managerial role

• Tenure of the participants

5 Organization of the Chapters

The following chapters present a review of the literature, a theoretical framework, context of the study, methodology, findings, discussion, and conclusion. Chapter 2 provides the literature review and examines the study variables. The theoretical framework of the study provides a brief review of the main theories in the related field. Later, an examination of the conceptual formulation with causal specifications and hypotheses will be discussed. The context of the study is discussed in Chapter 3, which provides a brief overview of the Turkish national education along with scrutinizing leader-follower relationships and group dynamics in a collectivist society like Turkey.

The methodology section is outlined in Chapter 4, which discusses the research design, subjects of the study, sampling, data collection method, measurement, and statistical analysis of the study. The statistical analysis section provides a discussion on descriptive analysis and the main method of the study. The human subject issue is also discussed in this chapter. Chapter 5 provides the data analysis and findings of the research. In the first part of this chapter, the descriptive analysis of each variable is given so that readers can get a general idea about the frequency distribution of the responses. In the following part of the chapter, the statistical methods implemented by this study is provided. The main statistical analysis adopted in this study includes descriptive analysis, T-Test, One Way ANOVA, Pearson product-moment correlation, and structural equation modeling. Chapter 6 provides the results of the analysis, limitations of the study, and directions for future research.

6 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter provides a systematic review of the literature to identify the study variables and to create the theoretical support for formulation of the hypotheses. The first part of this chapter examines the concepts of groupthink and leadership styles. Then, gaps in the literature are identified and the theoretical background of the research are reviewed. Finally, a conceptual and logic map with theoretical hypotheses is given at the final section of the literature review.

Groupthink

Aligned with the Rational Model, it is long believed that groups do better than individuals regarding decision-making. Accordingly, mainly because of information pooling, problems are defined better, alternatives are considered in more detail, risks are calculated in a more sophisticated way and, in turn, higher quality decisions come about in groups compared to the individual level. However, particularly after the second half of the 20th century, scholars haves begun to question this commonly accepted belief.

In his landmark study of “Victims of Group Think: A Psychological Study of Foreign

Policy Decisions and Fiascoes,” which was published for the first time in 1972, Janis, in an unprecedented way, made explanations for policy fiascoes through applying ideas from small- group analysis (Hart, 1991). Basically, he asserted that there are certain antecedent conditions within the tightly-knit policy-making groups that leads to defective decision-making processes and thus poor policy outcomes become very likely to occur (Schafer & Crichlow, 1996). In this way, he coined the term “Groupthink” to refer to the drawbacks in the decision-making process and remarked that groupthink represents an excessive form of concurrence-seeking within the

7 groups that involve a certain level of cohesiveness of members to each other and to the group, and it is enormous to the extent that the group members tend to value the group higher than anything else. This stimulates them to struggle for a quick and painless unanimity on the issues that the group has to confront (Hart, 1991).

Janis regarded cohesiveness as the primary cause of the groupthink, but he also pointed out that structural faults of the organization and provocative situational context are two other probable antecedents of groupthink. Nevertheless, these three reasons are not mutually exclusive; that is, they might occur separately or collectively but the more intense these factors are, the more probable poor decisions come about (Flowers, 1977; Schafer & Crichlow, 1996).

In brief, these three antecedent factors cause groupthink, which can be observed as premature concurrence-seeking behavior, and which is manifested by eight symptoms. These eight symptoms of groupthink, in turn, cause seven symptoms of defective decision-making that lower the probability of successful outcomes (Park, 1990). Figure 1 demonstrates this flow.

Figure 1. Antecedent conditions and observable consequences.

9 Antecedents

Cohesiveness. Although Janis noted three reasons that account for the occurrence of groupthink, his main focus was group cohesiveness as the primary predictor. According to him, premature concurrence-seeking behavior is “excessive to the extent that the group members have come to value the group and being part of it higher than anything else” (Hart, 1991, p. 247).

Thus, if the level of cohesiveness in a decision-making group is high, the members’ satisfaction with it and their eagerness to remain part of it forces them to think and act as the group does. As a result, they prefer staying silent rather than offering their own ideas and they latently forgo their objectives. Therefore, the processes through which the decisions are drawn become vulnerable to short-cuts that may considerably decrease the decision quality. Without a shadow of a doubt, Janis’s assertion was a challenge to the existing belief in the field because cohesiveness in groups had long been regarded as a useful component (Beal et al., 2003; Hart,

1991; Hogg & Hains, 1998; Postmes et al., 2001; Steiner, 1972). Beal et al. (2003) points out that indeed, one of the important goals of organizational research so far has been to find out factors and processes that enhance the group’s performance.

Structural faults of the organization. Janis (1972; 1982) notes that insulation of the group, lack of tradition of impartial leadership, lack of norms requiring methodical procedures, and homogeneity of members are some problematic situations that may occur in the structure of groups and have the potential to elicit groupthink. However, he stresses that amongst these, lack of tradition of impartial leadership is the most prevalent and hazardous. This component, together with cohesiveness, has been the mostly researched and elicited antecedent of the groupthink.

10 Provocative situational context. According to Hart (1991), “Groupthink does not often occur in ordinary situations; rather, the probability of an emergence of it considerably increases if decision-makers are experiencing pressure and tackling a crisis. In this kind of situation, decision-makers feel threats to their self-respect since they have a big burden to decide about ethically complicated matters. Consequently, the group is considered as a chief source of consolation” (Hart, 1991). Thus, the tendency to reach a painless unanimity appears as an opportunity to get out of a bothersome condition.

Symptoms of Groupthink

Probable symptoms that indicate the presence of groupthink that follow the antecedents mentioned above can be examined in three categories, according to their specific causes, as explained below (Hart, 1991). Also, Janis’s suggestion to remedy the relevant symptom is discussed.

Type I: Overestimation of the Group

Fallacy of being invulnerable. Members of the group might begin to believe that their group is powerful and widely respected so there is no possibility for the group to do wrong.

Consequently, individuals begin to conform with the group. Indeed, if one thinks that his/her group is infallible and the group has the knowledge that he/she does not have, then the conformity will increase. Sherif’s (1935) experiment of the autokinetic effect is a good example of this. Sherif’s study revealed that an individual tries to create a reality to determine his/her situation when the physical reality is ambiguous. This reality is created by the person, while it is created by group if the individual is in contact with other people. Here, the individual needs the support of the group to obtain the right information. Sherif’s experiment reveals conformity and

11 identification behaviors as a result of group pressure. Sherif's experiment is important in terms of the existence of an environment in which an individual can acquire his own beliefs and values and the type of conformity behavior. Over-trusting the group and believing in the accuracy of its knowledge lead to excessive conformity. In either case, the person will decide that his or her idea is wrong and that the group’s idea is correct. This conformity is called adoption. As one's confidence in the group increases, he/she will lose their self-confidence and his conformity tendency will increase (Friedman et al., 1974). Thus, Janis proposes that members should systematically play devil’s advocate to explore all perspectives, possibilities and flaws before putting plans into action.

Belief in inherent morality of the Group. In this case, all the group members believe they are doing the right thing and they exhibit an illusion of morality. To avoid defective decision-making because of this symptom, Janis proposes caution and sensitivity.

Type II: Closed-Mindedness

Collective rationalizations. Sometimes, group members tend to exaggerate their self- esteem concerning doing the right thing even if the data/evidence suggests that they may be wrong. Janis suggests that prevention of such sort of problems entail listening and careful scrutiny of the evidence and alternatives.

Stereotypes of out-groups. The group may have an inclination to rely on shared stereotypes to justify their needs and positions. Often, the stereotyped are rivals, enemies, other departments, and experts who slow down or challenge their decision-making tasks.

12 Type III: Pressure toward Uniformity

Self-censorship. In groups, some members may prefer to be silent rather than sharing

their ideas seeing that others are almost setting concurrence. This tendency hinders, in particular,

objectives to be shared amongst all the members. People generally do not want to be perceived

as someone different from others and do not like being outside of the group or alienated by other

people. There is group pressure to the individual in terms of monologism and concurrence. If a

member does not comply with the group’s direction, he/she risks having serious consequences.

This kind of pressure leads to conformist behaviors (Friedman et al., 1974).

Direct pressure on dissenters. In some cases, members may question the rightness of the goal; however, these members might suffer direct pressure from their group mates or they may be discredited by the other members. When a person challenges the group, he/she is exposed to pressures to be changed. If the member insists upon his/her attitude, the group may cut off communications with him/her and begin to ignore him/her. The group may impose direct sanctions to a member who challenges the group. In their study, Freedman et al. (1974) observed that members who opposed the group were not chosen for upper-level positions; they were assigned to challenging tasks, while those who were considered as good were selected for the tasks that are appropriate for monetary-rewards.

Self-appointed mindguards. There is a phrase in Turkish that means “to out-Herod

Herod.” This phrase is used to identify the attitude of ones who deem opposition to the leader as a great sin so they dedicate themselves to interrupting the speech of others who may have some objections to the dominant actor. If anything like this occurs in groups, this is a clear sign of

13 groupthink. To prevent this, a leader should let the members know that he/she is open to criticism.

Groupthink Research

Since its very publication, Janis’s (1972) study received a great deal of attention and quite a lot of research (even amount of research is disproportionally less according to its intuitive appeal), either quantitative or qualitative, has been dedicated to test its validity. Also, because he employed a case analysis while building up his theory, Janis explicitly invoked researchers to check his predictions under laboratory conditions and emphasized that the Groupthink entails further research.

However, some authors contend that its immediate popularity is likely to be due to appealing historical cases, upon which Janis based his theory, and alluring words such as

‘groupthink’ and ‘mindguard’ (Esser, 1998; Hart, 1991; Park, 2000). Indeed, even this view criticizes Janis’s (1972) study through implicitly under-estimating his findings. However, none of the studies entirely support the theory, rather most of them presents partial support and claimed that it should be amended (Courtright, 1978; Flowers, 1977; Leana, 1985; Park, 2000;

Tetlock, 1979) or even replaced (Aldag & Fuller, 1993; Whyte & Levi, 1994). Next is a summarization of the Groupthink literature.

Flowers (1977) argues that Janis implied the interaction of high levels of cohesiveness and closed leadership, particularly in crisis situations, as the predictor of groupthink and so he tested the existence of this interaction through a 2*2 factorial-designed experiment in which he manipulated cohesiveness( low and high) and leadership (open/closed). Basically, he found that the level of cohesiveness barely altered the measured effects of groupthink, but his findings also

14 suggested that open leaders could prevent many threats that can decline decision quality. He further suggested that the degree of power that the leader has might be an important variable for the modification of the theory.

Courtright (1978) manipulated cohesiveness (high/low) and decision-making parameters

(limited/free/no instruction) in a 2*3 factorial-designed experiment in which he employed undergraduate students. He also used more objective measures such as the number of proposed solutions, number of statements of agreement, and number of statements of disagreement. He found that highly cohesive groups with no instructions produced far less disagreements than the other observed groups, so, even not entirely, his findings mostly support Janis’s theory.

Tetlock (1979) studied the same cases that Janis examined while constructing his theory.

He employed content analysis to test the Groupthink model through public statements of key actors who took part in the decision processes. He found partial support for the model because his study revealed firstly that decision makers of the groups, which are deemed to involve

Groupthink, were more simplistic in their perceptions of policy issues when compared to those of the non-groupthink groups and tend to overestimate their forces. This finding is consistent with theory because this is nothing but an illusion of invulnerability. Second, the study revealed that groupthink decision makers did not make significantly more negative references to their potential enemies. This finding exhibits a considerable opposition to what Janis called stereotyping outsiders. Also, the author conducted a second study in 1992 that included a mixture of case and content analysis. He examined ten cases and this time he elicited supporting evidence for the theory (Tetlock et al., 1992).

15 Callaway and Esser (1984) employed cohesiveness (low/high) and decision-making procedures (present/absent) as independent variables and the presence of groupthink was determined by the absence of disagreement. Their study found mixed support for the groupthink theory in that the study revealed that best decisions are made in intermediate-level cohesive groups. However, it also demonstrated that high cohesive groups without adequate decision- making procedures tend to make the poorest quality decisions.

Leana (1985) manipulated cohesiveness and leadership style (directive/participative) and found that groups with directive leaders produced and assessed fewer alternatives than did the groups with participative leaders and, nevertheless, members of non-cohesive groups engaged in more self-censorship of information than did members of cohesive groups. Hence, her findings provided only partial support for the Janis’s theory.

Callaway et al. (1985) hypothesized that the emergence of Groupthink is basically due to the scurrying of group members to get out of stress, thus, it can be avoided if stress can be eliminated in anyway. They emphasized the necessity to take stress into consideration more seriously. In this way, they conducted an experiment through which they incorporated anxiety as a dependent variable on the grounds that “anxiety is a stress induced emotion” (Chapman 2006, p. 1396). The study manipulated individual dominance (high/low) and procedural guidelines

(present/absent) to observe how these factors impact the emergence of Groupthink through measuring anxiety and decision quality. They found that groups with highly dominant members tend to prevent the occurrence of Groupthink because these types of groups made higher quality decisions, exhibited less stress, reached the decision in longer times when compared to the others and tended to make more statements of disagreement. Hence, the study implies that diffusion of

16 anxiety amongst individually dominant members has the ability to hinder Groupthink to come about.

Park (2000) classifies the existing groupthink model into three categories according to their data collection method and states that there are two types of research case analysis. Park contends that analysis found evidence partially supporting the Groupthink model but research which was performed in laboratory conditions provided only a little affirmation and this shows that the method really matters when evaluating the model. Moreover, he states that none of the existing experiments investigated all components of the model. This defiance might be due to its complexity and the fact that the model has 24 components in sum, (so it is quite difficult or even impossible to conduct an experiment that includes all of these variables). Nevertheless, this incomplete test of the model conveys a considerable flaw in making proper judgments as well as that of case analyses and content analyses because they include selective bias. Thus, Park stresses the necessity for a comprehensive model that might rule out these drawbacks. In this way, Park makes a comprehensive empirical investigation of the relationships among variables of the groupthink model and contends to have found little evidence that confirms Janis. Only two of out of 23 cases demonstrates hazardous impacts of Groupthink.

Aldag and Fuller (1993) point out that group decision-making is alluring but, at the same time, is a very difficult task to achieve without drawbacks seeing that it includes many hidden threats. Hence, comprehensive models are required to help researchers and practitioners in coping with this challenging task. Although the Groupthink model attracted considerable attention in group problem-solving processes and served a valuable role in acting as a catalyst for associated theory and research, the research did not validate the propositions of the theory

17 because there is only little empirical evidence that confirms Janis (1972). From this point of view, the authors developed another model, the General Group Problem-Solving Model, to replace Groupthink but it does not appear to have drawn much attention.

Schafer and Crichlow (1996) assert that not all the antecedents indirectly impact outcome quality as Janis suggested. Some of the antecedents have the potential to decline outcome quality directly. From this viewpoint, the study alleges that Janis’s considerations may mislead us to focus on only the information process. This attitude would not help to solve all the problems in that real problems lie in the structural arrangements that are made before the information- processing stage. Briefly, they emphasize the necessity to take preceding stages of information processing into consideration and this claim seems quite plausible together with their findings.

Esser (1998) examined the groupthink literature and posits that existing research is not adequate to make a precise judgment concerning the validity of the theory. He explores the literature by dividing the sources into two categories according the methods that are used to collect data—case analysis and experimental designs. He points out that the former produced some support for the model, but its results are not reliable because solely examining fiascoes to find out whether they exhibit symptoms of groupthink has a heuristic value. Thus, anything may have led to poor decisions in the process but the researcher who is seeking to find symptoms of

Groupthink behind the policy fallacies tend to resemble any reason to one of the symptoms of the

Groupthink. As for the latter, he argues that the use of college students through a non-probability sampling method poses a serious threat to the validity of experiment results which are also flawed in means of external validity. Moreover, since Janis’s (1972) theory includes subjective concepts, those of which do not have generally accepted definitions, various operational

18 definitions have been developed and used in the experiments and this considerably worsens the existing complexity of the model.

Hogg and Hains (1998) point out that the measurement of effect of group cohesiveness on groupthink varies according to the way cohesiveness is operationalized and hence conceptualized; because of the lack of a generally accepted definition of the cohesiveness, it is unclear whether the groupthink is elicited by close interpersonal relationships by friendship, or by depersonalized social attraction, such as true group cohesiveness. To help lessen this complexity, they conducted an experiment and found that the main predictor of the Groupthink was not cohesiveness but interpersonal relationships, which creates informal and hidden attitudes amongst the members, and this exacerbates impatient concurrence-seeking and eventually declines the decision quality.

The biggest critique to the Groupthink model was Fuller and Aldag (1998). Their study comprehensively investigated the literature and claimed that perpetuating interest to Groupthink is unfortunate and misguided. They also blamed Janis’s (1972) theory as an obstacle that acted to slow down, or even cease, the development of the group decision-making literature. Of course, the authors explain the reasons for this harsh criticism. First of all, there is not even one full factorial analysis of the model and this means that there is no support. Moreover, as Longley and

Pruitt (1980) argued, the benefits of group cohesiveness such as enhanced communication among members, increased member satisfaction, decreased anxiety, and higher levels of group task accomplishment have long been accepted, tested and validated.

Postmes et al. (2001) remark that the Groupthink Model, at its core, regards a high level of group cohesiveness as a detrimental component against the high-quality decisions but research

19 mostly does not affirm this main assumption of the model. In this context, leaning upon their research results, they claim that cohesiveness in groups is not the construct that is responsible for low-quality decisions; on the contrary, it may be fruitful in many cases, as their study revealed, that group cohesiveness leads to more brave deliberations between the group members. Besides, group norms have the potential to influence the quality of decisions in groups independent of factors relating to the cohesion. Hence, they concluded that group norms are the real elements that directly determine whether a cohesive group will fail to produce high-quality decisions.

Eaton (2001) conducted a content analysis to investigate the presence of Groupthink behind the failures of two huge British companies—British Airways and Marks and Spencer. He found that Groupthink was a major factor that contributes to decision-making processes. This study may be regarded as a good indicator of the effects of Groupthink on private sector decision-makers.

Chapman (2006) diligently investigated the Groupthink Model and, citing Callaway et al.

(1985), invokes the researchers to examine the effects of emotions. She asserts that the primary cause of premature concurrence-seeking behavior is anxiety, which is a stress-induced emotion.

She notes that the phenomenon of Groupthink tends to come about in some cases but does not in all cases so this tendency indicates a dilemma; however, this conflict is that Groupthink only evolves when the group members are faced with a decision task in a provocative situational context including a moral dilemma or risk of material losses. Hence, Chapman partially supports the model.

20 Analysis of Groupthink Research and Implications

Although a lot of research has been conducted on the groupthink model developed by

Janis in 1972, the findings of these studies reveal only limited support for the model (Aldag &

Fuller, 1993; McCauley, 1989). Besides, some variables that are related to groupthink are weak in their conceptual explanations and associations to the concept. Rose (2011), for instance, argued that most of the variables were not outlined well. These studies and critics lead researchers to create new measures and distinctive perspectives to reviewing the concept of groupthink. Thus, there is no common agreement regarding how to measure and operationalize the variables. Since there is no common agreement on the issue, the standardization of the variables has emerged as a problem that makes comparison and combination of the findings challenging.

One of the other issues is the challenge of forming a cohesive group that Janis (1982) used as a model. Several academics, including Janis, tried to elucidate and develop this model.

Most of the researches examining groupthink use groups created for this purpose; however, they did not provide satisfactory cohesion among group members. The reason why they could not provide adequate cohesion is that they were formed in the cause of the research and they were not given a chance to team up adequately in order to completely develop the cohesiveness required for groupthink (Baptist, 2015).

Besides, experiments were conducted under the assumption that college students can act as real decision-makers. However, this assumption contradicts with real-world settings. This makes the results questionable. Janis (1971) developed his theory by first asking how could a high quality decision-making team like President Kennedy’s come to such terrible decisions?

21 This question obviously implicates that the theory was formulated based upon the assumption that antecedents of groupthink might lead to fiascoes even in groups that are formed by high quality decision-makers. Yet, experiments assume that college students are capable of making high-quality decisions and that they know the processes required for an optimal decision.

Moreover, the majority of the existing literature consists of case studies, which is very likely to be prone to selective bias on the grounds that researchers, in such cases, generally seek the existence of the antecedents and symptoms of groupthink in real-world settings where decision-making defects were evident. In other words, since the main occupation of groupthink primarily deals with failure, or catastrophic decisions or results, group members related to these decisions mostly check back on their decision-making process and scholars studying these assessments are inclined to look examine their actions following the case. This situation is called retrospective sense-making (Henningsen, 2002). The concept means that researchers try to retroactively comprehend or cognitively process their setting after something has happened

(Louis, 1990). According to the sense-making viewpoint, after people act, they use knowledge and information from their environments as well as their own knowledge and experiences to rate and comprehend their performance. Guzzo et al. (1986) assert that when members are provided with information regarding a negative group outcome, the members conclude that a negative decision-making process emerged in the group. This explains why members are inclined to make some assessments on their earlier performances or group accomplishments.

To summarize, although Janis’s (1971) theory of Groupthink defied conventional wisdom at the time and thus triggered a great deal of research, it is quite difficult to say that it has been tested properly. This is basically due to the difficulty in conducting experiments for the model

22 and biased results retrieved from case studies. This might explain the contradictory results coming from different type of researches and limited support for the theory. Indeed, the theory might not be confirmed even if it is tested properly. However, claiming that Janis’s (1971) allegations are not valid would not be scientifically correct without testing the model to the full extent.

In this regard, this paper claims that survey method would be more proper to find out whether antecedents of Groupthink leads to defective decisions. This method would decrease the probability of selective bias. Also, surveys would make it possible to test all of the variables at once with a considerable amount of respondents. The next section will discuss the key predictor of the study, transformation leadership style.

Leadership Theories in the Context of Transformational Leadership

Leadership

Leadership is one of the subjects that has attracted the most attention of social scientists in the field of management. Hence, a great deal of attempts have been made to define, understand and formulate the phenomenon of “leadership.” Consequently, there are several definitions of leadership in the literature. Bass (1981) claims that “there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept.” Yukl (2010) lists the definitions that are provided by researchers according to the characteristics of their own interests.

Leadership is the behavior of an individual who directs a group’s actions toward a common objective (Hemphill & Coons, 1957). “Leadership is the influential increment over and above mechanical compliance with the routine directives of the organization” (Katz & Kahn,

23 1978, p. 528). “It is the process of influencing the activities of an organized group towards achieving the goals” (Rauch & Behling, 1984, p. 46). “It is a process of giving purpose

(meaningful direction) to collective effort and causing willing effort to be expended to achieve purpose” (Jacobs & Jaques, 1990, p. 281). It is the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and empower others to contribute to the effectiveness and success of the organization (House,

1971).

Some studies have chronologically ordered the definitions of leadership (Erçetin, 2000;

Sökmen, 2010). For example, in their chronological order, they provide the first definition of leadership by Cooley (1902) as follows: leadership is to be at the center of social movements. In a definition by Stogdill in 1950, leadership is to ensure and maintain moral unity for the realization of objectives. A study by Davis (1984) defines leadership as role behaviors that unite and activate followers toward specific goals. Their final definition by Eren in 2000 is that leadership is the total amount of the ability and knowledge of gathering people with specific goals and mobilizing them to fulfill these goals.

Although the theories of leadership are classified in different ways, Saeed et al. (2014) assert that the most common classification of leadership is behavioral theory, situational and contingency theory, and modern leadership theories. Many studies based on observation, interpretation, and moral appraisal have been conducted on leadership during the 19th century.

However, the 20th century has changed the approach of leadership studies due to the increasing implementation of scientific procedures and techniques to measure human behaviors (Hackman

& Johnson, 2009).

24 Sökmen (2010) summarizes the periods and approaches of leadership theories. According to Sökmen (2010), leadership theories of the 1940s mainly focused on personal characteristics.

These theories suggest that leadership depended on the leader’s abilities and personal characteristics. During the period of 1940‒1960, leadership was being explained through personal behaviors. From the late 1960s until the beginning of the 1980s, the situational and contingency approaches are the dominant approach of leadership. During this period, leadership was primarily explained by the characteristics and status of leaders and followers. Finally, the transactional and transformational leadership theories were introduced in the early 1980s. These theories came to the fore during the 1990s and still maintain popular and interesting.

The Theory of Transformational Leadership

In the late 1970s, being highly affected by sharply and consistently increasing global competition in the business environment, scholars sought out exemplary forms of leadership and their influence on followers and organizational adaptation. Their dissatisfaction with the earlier models of leadership being too narrow and simplistic to explain leaders in change agent roles, and search for finding ways of employee motivation considering morality issues, urged experts of the field to focus on how to orchestrate transformational change while simultaneously building employee morale and commitment (Conger, 1999).

Indeed, scholars have always believed that leadership is more than basic exchanges between leaders and followers. Max Weber’s (YEAR) description of “charisma” as the source of leaders’ power illustrates this recognition. However, plenty of research evidence indicates that transactional leadership behavior is reasonably effective under certain circumstances. Thus, making a sharp distinction between transactional and transformational leadership behaviors,

25 which implies that the former is always inefficient, and the latter is efficient, would not be correct in all cases.

Hence, Bernard Bass (1985a), while recognizing Burns’s (1978) classification of leadership styles, held that these two types of leadership are not mutually exclusive. The very same leaders might exhibit transactional behaviors under certain conditions and transformational behaviors under some other conditions. He posits that the most successful leaders are those who can be either transformational or transactional, depending on the situations. In other words, contingency is one crucial element of leadership.

Nevertheless, Bass (1985) emphasized the superiority of transformational leadership over transactional leadership. He contends that the sole attitude of rewarding success and punishing failure, through a carrot and sticks approach, diminishes employee morale and makes them feel worthless. Hence, leaders must find other ways to motivate their followers and notice their self-worth. If this is attained, employees will exhibit their true commitment to their organizations. Along this vein, transformational leadership appears to be an excellent tool for organizations to empower employees to reach their performance goal beyond expectations.

Transformational leadership can also be deemed as an extended version of transactional leadership (Bass & Bass, 2008). Transactional leadership includes exchanges between leaders and followers, and the exchanged materials are determined according to the needs of followers and the leaders’ ability to provide them. However, transformational leaders go much further.

They do not solely provide their followers with tangible needs such as rewards, money, and higher posts, but also lift their emotional states to a level where the followers do not struggle to achieve superior and shared goals.

26 Indeed, Burns (1978), while describing transforming leadership, refers to Abraham

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. He reminds us that at the top of the hierarchy, self-actualization stands. When leaders realize that the strongest incentive to motivate an individual is creating awareness for his/her needs. Burns notes that transforming leadership goes beyond this. In other words, transformational leaders direct their followers to devote themselves to a far more worthwhile goal, and this goal is actualizing a common interest.

In this way, transformational leaders align the expectations of their followers with those of the organization. Consequently, transformational leaders motivate their followers in such a way that they direct them to go even further than they imagined. They accomplish this through either one of the four tenets they possess, which are described below, or through the interaction of more than one tenet (Avolio & Bass, 1994; 1995).

Components of Transformational Leadership

Idealized influence. Leaders with idealized influence stress the significance and inevitability of having a collective sense of mission. Simultaneously, they encourage their followers to believe that impediments in front of their goals can be overcome when they stick to their mutual collective mission. Also, transformational leaders, due to their idealized influence, have followers notice that they have the adequate credentials which are necessary to attain their mutual goals. Moreover, they do not hesitate to take risks and are consistent rather than arbitrary.

They can be counted on to do the right thing, demonstrating high standards of ethical and moral conduct.

Yet, this component of transformational leadership encapsulates the attitudes of leaders, which allows them to be perceived as role models by their followers. They behave in such ways

27 that followers admire, trust and respect them. Followers come to believe that their leaders have extraordinary capabilities, are persistent and determined. These feelings elicit the desire for followers to be recognized along with their leader, and to emulate their leaders. Idealized influence has two dimensions: the leader’s behavior, and the elements that are attributed to the leader by followers and other associates. These dimensions exhibit the interactional nature of idealized influence: “it is both embodied in the leader’s behavior and in attributions that are made concerning the leader by followers” (Bass & Bass, 2008, p. 35).

Inspirational motivation. This component refers to a leader’s capacity to inspire and motivate followers while reaching ambitious goals that may have previously seemed unreachable

(Day & Antonakis, 2011). Such a visionary aspect of leadership is supported by effective communication skills that allow the leader to articulate his or her vision with precision and present followers with ways to reach them (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002). Leaders with inspirational motivation creates a clear picture of the greater good that is both optimistic and attainable, encourages followers to raise their expectations, and reduces complexities to challenge possible interferences. These essential features bring out a strong commitment to the goals and create a team spirit. According to Bass and Avolio (1993), “idealized influence leadership and inspirational motivation usually form a combined single factor of charismatic- inspirational leadership. The charismatic-inspirational factor is similar to the behaviors described in charismatic leadership theory” (p. #; House, 1971).

Intellectual stimulation. This component of the theory is mostly a “rational” and “non- emotional” component of transformational leadership (Day & Antonakis, 2011), altering

“followers’ conceptualization of the nature of the problems they face and their solutions” (Bass,

28 1985b, p. 99). Followers are attracted by their leaders’ abilities in creating problem awareness and problem solving. Intellectual stimulation involves encouraging followers to question their own values, assumptions, and beliefs to seek ways of improving their current performance.

She/he stimulates followers to think about new ways to solve old problems. In this way, followers included in the problem-solving process will be able to see and solve the unforeseen problems by the encouragement of their leader (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002).

Individualized consideration. Individualized consideration is the leaders’ ability to analyze followers by predicting the needs and wishes of their followers. It requires leaders to believe in people and to be sensitive to their needs. Followers and colleagues are developed to successively higher levels of potential. Leaders using individualized consideration provide followers with socio-emotional support, act as a mentor or coach to the follower, and listens to the follower's concerns and needs. These kinds of leaders not only educate the next generation of leaders, but also empower these individuals for self-actualization and self-worth. It also naturally propels followers to further their achievement and growth (Bass, 1985a; 1985b).

Empirical Support for the Theory

Since its early formulation by Burns (1978), the transformational leadership theory has not only been the most frequently studied leadership theory but it has also gathered substantial support (Bass & Yammarino, 1991; Colbert et al., 2008; Conger, 1999; Judge et al., 2002; Judge

& Piccolo, 2004; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Lowe et al., 1996; Ployhart et al., 2001; Shamir et al., 1993; Singer & Singer, 1990; Sosik et al., 1998a). Indeed, researchers have examined various components of the theory with different reference points. Yet, most of them confirmed the

29 suggestions of the theory; in particular, they also affirmed and enhanced the later formulation of it by Bass (1985).

Tichy and Devanna (1986) published their book, “The Transformational Leader,” in which they mostly share suggestions by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985). In brief, they point out that transformational leaders bring out adaptive, entrepreneurial, innovative and flexible organizations, and they are ready and able to assume an appropriate attitude, to take a risk and face the status quo in the organization. Their intellectual abilities allow them to face the reality, even though it may not be pleasant. They achieve this mainly because of their relationships with their followers seeing that such leaders are open and sincere, and ready to give feelings of confidence when required and they are sensitive toward their followers. These traits empower followers and thus, they exhibit higher performances than expected.

Bass and Bass (2008) described various contributions of transformational leadership to effective organizational policies and performance. Likewise, numerous studies have found that followers’ commitment, loyalty, satisfaction, and attachment are related to transformational leadership (Becker & Billings, 1993; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Fullagar et al., 1992; Niehoff et al., 1990). Moreover, several researchers employed MLQ to determine transactional and transformational leadership behaviors from samples of leaders. For example, Bass et al. (1987) examined 69 leaders from all over the world. Waldman et al. (1987) explored the leadership practices of 256 private sector managers. These studies mutually and consistently revealed that transformational leaders are far more effective than those of transactional leaders with regards to their followers’ development, commitment and empowerment, and increasing performance both on the individual and organizational level.

30 Yet, how and through what strategies transformational leaders guide their followers to reach performances beyond expectations is of significant importance. Likewise, one should cover how the influence process works, how followers’ commitment and motivation is elicited, and how transformational leaders avoid stressful situations, and understand how leadership effectiveness can be acquired. Bass and Bass (2008) offers a step-by-step approach to how transformational leaders operate.

Transformational Leadership Theory and Groupthink

Some studies found that leaders adopting a transformational leadership approach are more effective than those adopting a transactional leadership approach, which leads to higher employees’ performance than transformational leaders (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Lowe et al.,

1996). Despite these findings, studies on transformational leadership mostly focus on the relationships between leaders and employees at the individual level; however, several researchers investigated the relationship between transformational leadership and group outcomes by focusing on the impact of the leadership on group dynamics (Sosik et al., 1997, 1998; Tracey,

1998; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994).

Jung and Sosik (2002) speculated that a prominent feature of transformation leaders is that they encourage followers to readjust their personal principles in line with leaders, and thus with that of the group’s perspective and purposes. By doing so, they create strong values of adoption, and collaboration among employees. Therefore, a strong common vision emerges in the group and in exchange, it increases the cohesiveness and efficiency of the group. Their findings revealed that there is a positive relation between group cohesiveness and transformational leadership. However, their research could not find any supporting evidence

31 showing that increased cohesiveness created by the transformational leaders also raised total efficiency of the group. In this regard, this study urges that future research should be conducted to examine the relationship between cohesiveness and group efficiency while manipulating leadership style.

Moreover, on the one hand, many researches claim that transformational leaders decrease the stress of followers by increasing their self-confidence (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Waldman et al. 1987). On the other hand, some researchers advocate quite the opposite contending that transformational leaders arouse emotions and abuse them in a way that followers work a lot harder to reach performances beyond expectations, and this, in turn, increases stress (Day &

Antonakis, 2011; Sosik et al., 1998a). Consequently, increased stress decreases the efficiency.

However, there is no research examining the effects of stress possibly created by transformational leaders; the existing literature only focuses on the positive effects of transformational leaders in regards to decreasing stress. Hence, this point entails further research as well.

This study also questions the efficiency of transformational leadership in the long run.

There is no research in the existing vast transformational leadership literature that explores what happens in the organizations after transformational leaders leave. To put differently, none of the studies incorporated post-performance of the organization after the transformational leader leaves as a measure while gauging the effectiveness of the theory. Based on empirical data and anecdotal evidence, when a transformational leader leaves an organization, that entity struggles each time unless another leader who exhibits transformational features takes his/her office. This also hints that transformational leaders are not good at training their immediate followers to

32 become a transformational leader. Consequently, the organizations may stagger after a transformation leader leaves an organization.

The Apple case is clear example of this. Apple was about to go bankrupt after the first leave of Steve Jobs. When he came back, the company started rising again. After his unfortunate leave for the second time, the company was not able to bring out any new innovations. There are many other cases such as this one both in public and private sectors. For these reasons, this study urges future researchers to take this point into consideration in their research.

Hypotheses of the Study and Conceptual Formulation with Causal Specifications

Both the theory of Groupthink by Janis (1971) and transformational leadership theory have been perceived as intriguing and triggered substantial amounts of research after their immediate release due to their intuitive appeal. However, anecdotal experience also indicates that both of the theories make sense and their allegations comply with real-world settings. This might well account for their intuitively appealing tenet.

On the one hand, Janis’s (1971) claims have never been underpinned adequately by research data, but only partial support was found at best. As discussed above, this might be due to the complexity of the theory as well as difficulty of testing it in real-world settings. However, the majority of the groupthink research, if not all, revealed that leadership style had a big role in eliminating and avoiding the negative effects of the phenomenon. Nevertheless, none of these studies explained how and in what ways leadership style impacts the groupthink effect. Rather, scholars preferred to use quite broad sentiments that require further research. For example, some studies point out that open leadership has a positive effect on decreasing the occurrence of

33 symptoms of Groupthink; however, none of them explained what open leadership is, and which features of it helps to eliminate groupthink.

This study contributes to the literature by exploring if there is a relationship between leadership styles and symptoms of groupthink, and if there is, in what ways does this work. In this regard, a scrutiny of the transformational leadership literature shows that transformational leaders have the potential to create or increase cohesiveness in the groups. Although increased cohesiveness has been mentioned as a support for the theory on the grounds that stickiness of the members of a group toward each other and toward the leader would increase the group’s performance, this might damage the processes in decision-making groups from the groupthink point of view. In particular, Janis (1971) addressed cohesiveness as the primary source of impatient concurrence behaviors.

While not the key focus, this study also examines the impact of transactional leadership style on groupthink. In transactional leadership, leaders’ self-efficiency is more important.

However, transformational approach makes followers more motivated. According to Bass

(1998), transformational leaders are built on the transactional approach in contributing to the additional effort and performance of employees. Thus, it is safe to say that transformational leadership approach contributes considerable value to transactional leadership in the context of leadership effectiveness, but transactional leadership does not. Researchers call this effect as the augmentation effect (Hater & Bass, 1988; Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino 1990).

Uçar (2018) measured the effect of the employees’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership styles on self-efficacy beliefs in Turkey. The study also examined the intermediary role of trust in manager on these relationships. The findings of the study postulate

34 that there is no significant relationship between the employees’ perceptions of the impact of leadership styles and self-efficacy belief. Results also reveal that intermediary role of trust in managers is not statistically significant with this relationship. Moreover, the perception of the employees on transactional leadership style has a significant negative impact on trust in managers and perceptions of transformational leadership style has a positive impact on trust in managers (Uçar, 2018). Thus, this study argues that both transformational and transactional leadership styles have an impact on groupthink.

Likewise, exploration of transformational leadership research also indicate that transformational leaders might increase stress amongst their followers, as explained above. Thus, transformational leadership might elicit groupthink in decision-making groups. Moreover, transactional leadership also creates stress because of the stick and carrot approach. Therefore, it has the potential to lead to defective decisions in groups. Hence, this study speculates that both transformational and transactional leaderships might elicit groupthink. Furthermore, quite a number of research revealed that age, tenure, gender, and educational level of the groups members and leaders have an impact on both the occurrence of groupthink and relationships between the leader and the followers.

For example, a study by Taş and Çetiner (2011) examined the perceptions of teachers on transformational leadership attitudes of high school principals by employing a descriptive survey. They measured the perceptions of 167 teachers who work at high schools in Turkey.

According to their study, secondary school principals perform behaviors in all dimensions of transformational leadership at a medium level. Their findings reveal a significant difference in teachers’ perceptions on high school principals’ attitudes in all dimensions of transformational

35 leadership according to the gender variable. However, they found no significant difference by tenure and fields. Also, the perceptions of teachers reveal that there was a significant difference in evaluating vision and development leadership behaviors according to their working time with the manager.

Similarly, Uzun’s (2005) study compared the leadership attitudes of banking managers by gender. The research examined the potential differences by gender and the leadership attitudes of male and female managers in the banking business. The study also attempted to detect the difference between leadership styles. The findings of the study posit that leadership attitudes do not differ by bank managers’ gender. The only difference that the study found is their leadership skills, revealing that female managers were inclined to have more people-oriented leadership skills, whilst male managers were more task-oriented.

Sahin (2005) measured the perceptions of elementary school principals and teachers on the transactional and transformational leadership styles of the principals in primary schools with

950 teachers in Izmir, Turkey. The study found that the perceptions of the principals on transactional leadership styles differ significantly by the socio-economic level of the school, while the perceptions of the teachers vary significantly by tenure and socio-economic level of the schools. There are quite a few other studies that show that the demographic, socio-economic, and cultural state of the leaders or followers might lead to different results. In this regard, as explained in the methodology chapter, this research tests the effects of these tenets by employing them as control variables while manipulating leadership style where groupthink is the dependent variable. Hereby, after exploring the literature and based on anecdotal evidence, the hypotheses of this study are as follows:

36 Hypotheses of the Study

H1: Perceived transformational and transactional leadership styles are not associated with participants’ gender.

H4: Perceived transformational and transactional leadership styles and groupthink are associated with participants’ educational degree level.

H3: Perceived groupthink is associated with participants’ educational degree level.

H4: Perceived transformational and transactional leadership styles and groupthink are not associated with type of school participants work.

H5: Perceived transformational and transactional leadership styles and groupthink are associated with college they graduated.

H6: There is a significant difference in the perceptions of transformational leadership among those who did not serve as managers but have a desire to become a manager and who did not serve but have no desire to do so in the future.

H7: The perceptions of those who did not serve as managers and have a desire to do so in the future on the internal activities are higher than the other groups.

H8: There is a negative statistically significant relationship between tenure and transformational leadership.

H9: Perceived transformational leadership style has an impact on perceived groupthink of the participants.

H10: Perceived transactional leadership style has an impact on perceived groupthink of the participants.

37 The figure below shows the casual relationships speculated by the research.

Figure 2. Hypothetical representation of the study model.

38 CHAPTER 3

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

This study investigates the perceptions of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and groupthink among Turkish teachers in Gaziantep, one of the largest provinces of Turkey.

This chapter presents an overview of the Republic of Turkey’s government structure and its educational system.

General Structure of the Turkish Government

The Republic of Turkey has a unitary state system with a very centralized government, and the people use their dominion by the general elections (Yesilbas & Wan, 2017). The legislative body of the state, the Turkish Grand National Assembly, has 600 members of the parliaments. Turkish citizens elect both members of the parliaments and the president of the republic, according to the Turkish Constitution of 1982. The President of the republic has the full authority to appoint the cabinet members while the Judiciary power is fulfilled by independent courts (The Turkish Constitution of 1982). As for the central administrative structure, the state is separated into 81 provinces by geographical, economic conditions, and public service necessities, while provinces are divided into districts (Yesilbas & Wan, 2017). In recent years, the Turkish

Republic has adopted more private sector perspectives and practices to improve public service delivery (Battaglio & Gelgec, 2016).

The main administrative units of the republic are divided into three categories: central government, local governments, and other units. The central government of the Turkish Republic consist of organizational entities that are responsible for political, administrative, and economic policies of the state, consisting of central units and provincial units (The Turkish Constitution of

39 1982). The executive body of the Turkish Republic consists of the presidency of the republic and the cabinet. Provinces and districts constitute the provincial body of the state. There are managerial offices and local authorities of the central government to implement the central government’s policies (Yesilbas & Wan, 2017). The democratic entities founded outside the central government constitute the local government bodies of the republic, which are special provincial administrations, municipalities, and villages. The chief responsibility of these bodies is to deliver municipal services at the local level. These local entities have delivered social welfare services since the 1990s (Yiğit, 2016). Because of the paradigm shift and a new public role in the new democracy model, municipalities have gained more importance in Turkey

(Yesilbas, 2008a; 2008b). The Municipal Code, Act number of 5393, and the Special Provincial

Administration Code, Act number of 5402, are legislated in 2005 to form the general principals of local governments (Yiğit, 2016).

The third unit is divided into three classifications: functionally decentralized bodies, specialized public units, and consultative/supervisory bodies. The chief function of decentralized bodies is to deliver certain services within their fields of specialization, such as Social Security

Organization, the Radio and Television Supreme Council, Banking Regulation and Supervision

Agency, and universities (Yesilbas & Wan, 2017). Specialized public units are formed to meet the people’s common needs, and to contribute to the development of the members of a specific area such as bar associations or occupational chambers.

Consultative/supervisory bodies do not have any executive authority. The core roles of these bodies are to give guidance and advice to the bodies of the state in several fields. The well- known examples of these organizations are the National Security Council and the Inspection

40 Board of the State. The main administrative system adopted by the Turkish Republic is called the provincial administration system. Under this system, the state is separated into units called provinces. The essential sense underlying this system is the delegation of authority, and this principle necessitates delegating some of the decision-making powers of the central government to the next sub-hierarchical authority (Yesilbas & Wan, 2017).

The Act of 5442 outlines the general framework of the provincial administration composed of the “province” and “district” (The Act of 5442). The provincial governorate and district governorate are two main bodies of the provincial administration system (Yesilbas,

2015). The governor is a top-ranking officer and head of the province, representing the central government, the republic, and the individual ministries (The Act of 5442). The other entity, district, is administered by a district governor who is appointed by the central government. A district is the sub-level of the province and covers several villages, small towns, and municipalities. Governors and district governors are top-ranking officers for the managerial branches of all the ministries, including the Ministry of National Education. They perform as the top-ranking officers responsible for all the ministerial tasks ranging from agriculture, security, infrastructure (Yeşilbaş, 2011; 2014), health, and even public relationships (Yeşilbaş, 2008a).

Provincial national education managers and district national education managers are the head of the provincial and district educational branches, respectively. The chief role of these managers is to take responsibility for general administration and supervising all educational affairs, excluding higher educational institutes at the provincial and district level. Both work under the supervision of the provincial and district governors. All principals work under the supervision of these managers.

41 A Brief Overview of the Turkish National Education System

The Turkish national education system consists of two main sections: formal education and non-formal education. The formal education section includes pre-elementary education, primary education, secondary education, and universities. The non-formal education of the system comprises all instructive activities systematized outside formal education.

Pre-school education targets children who have not yet come to the age of compulsory primary education. This option is not compulsory. Turkish primary education comprises both education and training of students aged 6 to 14 years. Primary education is compulsory for all citizens, and it is free for all students (meb.gov.tr, 2019, The Decree Law of 652). In these schools, the attendees obtain a diploma (meb.gov.tr, 2019, The Decree Law of 652).

Secondary education involves all general, vocational, and technical education institutions that provide education for at least 3 years based on primary education. Secondary education consists of high schools applying various programs. Schools that give importance to a particular program are given names that determine the branches of education, such as high school, technical high school, and agricultural vocational high school.

Non-formal education consists of two main sections: general and vocational/technical sections. These sections are created in a supportive manner. The non-formal education, in accordance with the general goals and fundamental philosophies of national education, targets people who never participated in the formal education system, or left the formal education at any level. The purpose of non-formal education is to teach people how to read and write, to prepare learning opportunities to accomplish missing education, to prepare educational opportunities that enable participants to comply with the scientific, technological, economic, social and cultural

42 developments, to have participants to adopt the necessary nutrition and healthy life forms and procedures, to provide the necessary knowledge and skills for the people working in various professions to improve in service and profession (The Decree Law of 652).

The coordination among public, private, and voluntary organizations involved in general, vocational, and technical non-formal education shall be handled by the Turkish Ministry of

National Education (TMoNE) (The Decree Law of 652). Teaching is a specialized profession that focuses on education and training tasks. Teachers are obliged to perform these duties per the goals and fundamental principles of the TMoNE. Preparing for the teaching profession is provided by general culture, special field education, and pedagogical formation. In order to achieve the qualifications mentioned above, it is essential that prospective teachers are required to have at least a bachelor’s degree, regardless of the level of teaching.

Collectivist Culture and Dominant Leadership in Turkish Society

The concept of collectivism is opposed to the individuality as a cultural value. In collectivist societies, such as Turkey, individuals grow up in large families and live their lives with a tendency to protect each other (Ercis et al., 2016). Collectivism shows whether an individual in a group defines himself as an individual or as a member of a group, and how he/she reflects this in his/her behavior. In other words, it expresses whether the values in culture are more important for the individual needs or the needs of the group (Şişman, 2002).

Studies show that Turkey is considered to have the characteristics of a collectivist culture and it is clear that dominant leadership and paternalism are also an important concept for Turkish administration and organizations (Köksal, 2011). Studies on Turkey are also associated with dominant leadership and paternalism with assumptions, such as collectivism, high power

43 distance, avoiding uncertainty, masculinity/femininity within the scope of its definition and features attributed to it in the literature (Erben, 2004, p. 347). The Turkish administrative culture, like other Eastern cultures, is a collectivist one and has a wide power distance. Therefore, it would not be wrong to state that organizations operating in Turkish social cultures adopt dominant leadership and paternalism (Köksal, 2011). In the paternalist and collectivist structure, dependency on top management and obedience occur on a voluntary basis (Aycan, 2001, p. 5).

Köksal (2011) argued that dominant leadership and paternalism are compatible with the values of collectivist society like Turkey because the leader is to be included in the employee's private life in Turkish society and administrative culture. This involvement is a desirable situation in collectivist cultures. Paşa et al. (2001), in their study on paternalistic concepts in

Turkey, concluded that there is a significant positive relationship between the ideas of collectivism and dominant leadership and paternalist behavior. They claim that it is a fact that the society and its cultural values significantly affect the behavior and emotions of the employees

(Pasha, 2000, p. 227).

Aycan and Kanungo (2000) point out that Turkish social culture has a collectivist structure and that social culture has an important effect on organizational culture. Consequently, they claim that leaders who are influenced by organizational culture have a paternalistic tendency towards their subordinates. Aycan and Kanungo (2000) surveyed ten countries and found that Turkey ranks second in the size of dominant leadership, paternalism, and group commitment. Their findings reveal that employees expect their manager or leader to be a paternalist. It is observed that the managers who protect the interests of the employees, share their problems and joys, participate openly, deal with problems other than work, attach

44 importance to professional development, and create a family atmosphere in the organization are preferred in the Turkish administrative and cultural environment (Aycan & Kanungo, 2000).

This same study claims that Turkish society is a collectivist and high-power distance society. Paternalist tendencies are known to occur in societies with similar cultural characteristics. Considering that Turkey is a developing country, developing countries coincide with a similar tendency in the literature regarding the extent possible that studies may give some ideas. Existing literature reveals that researchers have established a relationship between paternalist leadership and cultural dimensions. The dominant trend in the literature is that there may be a relationship between paternalist leadership and the high power range and high degree of uncertainty in the organization, collectivism and masculinity cultural dimensions (Aycan,

2006; Erben & Güneşer, 2007; House et al., 2004; Öner, 2011; Pasha et al., 2001).

When the issue is discussed in the context of Turkey, research reveals that a paternalistic leadership approach is prevalent in the country having avoidance of uncertainty and collectivist features (Hofstede, 2011) and it is common in organizations (Aycan, 2006; Chen et al., 2011;

Erben & Güneşer, 2007; Öner, 2011; Pasha et al., 2001; Pellegrini, 2008; Pellegrini & Scandura,

2006; Pellegrini et al., 2010). Moreover, recent studies highlight that organizations in Turkey are also becoming less hierarchical and collectivist, and have begun to move toward the lower range of uncertainty avoidance (Berkman & Care, 2008). Furthermore, Bodur and Bluto (2002) argued that although organizations in Turkey do not have big differences in doing business like that of

Western organizations, it is separated from their Western peers in the framework of the cultural values (Berkman & Care, 2008).

45 The fact that society prioritizes the individual or community determines the individualism-collectivism dimension of the culture (Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Wu, 2006). In this context, it is accepted that in the individualist cultures in which the individual interest takes precedence over the social interest, the understanding of “I” overrides the understanding of “we”

(Cesur et al., 2019). In contrast, in collectivist cultures, community members are expected to prioritize the understanding of “we” instead of “I” and to adhere to the group by keeping the interests of the group, which takes precedence over the own interests (Kartarı, 2006; Şişman,

2002).

According to Hofstede (1980b), Turkish society has a high tendency to avoid uncertainty and the power distance in Turkish society is also high (Halis et al., 2009; Hofstede, 1980b;

Sargut, 2010). The hierarchy sensitivity of the Turkish society is high (Sargut, 2010). Employees and subordinates do not want to clash with their superiors. The leader is supposed to be compassionate and interested in guiding the followers. Trust and loyalty prevail in choosing and appointing employees. Performance evaluations are not welcome in Turkish society (Kocamana

& Ulutürk, 2019). A strong reference is sought in job applications and appointments (Kocamana

& Ulutürk, 2019). Since Turkish culture has undergone rapid social changes, it can be considered neither a fully individualist nor a fully collectivist culture (Goregenli, 1997; Imamoglu, 1998). It is more reasonable to define Turkish society and administrative culture as a hybrid or complex culture (Kağıtçıbaş, 2005; Imamoğlu, 2003).

46 CHAPTER 4

METHODOLOGY

This study examines participants’ perceptions of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and groupthink among Turkish teachers in Gaziantep, one of the largest provinces of

Turkey. The primary objective was two-fold: (1) to determine whether leadership style and groupthink are related to each other, and (2) to determine whether transformational leadership elicits groupthink of Turkish teachers. Survey models are suitable for research aimed at describing the past or present situation as it exists (Karasar, 1991).

Study Participants and Data Collection

This research was conducted in the Gaziantep Province of Turkey, which is a metropolitan city with a total population of 2,069,364. Females represent 49.5 percent

(1,024,565) of the total population in the province. The provincial central district, where the research was conducted, stands for approximately 10 percent of this total population

(https://www.nufusu.com/il/gaziantep-nufusu).

To conduct the survey, a certified surveyor, who also is a retired teacher was hired. He visited every school, both public and private in the Gaziantep Provincial Central School District.

Total number of schools in this district are 98, consisting of 91 public and 7 private school. Total number of teachers in the school district are 2,646 with female teachers accounting for 39 percent of the total teachers. The surveyor arranged meetings with each school wherein the teachers were informed about the questionnaire and about the significance of the study. Hard copy versions of the surveys were delivered a week after the visit. The consent form emphasizing that the participation of respondents is voluntary was placed at the start of the survey. The

47 consent form ensured confidentiality of the participants. No personally identifiable data were collected. There was a checkbox for the participants to accept the consent form. The participants filled the questionnaire and the responses were collected by the surveyor.

A total of 605 teachers from 81 Public schools and 6 private schools volunteered to participate in the study. Of the 605 teachers, 403 filled the questionnaire for a response rate of

66.6%. Of the total responses, 42% were females and 58% males, which is very close to the overall demographics of teachers in the province with females at 39% and males 61%. The responses are also close to the overall demographics of the province. Thus, the participants’ are fairly representative of the study population.

Table 1. The Frequency Distribution of Total Teachers in Gaziantep and Participants by Gender

Gender Province Teachers (N) % Study Participants (N) %

Female 1,031 39 169 41.9

Male 1,651 61 234 58.1

Total 2,646 100 403 100.0

Study Scales

Two copyrighted survey scales, consisting of 54 items (with 11 control and demographic variables), were used to construct a survey questionnaire. The response set was designed following the 5-point and 6-point Likert scales. The data collection form used in this research consists of three parts. The first part is a questionnaire that consists of 11 items in order to obtain some information required for the research as well as the demographic characteristics of the

48 participants. The Transformational and Transactional Leadership Scale-TLS (Donmez & Toker,

2017) has 32 items. This scale consists of sub-dimensions of Transformational Leadership (TFL) and Transactional Leadership (TAL). The number of items in these dimensions is 25 and 7, respectively. In the third and last part, there is a Groupthink Scale with 23 items (Choi & Kim,

1999). The sub-dimensions of this scale are concurrence seeking (CS), group identity (GI), symptoms of defective decision making (SDDM), internal activities (IA), external activities

(EA), and team performance (TP). The number of items related to the sub-dimensions is 3, 3, 6,

3, 4, and 4, respectively.

Measurement Tools

This study utilized two main scales—the Transformational Leadership Scale (TLS) by

Donmez and Toker (2017) and the Groupthink Scale by Choi and Kim (1999) as discussed next.

Transformational Leadership Scale (TLS)

Donmez and Toker (2017) created a new free-access valid Likert-type leadership scale to measure transformational leadership named the Transformational Leadership Scale (TLS).

According to their study, within-group agreement of TLA was higher when evaluated with the

Transformational Leadership Scale as compared with the Multi-Functional Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ). Their results reveal that the TLS gives more reliable follower perceptions of employees who work under the supervision of the same manager (Donmez & Toker, 2017).

The main contribution of their study is the introduction of the free-access Transformational

Leadership Scale developed in Turkey, including generic and culture-specific elements of leadership behaviors. Since this scale considers cultural factors, this study adopted TLS as a scale. The TLS scale has 34 items that are related to employees’ manager. Each of the items was

49 followed by a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Eight items were employed to measure transactional leadership behaviors, while 26 items were employed to measure transformational leadership behaviors.

Groupthink Scale by Choi and Kim (1999)

Choi and Kim (1999) developed a scale to measure groupthink and team activities in organizational teams that faced an imminent crisis. In their study, two factors of groupthink symptoms were identified, and they claimed that the first factor was significantly and positively associated with the team’s performance, while the second one had a negative but no significant relationship to the team’s performance. The scale has 23 items, and each item was followed by a

6-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The sub-sections of the items are as follows: Concurrence Seeking (Groupthink Factor 1) with three items, Group

Identity (Groupthink Factor 2) with three items, Symptoms of Defective Decision Making with six items, Internal Activities with three items, External Activities with four items, and Team

Performance four items.

50 Table 2. The Study Variable Variable Name Sub-dimensions Operational Measurement/Scale App Transformational Each of the items was followed by a endi Leadership Style leadership 5-point Likert scale ranging from x (Independent strongly disagree to strongly agree. A1/ Variable) Transactional Leadership 1 - Strongly disagree, 2 - Disagree, 3 A2 - Neutral, 4 - Agree, 5 - Disagree Concurrence Seeking

Group Identity

Symptoms of Defective Each of the items was followed by a Decision Making 6-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Groupthink 1 - Strongly disagree, 2 - Disagree, 3 (Dependent Internal Activities - Somewhat disagree, 4 - Somewhat Variable) agree, External Activities 5 - Agree, 6 - Strongly agree 1/B2

Team Performance Appendix B Control Variables What is your occupational Status position? Gender What is your gender? Self –structured questionnaire Age Please specify asking participants demographic How many years have you been Tenure features working in the public sector? College graduated Please specify Education level What is your education level? Associate, undergraduate, graduate Please specify the type of Private, Public Type of school school you work Branch Please specify City center, district, village Location of your school

51 Have you Yes, No previously served as a manager? Are you Yes, No planning to be a manager in the future? Every day How often do A few times a week you meet your A few times a month managers? A few times a year

Validity and Reliability

Validity and reliability are the two main features of a scale. Validity is defined as the degree to which the measurement tool serves its purpose (Turgut & Baykul, 2010). Different validity methods can be applied to the measurement tool in order to prove that it serves its purpose. The scales adopted in this study were previously developed and implemented by another researcher after a certain period. In such cases, it is required to verify the construct validity of the measuring tools. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of the Structural Equation

Modeling (SEM) is implemented when validating a previously defined and constrained structure as a model (Çokluk et al., 2012).

The concept of reliability is called the degree of purity of the measurement tools from errors (Turgut & Baykul, 2010). The reliability analysis of the study is discussed to examine the internal consistency of the measurement tools. Cronbach α coefficient, which shows the reliability in terms of internal consistency, is reported in the studies, Although there are different types of techniques to measure the internal consistency of the measurement tools, the Cronbach’s

52 Alpha coefficient is one of the most preferred techniques used to examine the extent to which a measurement creates reliable results at different times (Cronbach, 1951; Kline, 2016).

Since the TLS and GT scales are previously developed and implemented scales, a CFA was conducted to identify the construct validity of the measurement tools. Since the Cronbach alpha score is based on one-dimensionality, it was calculated separately for each sub-dimension of each scale. Mplus 7.0 was conducted for CFA, while SPSS 23 software was implemented to determine the Cronbach alpha score.

Statistical Analysis

Several statistical methods were utilized in the analysis of the data during the research process. The study mainly utilized descriptive analysis, T-Test, One Way ANOVA, the Pearson product-moment correlation, and structural equation modeling. Before conducting these statistical procedures, it was tested whether the data has a normal distribution. The Kolmogorov-

Simirnov test (K-S) and Skewness and Kurtosis coefficients were implemented to determine whether the data provided a normality assumption.

Human Subjects

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained since the research has human subjects. As a requirement of the IRB process, all survey and study materials were submitted to the IRB for approval before beginning the research and applying the survey. All measurement tools adopted by the study were copyrighted and created in a way to avoid any harm done to the participants of the study. Participating and responding to the questionnaire was voluntary, and the data was confidential. The study has not collected any personally identifiable information to ensure the confidentiality of the study.

53 CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS

This chapter provides the data analysis and findings of the research. The study mainly utilized descriptive analysis, T-Test, One Way ANOVA, the Pearson product-moment correlation, and structural equation modeling. In the first section of this chapter, a descriptive analysis of the variables will be given so that readers can get a general idea of the frequency distribution of the response set. Next, the validity and reliability analysis of the research will be given to see the internal consistency of the measurements. Finally, T-test, One-Way ANOVA, Pearson product- moment correlation findings, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, and Structural Equation Modeling will be discussed. Before conducting these statistical procedures, it was tested whether the data had a normal distribution. The Kolmogorov-Simirnov test (K-S) and Skewness and Kurtosis coefficients were implemented to determine whether the data provided a normality assumption.

Descriptive Analysis

Data were collected from 403 teachers working in different schools and branches in the

Gaziantep provincial center. Participating in the survey was voluntary, and data was confidential.

Table 3 depicts the frequency distribution of the participants’ gender. According to the table, more than half of the participants (58.1%) were male, and the remaining 41.9% were female. It is safe to say that the gender distributions of the participants were sufficient to collect data suitable for the research.

54 Table 3. The Frequency Distribution of Participants by Gender

Gender Frequency %

Female 169 41.9

Male 234 58.1

Total 403 100.0

The histogram graphs below indicate the age and tenure of the participants. Figure 3 shows the distribution of participants by age; the average age of the participants is 35.6. Furthermore, the figure postulates that the majority of the participants are 40 years old and younger.

Figure 3. Histogram graph of the age distribution of participants.

55 Figure 4. Histogram graph of the distribution of participants' tenure.

According to Figure 4, the tenure of the participants varies; some participants have 2-3 years of experience while some have about 30 years of experience. The average tenure of participants is 8.6 years. Moreover, the results reveal that the majority of the teachers participating in the research have been working for 15 years or less. Table 4 depicts the frequency distribution of the participants by to college/field they graduated from.

Table 4. The Frequency Distribution of Participants by College

College Frequency %

Education 344 85.4

Other 59 14.6

Total 403 100.0

56 According to Table 4, the majority of the teachers (85.4%) graduated from the faculty of educational science. The remaining 14.6% graduated from other colleges. The degree level of the participants is given in Table 5.

Table 5. The Frequency Distribution of Participants by the Degree Level

Degree Level Frequency %

Associate degree - -

Bachelor’s degree 362 89.8

Graduate degree 41 10.2

Total 403 100.0

Table 5 portrays that all of the participants (100%) have bachelor’s degrees related to the teaching profession. A small proportion (10.2%) of these teachers had a graduate degree. Table 6 presents the frequency distribution of participants by the type of school.

Table 6. The Frequency Distribution of Participants by the Type of School

Type of School Frequency %

Public 330 81.9

Private 73 18.1

Total 403 100.0

57 Table 6 shows that the participants of the study work in public and private schools. The results illustrate that approximately one-fifth of the participants (18.1%) work at private schools while a vast majority of them (81.9%) worked at public schools. When the proportion of private schools in the country is taken into consideration, it is safe to say that the number of participants from private schools is sufficient. Table 7 below depicts the frequency distribution of the participants by the regions they work in.

Table 7. Frequency Distribution of Participants by Region

Location of School Frequency %

City center 228 56.6

District center 152 37.7

Village 23 5.7

Total 403 100.0

Table 7 shows that more than half (56.6%) of the teachers work in city centers, 37.7% in district centers, and 5.7% in schools located in villages. Table 8 below postulates the frequency distribution of participants by their previous managerial status.

58 Table 8. Frequency Distribution of Participants by their Previous Managerial Status

Previously served as a Frequency % manager

Yes 50 12.4

No 353 87.6

Total 403 100.0

Table 8 reveals that a vast majority of the teachers (87.6%) had no previous managerial experience, while 12.4% of the participants previously served as managers. Table 9 below shows the responses of the teachers regarding their desire to become managers in the future.

Table 9. Frequency Distribution of Participants’ Desires to Become Managers in the Future

Do you want to serve as a Frequency % manager?

Yes 123 30.5

No 280 69.5

Total 403 100.0

Table 9 shows that 69.5% of teachers do not have a plan to become a manager in the future, while 30.5% of the teachers have goals of becoming managers. Table 10 below presents the distribution of the frequency of participants’ contacts with their managers.

59 Table 10. Distribution of the Frequency of Participants’ Contacts with their Managers

How often do you contact Frequency % with your manager?

Every day 86 21.3

A few times a week 231 57.3

A few times a month 76 18.9

A few times a year 10 2.5

Total 403 100.0

Table 10 depicts that more than half of the participants (57.3%) stated that they met with their managers a few times a week. The ratio of teachers who contact their managers every day is one-fifth of the total participants. Furthermore, 18.9% of the participants preferred to meet a few times a month, while 2.5% of them stated that they met a few times per year.

Validity and Reliability Results

As discussed in the methodology section, validity and reliability are the two main features of a scale. Validity is defined as the degree to which the measurement tool serves its purpose (Turgut & Baykul, 2010). The reliability analysis examines the internal consistency of the measurement tools. The Cronbach α coefficient indicates the reliability in terms of internal consistency. Although there are different types of techniques to measure the internal consistency of the measurement tools, the Cronbach’s α coefficient is one of the most preferred techniques used to examine the extent to which a measurement creates reliable results at different times

(Cronbach, 1951; Kline, 2011). Since the TLS and GT scales are previously developed and

60 implemented scales, a CFA was conducted to identify the construct validity of the measurement tools. Since the Cronbach α score is based on one dimensionality, it was calculated separately for each sub-dimension of each scale. Mplus 7.0 was conducted for CFA while SPSS 23 software was implemented to determine the Cronbach alpha score.

Transformational Leadership Scale (TLS)

The original form of the TLS scale consists of 32 items. The two-dimensional scale is a correlated traits model. The first 25 items are related to Transformational Leadership (TFL) while the remaining seven items are related to Transactional leadership (TAL). First, the model fit indices were reported.

Table 11. Model Fit Indices of the TLS Scale

X2/df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR

Before MI 3.16 .076 .893 .887 .081 Fit Indices After MI 3.05 .071 .906 .900 .092

One of the fundamental features of CFA is that studies could identify the fit of the measurement model prior to estimating the structural equation modeling model. The CFA identifies the models by providing separate estimations of relationships amongst the latent constructs and their corresponding indicators (Yeşilbaş, 2015). In all methods based on structural equation modeling, model fit is examined first. The goodness of fit (GOF) indices were used to evaluate the fitness of the measurement and covariance structure models. Although the Chi-

61 square value is not expected to be significant, it is common to interpret the value obtained by dividing it by degrees of freedom-df, as this value is influenced by the sample size.

A value smaller than five means the model fits good, and a value smaller than 2.5 indicates a perfect fit. The RMSEA and SRMR values smaller than .05 mean excellent, and smaller than .08 is an acceptable fit, whereas values greater than .1 are a poor fit. A value greater than .95 for CFI and TLI means a perfect model fit while a value greater than .90 means a good model fit. Since it is not always possible for all goodness of fit indices to indicate a good- acceptable model-data fit, the researcher should make a decision after all values are examined

(Byrne, 2012; Çokluk et al., 2012; Hu & Bentler, 1999).

According to this, the value of the Chi-square / df is 3.16, which is smaller than five, and indicates an acceptable model fit. The value of RMSEA is .078 <.08, which indicates a good fit.

The CFI and TLI values are .89 and .88, respectively, just below the acceptable threshold of .90.

Similarly, the SRMR has a value of .81, very close to the acceptable value. In general, three of the obtained values are quite close to acceptable thresholds, but it is seen that they indicate poor model fit indices.

In such cases, modification indices (MI) were used to revise the model so that model-data fit can be improved. However, this process requires extra attention. It can only be explained theoretically, and it would be appropriate to make a few modifications. The modification indices were examined to see highly correlated indicators to revise the generic model and get a better-fit model for the measurements. This modification has been defined since the identification of the relationship between the error variances of item 26 and item 28 would lead to a large decrease of

62 120 in the Chi-square value, and the relationship between these items can be explained theoretically. The obtained values are given in the second row of Table 11.

The findings reveal that the Chi-square / df value is at an acceptable rate and the

RMSEA, CFI and TLI values indicate a good model fit. However, the SRMR value does not meet the predetermined threshold for a good model fit. All of the goodness of fit indices after modification indicate that model fit is acceptable for the TLS scale. Other statistics related to

TLS scale are shown in Table 11.

Table 12 indicates the standardized factor loadings, standard errors and t values of the

TLS scale. The findings depict that the factor loadings exceeded the predetermined criteria with statistically significant values. The Cronbach α coefficient was calculated to determine the reliability of the sub-dimensions in terms of internal consistency. Since there is a one- dimensional assumption for this coefficient, it was calculated separately for each dimension.

Table 12. Parameter Estimates and Factor Loadings for TLS

Factor Dimension Item No SE t Loading 1 0.792 0.019 41.211 2 0.797 0.019 42.483 3 0.829 0.016 51.056 Transformational 4 0.828 0.016 50.765 Leadership 5 0.788 0.019 40.466 6 0.752 0.022 33.825 7 0.797 0.019 42.351 8 0.837 0.016 53.723 9 0.815 0.017 47.016

63 10 0.821 0.017 48.642 11 0.770 0.021 36.804 12 0.815 0.017 46.834 13 0.793 0.019 41.520 14 0.741 0.023 32.120 15 0.763 0.021 35.679 16 0.806 0.018 44.503 17 0.796 0.019 42.181 18 0.816 0.017 47.227 19 0.779 0.020 38.627 20 0.788 0.020 40.275 21 0.808 0.018 45.131 22 0.738 0.023 31.652 23 0.778 0.020 38.343 24 0.753 0.022 33.945 25 0.514 0.042 12.244 Cronbach Alpha: .96

X : 80.5 s : 24.2 26 0.765 0.026 29.193 27 0.524 0.041 12.693 28 0.772 0.026 30.043 Transactional 29 0.377 0.047 8.087 Leadership 30 0.690 0.032 21.878 31 0.784 0.025 30.767 32 0.815 0.017 46.834 Cronbach Alpha: .79

64 X : 17.8 s : 5.7

The Cronbach α score for the TFL sub-dimension and the TAL sub-dimension is .96 and

.79, respectively. Since the threshold for this value is accepted as .70 (Takavol & Dennick,

2011), it is safe to say that the reliability of these sub-dimensions has a satisfactory internal consistency level, and the sub-dimensions have excellent measurement reliability. The correlation coefficient value between these two sub-dimensions was -.51. Hence, it can be concluded that there is a negative, moderate, and significant correlation between the dimensions.

In the light of above-mentioned findings, it was concluded that the TLS scale was validated, and that the data obtained within the scope of this study was appropriate for the purpose of using the findings.

Groupthink Scale (GTS)

The Groupthink Scale consists of 23 items (Choi & Kim, 1999). The sub-dimensions of the GTS are concurrence seeking (CS), group identity (GI), symptoms of defective decision making (SDDM), internal activities (IA), external activities (EA), and team performance (TP) with the number of items as 3, 3, 6, 3, 4 and 4, respectively. First, the model fit indices of CFA applied to examine the construct validity are presented. As a result of the first analysis, it was found that item 9 had a negative, low and statistically insignificant factor loading. Therefore, this item was removed from the model and the analyses were re-conducted with the remaining 22 items. The values shown in the first row of Table 13 below are the goodness of fit indices obtained from the re-conducted analysis.

65 Table 13. Model Fit Indices of the GT Scale

X2/df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR

Before MI 3.57 .079 .933 .927 .049 Fit Indices After MI 2.75 .066 .954 .951 .049

The Chi-square / df values obtained before the modification indices show an acceptable model fit, the values of RMSEA and CFI and TLI indicate a good fit model, and SRMR reveals an excellent model fit since the relationship between error variances of item 7 and item 9 of the proposed modifications is theoretically explainable and the values in the second row are obtained. Accordingly, unlike the previous case, CFI and TLI also indicate an excellent fit. In light of all these values, it can be concluded that the model-data fit is good. After revising the model, the CFI and TLI results indicate an excellent fit model and results reveal that all model fit indices met the threshold for a good model fit. The other statistics for GT scale are provided in

Table 14.

Table 14. Parameter Estimates and Factor Loadings for the GT Scale

Factor Dimension Item No SE T Loading 1 0.845 0.018 46.536 CS 2 0.866 0.017 50.716 3 0.862 0.017 49.574 Cronbach Alpha: .89

66 X : 11.7 s : 3.8 4 0.720 0.029 24.906 GI 5 0.840 0.022 38.435 6 0.787 0.024 32.327 Cronbach Alpha: .82

X : 11.8 s : 3.5 7 0.704 0.028 24.708 8 0.747 0.025 29.668 SDDM 10 0.797 0.022 36.695 11 0.816 0.021 39.500 12 0.801 0.021 38.094 Cronbach Alpha: .89

X : 16.9 s : 5.8 13 0.833 0.018 45.332 IA 14 0.730 0.026 28.254 15 0.896 0.014 63.312 Cronbach Alpha: .86

X : 11.5 s : 3.9 16 0.867 0.015 59.697 17 0.865 0.015 59.408 EA 18 0.854 0.015 55.243 19 0.855 0.015 55.319 Cronbach Alpha: .92

67 X : 14.1 s : 5.2 20 0.657 0.030 22.134 21 0.894 0.012 76.481 TP 22 0.938 0.008 114.374 23 0.914 0.010 91.425 Cronbach Alpha: .91

X : 15.3 s : 5.2

According to the results provided in the table, the standardized parameter estimates and factor loadings for all items are quite high ranging from .70 to .94 and all are statistically significant. The reliability coefficient scores of Cronbach α for internal consistency of each dimension shows that they are all greater than .80. Hence, it was concluded that the measurement reliability of all these sub-dimensions and CFA results depict that these sub-dimensions had a very high level of measurement reliability. Table 15 shows the correlations between the dimensions.

Table 15. Correlations Between the Sub-dimensions of the GT Scale

CS GI SDDM IA EA

GI .79*

SDDM -.03 -.31*

IA -.12* .14* -.85*

68 EA -.02 .27* -.88* .89*

TP -.06 .20* -.83* .87* .89*

* p<.05

When the above table is examined, it is seen that there is a high positive correlation among GI-CS, IA-EA, IA-TP and TP-EA. The correlation of SDDM with all other dimensions was negative. This dimension had a high negative correlation with the IA, EA, and TP dimensions. The correlation of the GI sub-dimension with other dimensions was positive, significant, and low. Finally, the correlations between CS and other dimensions were negative and only the correlation with IA was significant, albeit it has a low correlation level. In light of all these results, it was concluded that the scale is validated because the scale has a sufficient level of construct validity.

Statistical Analysis

Several statistical methods were utilized in the analysis of the data during the research process. The study mainly utilized descriptive analysis, structural equation modeling, T-Test,

One Way ANOVA, and the Pearson product-moment correlation. Before conducting these statistical procedures, it was tested as to whether the data had normal distribution. The

Kolmogorov-Simirnov test (K-S) and Skewness and Kurtosis coefficients were implemented to determine whether the data provided a normality assumption.

In this part of the study, the differentiation status of the participants’ scores by various categorical variables is examined. For this purpose, before performing the statistical analysis, the sub-dimensions of the measurement tools were examined as to whether they met the assumption

69 of normal distribution. Hence, the total scores of two sub-dimensions of TLS and six sub- dimensions of GT were determined.

The Kolmogorov-Simirnov (K-S) test was applied to test the normality. If this test is not significant, it means that the distribution is normal. However, since the K-S is a sensitive test that is affected by the sample size, it may report even small deviations from normality significantly.

Therefore, the Skewness value of ± 1.96 and Kurtosis value of ≤ ± 2.58 are considered sufficient

(Hair et al., 2014). The values obtained for these tests are given in Table 17. According to the results, all K-S test results for the sub-dimensions are significant. Although these values indicate that the assumption of normality was not met, as previously mentioned, the Skewness and

Kurtosis values were obtained for each sub-test and reported in Table 16, as this test is a sensitive method affected by sample size.

Table 16. K-S Test Results for the Eight Sub-dimensions of the Study

Sub-dimensions Statistic df

TFL .166* 403 TAL .075* 403 CS .152* 403 GI .109* 403 SDDM .113* 403 IA .137* 403 TP .132* 403 EA .103* 403 *p < .05

70 Table 17. Skewness and Kurtosis Values for Total Score Distribution of the Sub-dimensions

Alt Boyutlar Skewness Kurtosis

TFL -.325 -.932 TAL .173 .187 CS -.359 -.871 GI -.371 -.620 SDDM .336 -.778 IA -.454 -.789 TP -.476 -.829 EA -.195 -1.000

As noted in the table above, the Skewness and Kurtosis values obtained for the distribution of the total scores within the scope of the research provided ≤ ± 1.96 and ≤ ±2.58, respectively, for

Kurtosis. Thus, it was possible to reach a conclusion that the total score distributions met the normality assumption. Therefore, parametric statistical techniques were implemented to find answers to the problems in the research. After the normality test, a t-test was used to examine the significance between two variables. One Way ANOVA was conducted for more than two independent variables, and the Pearson product-moment correlation was implemented to test the relationship between the variables.

Descriptive Analysis

In this research, descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency distributions of the dataset and to reveal the distribution score characteristics of the scales. Descriptive statistics of SPSS provided frequency tables and the distribution of each variable.

71 Structural Equation Modeling

The main purpose of this research is to examine the impact of participants’ perceptions of transformational leadership on groupthink. Thus, a structural equation modeling method was implemented. This method enables the use of latent variables in factor analysis and the structural predictive relationships in regression (Çokluk et al., 2012; Kline, 2016). It is necessary to deal with not only structural-predictive relationships between these variables, but also model-data fit of the study. Mplus 7.0 was conducted for data analysis in all methods based on structural equation modeling.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which is a method based on Structural Equation

Modeling, is used when the researcher has a strong a priori about which latent variables are related to the items in the model (Brown, 2006). Two scales adopted by this study were previously developed scales. In order to determine whether these scales are validated as a model,

CFA was applied to determine the construct validity.

Findings on Sub-problems

In this section, the data analysis and findings on the subproblems of the study are discussed.

What is the distribution of participants' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership and groupthink?

Descriptive statistics and score distribution of each sub-test were used to find answers to this sub-problem. Figure 5 portrays the graph for the TFL subscale of the TLS.

72 Figure 5. Histogram graph of distribution of scores for the TFL sub-dimension.

The TFL subscale of TLS has 25 items. Since it is a 5-point Likert-type scale, the scores can have a value between 25 and 125. The median of this range is 75. Considering that the mean score is 77.35, the mean of the participants’ transformational leadership perceptions is close to the mean level. However, since the standard deviation is 23.16, it can be interpreted that the participants have a heterogeneous distribution, and their perceptions of transformational leadership differ from each other. However, it can be interpreted that the median of the distribution has two different distributions on both sides whereas the perception of one part is quite high and the other part is low.

73 Figure 6. Histogram graph of distribution of scores for the TAL sub-dimension.

The scores obtained from the participants’ perceptions of transactional leadership are shown above. The scores that can be obtained for this 7-item sub-test range from 7 to 35 points.

The arithmetic mean value of 17.8 is very close to the mean of a normal symmetric distribution.

Therefore, the participants’ perceptions of transactional leadership are moderate.

74 Figure 7. Histogram graph of distribution of scores for the CS sub-dimension.

The above figure shows the distribution of the CS sub-dimension of the GT. The responses to this Likert-type scale consist of six categories. Therefore, the scores that can be obtained from this 3-item sub-test can be in the range of 6-18. The mean score is 11.75, and therefore this arithmetic mean shows that participants of the study have an average perception.

Figure 8. Histogram graph of the distribution of scores for the GI sub-dimension.

In the GI sub-dimension, there are three items as in CS. The arithmetic mean is 11.8, and the distribution is quite close to the normal distribution. Based on this figure, it can be interpreted that the participants’ perceptions of group identity are at an average level.

Figure 9. Histogram graph of the distribution of scores for the SDDM sub-dimension.

76 This sub-test consists of six items by subtracting one of the items in the SDDM sub- dimension. The points that can be obtained range between 6 and 36. Considering that the mean is

16.9, it can be concluded that although the distribution is close to normal, it is slightly skewed to the right and the participants’ perceptions of Symptoms of Defective Decision Making (SDDM) are slightly below average.

Figure 10. Histogram graph of the distribution of scores for the IA sub-dimension.

The score distribution of the internal activities sub-dimension consists of three items. It is possible that the scores in this dimension may vary between 3-18. The arithmetic mean value was 11.55. In addition, the distribution is slightly skewed to the left. According the findings, although the distribution is normal, the participants’ perceptions of internal activity is considered to be slightly above the average.

77 Figure 11. Histogram graph of the distribution of scores for the TP sub-dimension.

The score range was determined as 4 to 24 in the sub-dimension of team performance consisting of four items. Since the arithmetic mean of 15.31 is slightly greater than the median of this range, the participants’ perceptions of team performance are slightly smaller than the mean score.

Figure 12. Histogram graph of the distribution of scores for the EA sub-dimension.

Lastly, the histogram graph for the distribution of the scores for the EA sub-dimension is shown above. Since it consists of four items, the scores that can be obtained in this sub-test can range from 4 to 24. The findings show that the arithmetic mean was 14.06. Hence, the general

78 perception is at an average level, but the number of participants with high and low perceptions is not low.

Do the participants' perceptions of transformational leadership, transactional leadership and groupthink differ by their genders?

The results of the T-Test for the participants' perceptions obtained from the TFL and TAL sub-dimensions of the TLS by gender are provided in Table 18 below.

Table 18. The Independent Sample T-test Results for the TLS Sub-dimensions by Gender

Sub- Std. Dev. p Gender n Mean (X ) t df dimension (s ) (sig.)

Female 169 81.5 22.8 TFL .699 401 .49 Male 234 79.8 25.0

Female 169 179 5.4 TAL .335 401 .73 Male 234 17.7 5.9

According to the results, there is a difference in favor of women between the total scores obtained for the participants’ perceptions of transformational leadership and transactional leadership; however, this difference is not statistically significant at the level of .05. Thus, participants’ perceptions of transformational leadership and transactional leadership do not differ by gender. The results of the T-Test reveal the differentiation status of the participants' perception of groupthink by gender as shown in Table 19 below.

79 Table 19. The Independent Samples T-Test Results for the GT Sub-dimensions by Gender

Sub- Std. Dev. dimensio Gender n Mean (X ) t df p (sig.) (s ) n

Female 169 11.3018 3.89261 CS -2.036 401 .042 Male 234 12.0726 3.64389

Female 169 11.9053 3.32781 GI .537 401 .592 Male 234 11.7137 3.67909

Female 169 15.9231 5.13276 SDDM -3.023 401 .003 Male 234 17.6325 6.19164

Female 169 11.9704 3.73118 IA 1.849 401 .065 Male 234 11.2393 4.15917

Female 169 16.0296 4.94545 TP 2.375 401 .018 Male 234 14.7906 5.32253

Female 169 15.1006 4.99958 EA 3.412 401 .001 Male 234 13.3162 5.30794

The first finding in the table above is related to the participants’ perceptions on concurrence seeking (CS). The results portray that the difference seen in favor of men is statistically significant whereas men’s perceptions of concurrence seeking (CS) are higher than

80 women’s perceptions. As for group identity perceptions, the results show that the difference was not statistically significant at the .05 level. Thus, male and female participants did not differ by group identity perception. The findings show that the mean score for the perceptions on symptoms of defective decision making (SDDM) of male participants is higher than female participants and this difference is statistically significant at the .05 level. Consequently, the male participants’ perception of SDDM is higher than that of female participants.

The figures in the table indicate that the perceptions of the internal activity of the participants have a very similar value among female and male participants. It also shows that this small difference is not statistically significant at the .05 level; therefore, the perception of internal activity does not significantly differ by gender.

For external activities and team performance sub-dimensions, there is a difference between the mean in favor of female participants with a statistically significant level of .05. The perceptions of female participants on external activity and team performance are significantly higher than male participants.

Do the participants’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership and groupthink differ by degree level?

For this sub-problem, the degree level of the participants are reported under different titles for each sub-dimension. Since the degree level of participants were divided into two groups as undergraduate and graduate, and independent sample t-test was implemented. Table 20 shows the differentiation status of the participants of TFL and TAL sub-dimensions of the TLS scale by their degree level.

81 Table 20. Independent Sample T-Test Results for the TLS Sub-dimensions by Degree Level

Sub- Mean Std. Dev. dimensio Degree Level n t Df p (sig.) (X ) (s ) n

Undergraduate 362 81,4 23,7 TFL 2,17 401 ,031 Graduate 41 72,8 26,1

Undergraduate 362 17.8 5.7 TAL .117 401 .87 Graduate 41 17.6 5.9

According to the results shown in Table 20, the mean scores of the participants’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership differ significantly by the degree level of the teachers. According to the scores, the perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership are high in favor of teachers at the undergraduate level. It was tested whether the difference between the two means was significant or not, and participants with undergraduate degree have higher perceptions of transformational leadership than those who have graduate degree levels. However, this observed difference was not statistically significant.

This finding shows that the perception of transactional leadership does not differ by the degree level. The results of the t-test used for the sub-dimensions of the GT according by the degree level are shown in Table 21 for the mean scores of teachers’ perceptions of the CS, GI, IA, TP and EA sub-dimensions of GT.

82 Table 21. Independent Sample T-Test Results for the GTS Sub-dimensions by Degree Level

Sub- Degree Mean Std. Dev. p n T df dimension Level (X ) (s ) (sig.)

Undergraduate 362 11.8 3.7 CS .775 401 .44 Graduate 41 11.3 3.9

Undergraduate 362 11.8 3.6 GI .399 401 .69 Graduate 41 11.6 3.4

Undergraduate 362 16.8 5.8 SDDM -1.69 401 .09 Graduate 41 18.4 5.9

Undergraduate 362 11.6 3.9 IA .551 401 .58 Graduate 41 11.2 4.3

Undergraduate 362 15.4 5.1 TP 1.069 401 .28 Graduate 41 14.5 6.0

Undergraduate 362 14.2 5.3 EA 1.403 401 .16 Graduate 41 13.0 5.0

A difference was only observed in the SDMM sub-dimension in favor of teachers having a graduate degree. However, the mean differences provided by the results in favor of participants with an undergraduate degree and a graduate degree are not statistically significant. Therefore,

83 this finding reveals that the degree level of the participants does not have any impact on the teachers’ perceptions of groupthink.

Do the participants’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership and groupthink differ by type of school they work?

The type of school in which the participants were employed was categorized into public and private schools (Table 22). Therefore, the independent sample t-test was applied to the total scores obtained for each sub-dimension.

Table 22. Independent Sample T-Test Results for the TLS sub-dimensions by the Type of School

Sub- Type of Mean Std. Dev. p n t df dimension School (X ) (s ) (sig.)

Public 330 79,8 24,2 TFL -1.333 401 .18 Private 73 83,9 23,3

Public 330 17.7 5.7 TAL .016 401 .98 Private 73 17.7 5.8

According to the scores in Table 22, the perceptions of transformational leadership towards the managers of the participants differ in favor of the teachers working at private schools. However, teachers’ perceptions of transformational leadership do not show a statistically significant difference by the type of school. This finding indicates that the type of school does not have any impact on the participants’ perceptions of transformational and

84 transactional leadership towards their managers. The results of the t-test for the sub-dimensions of GT by the type of school are given in Table 23.

According to the results provided in Table 23, the mean scores for the CS, GI, IA, TP and

EA sub-dimensions of GT differed in favor of teachers working at private schools. However, there is a difference in the SDDM sub-dimension in favor of teachers working at public schools.

Although there is a difference in favor of both school types, this difference is not statistically significant. Thus, this finding depicts that teachers’ perceptions of groupthink did not differ by the type of school they work.

Table 23. Independent Sample T-Test Results for the GTS Sub-dimensions by the Type of

School

Sub- Type of n Mean (X ) Std. Dev. (s ) t df p (sig.) dimension School

Public 330 11.7485 3.79735 CS -.010 401 .992 Private 73 11.7534 3.63922

Public 330 11.6 3.5 GI -1.247 401 .213 Private 73 12.2 3.5

Public 330 17.1 5.7 SDDM 1.441 401 .150 Private 73 16.0 5.9

IA Public 330 11.4 4.1 -.878 401 .380

85 Private 73 11.9 3.4

Public 330 15.1 5.2 TP -1.054 401 .292 Private 73 15.8 4.9

Public 330 14.0 5.2 EA -.499 401 .618 Private 73 14.3 5.2

Do the participants' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership and groupthink differ by the college/field they graduate?

In this part of the study, the differentiation of the scores by the college or the field was examined (Table 24). For this purpose, the independent sample t-test was implemented to examine the differentiation of each sub-dimension by the independent variable.

Table 24. Independent Sample T-Test Results for the TLS Sub-dimensions by College/Field

Sub- Mean Std. Dev. p College/Field n t df dimension (X ) (s ) (sig.)

Education 344 81,4 24,1 TFL 1,690 401 ,092 Other 59 75,6 23,8

Education 344 17.7 5.8 TAL -.152 401 .88 Other 59 17.8 5.2

86 The table above shows the results of the change in the participants’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership according to their graduation from the faculty of education or other faculties. When the means are considered, there is a difference in favor of the graduates of the faculty of educational science in the perception of transformational leadership, and in favor of the other faculty graduates in the perception of transactional leadership. However, this difference observed in the means is not statistically significant. According to this finding, it can be interpreted that the perceptions of transformational or transactional leadership do not reveal any difference by the college/field.

Table 25. Independent Sample T-Test Results for the GTS Sub-dimensions by College/Field

Sub- p College/Field n Mean (X ) Std. Dev. (s ) T df dimension (sig.)

Education 344 11.7 3.7 CS .045 401 .96 Other 59 11.7 3.7

Education 344 11.8 3.5 GI .592 401 .55 Other 59 11.5 3.7

Education 344 16.7 5.8 SDDM 1.441 401 .15 Other 59 17.8 5.8

Education 344 11.6 3.9 IA -.878 401 .38 Other 59 10.9 4.1

87 Education 344 15.4 5.2 TP -1.054 401 .29 Other 59 14.6 5.0

Education 344 14.2 5.1 EA -.499 401 .61 Other 59 13.1 5.5

The table above provides the results of the t-test used to examine the differentiation of groupthink perceptions by college or field. These results reveal that the perceptions of teachers who graduated from faculty of educational science on GI, IA, TP and EA sub-dimensions of GT are higher than those of other faculty graduates. This difference is observed in favor of the graduates of the faculty of educational sciences is not statistically significant. For the SDDM sub-dimension, the perceptions of other faculty graduates on groupthink are higher than the graduates of faculty of education. However, this difference observed in favor of other faculty graduates is not statistically significant. Therefore, this finding reveals that the type of college/field of the participants does not have any impact on the teachers’ perceptions of groupthink.

Do the participants' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership and groupthink differ by their school location?

In this part of the analysis, an examination was conducted to see whether the scores obtained from each sub-test of the two scales differ by school location. The independent variable expressed in the sub-problem is categorical, and the dependent variable is continuous. When the number of categories in the independent variable is more than two, a One-Way Analysis of

88 Variance (One-Way ANOVA) is applied (Tabachnick & L.S., 2007). For this purpose, homogeneity of variance, which is the assumption of One-Way ANOVA, was tested first. When the Levene’s Test failed to give significant results, it indicates that homogeneity of variance is achieved. When it is achieved, the significance level of ANOVA is checked. If ANOVA is found to be significant, then a post-hoc test is implemented to examine which categories have a significant difference. In this study, statistical processes were implemented by considering this process.

Table 26. One-Way ANOVA Test Results for the TLS Sub-dimensions by School Location

Sub- School Std. Dev. (s p n Mean (X ) F Df dimension Location ) (sig.)

City Center 228 81,7 22.8

TFL City Center 152 78,7 24.6 .716 400 .48

Village 23 80,7 24.4

City Center 228 17.5 5.9

TAL City Center 152 18.2 5.5 1.000 400 .36

Village 23 16.9 5.1

The findings shown in the table above indicate that the arithmetic means of the scores obtained from the sub-dimensions are presented by the categories of the independent variable, the location of the school where the participants work. Therefore, the test results for both sub- dimensions show that the difference of the mean scores between the categories of the

89 independent variable was not statistically significant. The participants’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership towards their managers do not differ statistically by the location of the school they work in.

Table 27. One-Way ANOVA Test Results for the GT Sub-dimensions by School Location

Sub- Location of Df p n Mean (X ) Std. Dev. (s ) F dimension School (sig.)

City Center 228 11.4474 3.89757

District CS 152 12.2105 3.54280 1.885 400 .15 Center

Village 23 11.6957 3.69809

City Center 228 11.5965 3.59691

District GI 152 12.0461 3.50655 .821 400 .44 Center

Village 23 12.0870 3.04382

City Center 228 16.7807 5.77974

District SDDM 152 17.1645 6.02252 .231 400 .79 Center

Village 23 16.6087 5.08777

City Center 228 11.6316 3.97960

District IA 152 11.2632 4.12349 1.182 400 .30 Center

Village 23 12.5652 3.17413

90 City Center 228 15.4737 5.21893

District 152 14.9474 5.22955 .739 400 .47 TP Center

Village 23 16.0870 4.80448

City Center 228 14.1228 5.38907

District 152 13.8355 5.21135 .523 400 .59 EA Center

Village 23 15.0000 4.01135

The values in the table shows that there is a difference between the mean scores in all sub-dimensions. However, the difference observed between the mean scores is not significant.

This finding indicates that the location of the schools does not have an impact on the participants’ perceptions of groupthink.

Do the participants’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership and groupthink differ by the desires of being managers?

In order to find an answer to this sub-problem, a new variable was created by combining the responses of two different items. The first question is whether the participants previously served as managers with a response of “yes” or “no.” Participants’ responses to the question of whether they want to become a manager in the future are the same as this item. Therefore, the new variable created based on these two items consists of four categories. One-way ANOVA was implemented for the sub-tests of both scales to test the differentiation of participants’ perceptions of leadership and groupthink in this new variable.

91 Table 28. One-Way ANOVA Test Results for the TLS Sub-dimensions by Management

Status/Desires

Sub- Management Mean ( X Std. Dev. ( p n F Df dimension Status ) s ) (sig.)

Served and 84.5833 27.50028 12 desires Served but no 78.6842 23.39220 38 desire 6.28 399 .000 TFL Not served 88.5946 24.24210 111 and desires Not served 76.9959 23.28383 242 and no desire Served and 12 18.5 7.4 desires Served but no 38 18.2 5.1 desire Not served 2.74 399 .043 EL 111 16.4 6.6 and wants Not served and does not 242 18.2 5.2 want

When the values in the table above were analyzed separately for each TFL dimension, there was a significant difference found for both sub-dimensions between at least two categories

(p <.05). The post-test was implemented to find out which two categories of the independent variable had this difference. The results of the Tukey test, one of the post-hoc tests for the TFL and TAL sub-dimensions, are provided in Table 29 below.

92 Table 29. Post-hoc Test Results for the TFL and TAL Sub-dimensions of TLS

Dependent Mean Diff. Std. (I) (J) Sig. Variable (I-J) Error

Served but no desire 5.8 7.8 .876 Not served and -4.0 7.1 .945 Served and desires desires Not served and no 7.5 7.0 .700 desire Served and desires -5.8 7.8 .876 Not served and -9.9 4.4 .118 Served but no desires desire Not served and no 1.6 4.1 .977 TFL desire Served and desires 4.0 7.1 .945 Not served and Served but no desire 9.9 4.4 .118 desires Not served and no 11.5* 2.7 .000 desire Served and desires -7.5 7.0 .700 Not served and no Served but no desire -1.6 4.1 .977 desire Not served and -11.5* 2.7 .000 desires Served but no desires .34 1.9 .998 Not served and 2.12 1.7 .611 Served and desires desires Not served and no .31 1.7 .998 desire Served and desires -.34 1.9 .998 TAL Not served and 1.77 1.1 .347 Served but no desires desire Not served and no -.03 .99 1.00 desire Not served and Served and desires -2.12 1.7 .611 desire Served but no desires -1.77 1.1 .347

93 Not served and no -1.80* .65 .030 desire Served and desires -.31 1.7 .998 Not served and no Served but no desire .03 .99 1.00 desire Not served and 1.80* .65 .030 desires *p < .05

In the table above, the results of the Tukey test for the differentiation of the participants’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership by their past managerial status and their desires to become manager are given. The results reveal that there is a significant difference in the perceptions of transformational leadership among those who did not previously serve as managers but have a desire to become a manager, and who did not serve but have no desire to do so in the future. Accordingly, the difference between the scale score of the first group from the mean score of the second group (11.12) is statistically significant. Apart from this, there is no significant difference between the other categories in terms of perceptions of transformational leadership.

One-way ANOVA was applied to examine the differentiation of the scores obtained from the sub-dimensions of the GT by these variables. Before the implementation, homogeneity of variance was tested using Levene’s test. The findings show that the test results for both sub- dimensions were not significant, that is homogeneity of variance was achieved. Table 30 below depicts the ANOVA significance table.

94 Table 30. One-Way ANOVA Test Results for the GT Sub-dimensions by Management Status

Sub- Management Std. Dev. ( p n Mean (X ) F df dimension Status s ) (sig.)

Served and 12 10.6667 4.07505 desires Served but no CS 38 12.1316 3.56538 desire 2.351 399 .07 Not served 111 11.0450 4.06624 and desires Not served 242 12.0661 3.60206 and no desire Served and 12 11.4167 2.81096 desires Served but no GI 38 12.2895 2.99466 desire .682 399 .56 Not served 111 11.4595 3.51822 and desires Not served 242 11.8884 3.65072 and no desire Served and 12 16.4167 3.84846 desires Served but no SDDM 38 17.0263 6.29666 desire 2.174 399 .09 Not served 111 15.7658 5.62940 and desires Not served 242 17.4504 5.87205 and no desire Served and 12 13.2500 3.22279 desires

Served but no IA 38 10.7895 4.34435 5.719 399 .001 desire

Not served 111 12.7027 4.03529 and desires

95 Not served 242 11.0496 3.83985 and no desire Served and 12 16.2500 4.80766 desires Served but no 38 14.5526 5.88033 TP desire 2.083 399 .10 Not served 111 16.2703 5.19081 and desires Not served 242 14.9421 5.07013 and no desire Served and 12 13.7500 4.93826 desires Served but no 38 13.4474 5.93522 EA desire 2.276 399 .08 Not served 111 15.1622 4.95900 and desires Not served 242 13.6736 5.23839 and no desire

According to the values provided in the above table, the scores obtained from the sub- dimension of groupthink showed significant differences only for the internal activities in terms of the independent variable. The results of the Tukey post-hoc test to determine which categories are statistically significant are provided in Table 31 below.

The Tukey test results indicate that the participants’ perceptions of internal activity are between those who desire to become a manager and who did not previously serve as a manager, and those who served as a manager and who have no desire to become a manager, and who did not serve as a manager and who have no desire to do so in the future. Therefore, it is safe to say that the perceptions of those who did not serve as managers and have a desire to do so in the future on the internal activities are higher than the other two groups.

96 Table 31. Post-hoc Test Results for the IA Sub-scale of GT

Mean Dependent Std. (I) (J) DIAf. Sig. Variable Error (I-J) Served but no desire 2.46 1.3 .233 Not served and .54 1.2 .968 Served and desires desires Not served and no 2.20 1.2 .232 desire Served and desires -2.46 1.3 .233 Not served and -1.91* .73 .049 Served but no desires desire Not served and no -.26 .69 .981 IA desire Served and desires -.54 1.2 .968 Not served and Served but no desire 1.91* .73 .049 desires Not served and no 1.65* .45 .002 desire Served and desires -2.20 1.2 .232 Not served and Served but no desire .26 .69 .981 no desire Not served and -1.65* .45 .002 desires *p < .05

Is there a significant relationship between the participants’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership, groupthink and tenure?

Correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between 403 participants’ tenure and scores obtained from the sub-dimensions of the scales. Since both variables were continuous, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was obtained. This coefficient is a statistical value that gives information about the direction and size of the relationship between

97 two continuous variables. Negative values for this coefficient, which take values within ± 1 range are inverse, and positive values indicate a relationship in the same direction. Negative values for this coefficient within ± 1 range indicate an inverse relationship, while the positive values indicate a relationship in the same direction. That is, when the correlation coefficient is close to + 1, it means that the relationship increases in the positive direction; when it is close to -

1, it means that the relationship increases in the negative direction. The correlation values obtained from the analysis are presented in Table 32.

Table 32. Correlations Between Tenure and the Sub-dimensions of the Scales

SCALES/SUB-DIMENSIONS

TLS GT

TFL TAL CS GI SDDM IA TP EA

Tenure -.16* .034 .023 -.025 .15* -.20* -.16* -.17*

These results reveal that there is a negative, statistically significant and low-level relationship between tenure and transformational leadership, while the relationship between tenure and transactional leadership is not statistically significant. When the relationship between tenure and the perception of groupthink was examined, it was found that there was no significant relationship between group identity and concurrence seeking. Besides, the relationship with internal activities, external activities, and team performance showed a negative and low correlation, while the relationship between symptoms of defective decision making (SDDM) was low but positive.

98 Are the participants’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership a significant predictor of groupthink?

In order to find an answer to this sub-problem, structural equation modeling was conducted instead of performing multiple linear regressions separately to determine the status of the sub-dimensions of the independent variable to predict each sub-dimension of the dependent variable. This method is a statistical analysis method that provides the use of the predictive relationships in regression and latent variable logic in factor analysis (Kline, 2016). Thus, a second order latent variable was defined based on the covariance between the sub-dimensions of each of the two scales verified in the correlated traits model. Then, the predictive relationship between these variables was tried to be determined. The fitness indices for the model are given in

Table 33 below.

Table 33. Model Fitness Indices for the First Model

Chi-Square/EA RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR

Fit indices 2.59 .063 .883 .878 .141

As discussed earlier, the Chi-square / df value must be smaller than 5, RMSEA, SRMR must be smaller than .08, and CFI and TLI must be larger than .90 to consider the model reasonably fit (Byrne, 2012; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Cokluk et al., 2012). Table 33 shows that the

CFI, TLI and especially SRMR values indicate a very poor model fit. Therefore, a revised model was created in which second order latent variables were not employed, and the sub-dimensions

99 of the TLS scale predict all the sub-dimensions of GT scale. The fitness indices for the revised model are shown in Table 34 below.

Table 34. Model Fitness Indices for the Revised Model

X2/df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR

Fit indices 2.18 .054 .915 .909 .078

Table 34 depicts that the Chi-square / df value indicate a perfect fit and all other values indicate a good fit. Hence, all of the model fit indices met all pre-determined thresholds for a good model fit.

Figure 13. Hypothetical representation of the first model.

Structural predictors of the latent variables are summarized in Table 35, and demonstrates the standardized regression weights. These values are interpreted as in the regression analysis.

100 Firstly, the effect of TFL exogenous variable on the internal variables is seen. A standard deviation of change in the TFL variable leads a change to .13 in CS, .36 in GI, -.75 in SDDM,

.73 in IA, .71 in EA, and .74 in TP. This finding can be interpreted that TFL is a significant predictor of the GT variable. When the effect of TAL variable on internal variables is examined, a standard deviation of change in TAL leads to a statistically significant change to .58 in CS, .59 in GI, -.22 in SDDM, and the .11 in EA caused statistically significant changes. These results depict that the impact of TAL variable on IA and TP was not statistically significant. This finding can be interpreted that TAL is a significant predictor of GT sub-dimensions of CSI, GI,

SDDM, and EA. However, it is not a significant predictor of the GT sub-dimensions of IA and

TP.

Table 35. Predictive Correlation Coefficients Between Latent Variables in the Structural Model

Exogenous Endogenous Direct Effect SE T Variable Variable

CS .13* .057 2.32

GI .36* .060 5.90

SDDM -.75* .041 -18.11 TFL IA .73* .038 19.47

EA .71* .040 17.47

TP .74* .036 20.75

CS .58* .054 10.83 TAL GI .59* .057 10.13

101 SDDM -.22* .054 -3.99

IA -.02 .050 -0.31

EA .11* .053 2.1

TP .07 .048 1.44 *p <. 05

Figure 14. Structural model of the study.

102 Table 36 provides the total variance explained in the internal variables. When the values in Table 36 are examined, it is seen that the sub-dimensions of TFL and TAL explained 28% of variability in CS, 26% of variability in GI, 44% of variability in SDDM, 55% of variability in

IA, 43% of the variability in EA, and 51% of the variability in TP.

Table 36. Variance Explained for Internal Variables

Endogenous Variable Total Variance Explained T

CS 28% 5.94

GI 26% 2.62

SDDM 44% 10.16

IA 55% 13.76

EA 43% 10.43

TP 51% 13.26

In light of the review of literature, theoretical framework, and findings discussed earlier, this study had ten hypotheses testing the relationships between study variables. The summary of the hypotheses testing is discussed next.

The first hypothesis of the study was that perceived transformational and transactional leadership and groupthink are not associated with participants’ genders. The results depict that participants’ perceptions of transformational leadership and transactional leadership do not differ by gender. Thus, H1 is supported in this study.

103 The second hypothesis was that perceived transformational and transactional leadership are associated with participants’ educational degree level. The results reveal that teachers' perceptions of transformational leadership differ significantly by the degree level. Thus, the results show that H2 is supported in the study.

The third hypothesis was that perceived groupthink is associated with participants’ educational degree level. The findings show that the degree level of the participants does not have any impact on the teachers' perceptions of groupthink. Hence, the results failed to validate

H3.

The fourth hypothesis was that perceived transformational and transactional leadership and groupthink are not associated with the type of school participants work. The findings indicate that the type of school does not have any impact on the participants’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership and teachers' perceptions of groupthink did not differ by the type of school they work. Thus, H4 is confirmed and supported in the study.

The fifth hypothesis was that perceived transformational and transactional leadership and groupthink are associated with the college they graduated. According to the results, it can be interpreted that the perceptions of transformational or transactional leadership do not reveal any difference by the faculty/field, and the type of college/field of the participants does not have any impact on the teachers' perceptions of groupthink. These findings failed to validate H5.

The assumption of the sixth hypothesis was that there is a significant difference in the perceptions of transformational leadership among those who did not serve as managers but have a desire to become a manager and who did not serve but have no desire to do so in the future.

The findings reveal that there is a significant difference in the perceptions of transformational

104 leadership among those who did not serve as managers but have a desire to become a manager, and who did not serve but have no desire to do so in the future. Thus, H6 is confirmed and supported.

The assumption of the seventh hypothesis was that the perceptions of those who did not serve as managers and have a desire to do so in the future on the internal activities are higher than the other groups. According to the findings, the perceptions of those who did not serve as managers and have a desire to do so in the future on the internal activities are higher than the other two groups. This finding shows that H7 is confirmed.

The eighth hypothesis postulated that there is a negative, statistically significant relationship between tenure and transformational leadership. The findings indicate that there is a negative, statistically significant relationship between tenure and transformational leadership.

Hence, H8 is confirmed.

The ninth hypothesis supposed that perceived transformational leadership has an impact on perceived groupthink of the participants. The findings show that TFL is a significant predictor of the GT variable. Thus, H9 is confirmed.

The last hypothesis postulated that perceived transactional leadership has an impact on perceived groupthink of the participants. The results reveal that TAL is a significant predictor of the GT sub-dimensions of CSI, GI, SDDM, and EA. However, it is not a significant predictor of the GT sub-dimensions of IA and TP. Thus, the results fail to validate H10.

105 CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In this chapter, the results of the study based on the findings of the research and study limitations and directions for the future studies are discussed.

Summary of the Findings and Discussion

The following conclusions were reached within the scope of this research:

1) Teachers who participated in the study perceived their administrators as intermediate

transformational leaders.

2) Teachers’ perception of transactional leadership for their managers is moderate.

3) The participants of the study have a moderate perception level on the sub-dimensions of

Concurrence Seeking (CS), Group Identity (GI), Internal Activities (IA), Team

Performance (TP), and External Activities (EA).

4) There is no gender-based difference between the mean scores of teachers’ perceptions of

transformational and transactional leadership styles.

5) Teachers’ perceptions of Concurrence Seeking (CS), which is one of the sub-dimensions

of Groupthink, vary by participants’ gender. The findings reveal that the perceptions of

male participants on Concurrence Seeking (CS) are higher than the perceptions of female

participants. However, teachers’ perceptions of group identity do not differ by the gender

of the participants.

6) Teacher perceptions on the Symptoms of Defective Decision Making (SDDM) sub-

dimension of GT differ by gender. These findings depict that male participants’

perceptions on SDDM are higher than the female perceptions.

106 7) Teachers’ perceptions on the Internal Activities (IA) sub-dimension of the GT scale do

not differ by gender.

8) Teachers’ perceptions on the External Activities (EA) and Team Performance (TP) sub-

dimensions of the GT scale do differ by participants’ genders. These findings depict that

the perceptions of female teachers on the EA and TP sub-scales are higher than the

perceptions of male teachers.

9) The mean scores of teachers’ perceptions on transformational and transactional

leadership styles differ by their educational degree. According to the findings, teachers’

perceptions on transformational and transactional leadership styles are higher in favor of

teachers having a bachelor’s degree. Therefore, teachers’ perceptions on transformational

leadership differ significantly by their educational degree. However, the teachers’

perceptions of transactional leadership show a difference in favor of the participants with

undergraduate level education. Though, teachers’ perceptions of transactional leadership

do not differ by their educational degrees.

10) The mean scores of the participants’ perceptions on the CS, GI, IA, TP and EA sub-

dimensions of GT are higher in favor of teachers who have a bachelor’s degree. Only in

the SDDM sub-dimension, a difference was observed in favor of teachers having a

graduate degree. However, the average differences observed in favor of undergraduate

and graduate degrees are not statistically significant. Accordingly, it was concluded that

the education degrees had no impact on teachers’ perceptions of groupthink.

11) Perceptions of transformational leadership towards teachers’ managers differ in favor of

teachers working in private schools. However, teachers’ perceptions of transformational

107 leadership are not statistically significant regardless of whether it is a public or private

school. According to study findings, the school type in which they work has no effect on

the participants’ perceptions on transformational and transactional leadership styles.

12) Teachers’ perceptions on groupthink do not differ by the type of school they work.

13) Teachers’ perceptions on transformational and transactional leadership styles do not

differ by the faculty/college they graduated.

14) The faculty or college they graduated from does not have an impact on the participants’

perceptions on groupthink.

15) The perceptions of groupthink and transformational and transactional leadership styles

towards their managers do not vary by the locations of the school they work; province,

district, or village.

16) Teachers’ perceptions on transformational and transactional leadership styles differ by

their past managerial status and desire to become a manager in the future. The findings of

the TFL sub-test reveal that the perceptions on transformational leadership between

participants who did not serve as a manager but have desire to do so and participants who

did not serve as a manager but have no desire to become a manager differ significantly.

17) Teachers’ perceptions of transactional leadership between participants who did not serve

as a manager but have a desire to become a manager in the future and participants who

have no desire to become a manager in the future differ significantly. According to these

findings, the perception on transactional leadership of the participants who did not serve

as a manager and have no desire to become a manager is higher than the participants who

desire to become a manager in the future.

108 18) The scores obtained from the sub-dimensions of the Groupthink Scale show significant

differences only for the Internal Activities sub-dimension.

19) There is a negative significant relationship between the perceptions on transformational

leadership and tenure with a lower rate. The relationship between transformational

leadership and tenure is not statistically significant. As for the relationship between the

perceptions on groupthink and tenure, the findings reveal that there is no significant

relationship between Concurrence Seeking, Group Identity and tenure, while there is a

statistically significant relationship with Internal Activities, External Activities and Team

performance with a lower rate. The relationship between Symptoms of Defective

Decision Making and tenure is statistically significant, positive with a lower rate.

20) The impact of the participants’ perceptions on transformational leadership on all sub-

dimensions of GT is statistically significant.

21) The impact of transformational leadership on CS is statistically significant with a positive

direction; however, the rate of the effect is low. These findings demonstrate that the

effect of transformational leadership on other sub-dimensions are high. The direction of

the effect on SDDM is reverse, while the direction of the effect on IA, EA, and TP is

positive.

22) The results reveal that perceptions of teachers on transactional leadership has no

statistically significant impact on the sub-dimensions of IA and TP of the GT scale. The

impact on CS and GI is positive with a moderate rate, while the impact on EA is positive

with a lower rate. Also, the findings depict that the impact of the transformational

leadership on SDDM is negative. Thus, the level of this impact is low.

109 Implications

The purpose of this study was to examine if there is a meaningful association between leadership style and groupthink, and if so, how and in what ways leadership style impacts occurrence of groupthink. The study employed a survey method amongst Turkish teachers in

Gaziantep, in Turkey to find this out. The study aimed to reveal the participants’ perceptions on transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and groupthink in order to find out, firstly, whether leadership style and groupthink are related to each other, and secondly, whether transformational leadership elicits groupthink of Turkish teachers. Moreover, the study investigated whether some demographic factors such as gender, education level, experience, and age of the participants affect the examined relationship. In light of findings discussed above, the study implications will be discussed.

Methodological Implications

One of the most important methodological strength of the study is the use of SEM, since the model is ideal when testing theories including latent variables, such as groupthink and leadership styles. As a consequence, SEM gave an opportunity to validate the model discussed in the study. Furthermore, having latent constructs with first order and second-order factors was also the other methodological strength of the research. Besides, this dissertation is the only research that employed SEM technique to examine such relationships aming Turkish teachers.

Another methodological implication of the research was operational definitions and measurement instruments of the study variables. The study examined the relationships between latent exogenous variables of leadership styles and latent endogenous variables of groupthink.

Some control variables such as gender, educational degree level, type of school participants

110 work, the colleges they graduated, status, or whether they previously worked as manager were analyzed as well because such personal characteristics may affect the variation in perceptions.

Policy Implications

Avolio and Bass (1994, 1995) found that transformational leaders are adept at finding support to match the expectations of their followers with those of the organization.

Consequently, transformational leaders motivate their followers in such a way that they reach levels of highest potential. They accomplish this through either one of the four tenets (Idealized

Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation and Individualized Consideration) they possess or through interaction of more than one tenet (Avolio & Bass, 1994; 1995). The results of the study show that all 4 tenets of transformational leadership led to increase in groupthink. Reaching consensus may not always lead to the best decisions and outcomes.

Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of Turkish teachers and their decision-making process and groupthink behaviors gives organizations the power to change the ongoing situation by taking necessary steps to increase organizational and individual productivity.

As discussed in the findings, teachers who participated in the study perceived their administrators as intermediate transformational leaders and teachers’ perception of transactional leadership for their managers is moderate. Besides the participants of the study have a moderate perception level on the sub-dimensions of Concurrence Seeking (CS),

Group Identity (GI), Internal Activities (IA), Team Performance (TP), and External Activities

(EA). Thus, the decision makers should focus on these results to make the decision-making process more effective.

111 Besides, the findings of the study reveal that although teachers’ perceptions of group identity do not differ by the gender of the participants, the perceptions of male participants on CS are higher than the perceptions of female participants. The Turkish Ministry of Education’s decision-makers might find this finding interesting and take necessary precautions to increase CS among female teachers.

Similarly, teachers’ perceptions on EA and TP sub-dimensions of the GT scale differ by participants’ genders. These findings indicate that the perceptions of female teachers on the EA and TP sub-scales are higher than the perceptions of male teachers. This finding can be useful for

The Turkish Ministry of Education and provincial directorates of national education. Gumus, Bulut and Bellibas (2013) reported higher collaboration and team work among women teachers in

Turkey than male teachers. Further research can be conducted to find out why male teachers’ perceptions are lower than female teachers and administrators can adjust their policies to increase the external activities and team performance among male teachers.

The study results and findings will make an important contribution to the literature and the policies adopted by the Turkish Ministry of Education. As discussed earlier, literature regarding only leadership styles or groupthink are plentiful. However, there are no studies examining the association between leadership styles and groupthink, particularly among Turkish teachers. Thus, this study made a significant contribution to the literature and attempted to identify the factors that contribute to the current literature and this will give the Turkish Ministry of Education and provincial directorates of national education an opportunity to adjust their policies based on the findings of this study.

112 The study proposes some significant implications for decision-makers of the Turkish

Ministry of Education to concentrate on the quality of decision-making of Turkish teachers and to eliminate the fallacies of groupthink among them. Since organizational outcomes of such effects would lead to some serious impacts of failure or disorganization, the analysis of the above-mentioned factors is essential to identify mechanisms to eradicate groupthink fallacies and to enhance the quality of services provided by Turkish teachers. From theoretical, methodological, and practical perspectives, the results and findings provided by this research are essential contribution, and the decision makers should focus on creating some relevant preventive strategies and governance mechanisms.

Study Limitations and Directions for Future Studies

In this research, the impact of the teachers’ perceptions of transformational leadership on the perceptions of groupthink were examined by implementing structural equation modeling.

Future studies can utilize multiple group SEM to determine the variation of the direct impact obtained from the existing SEM on the variation of different groups/samples.

In particular, it would be useful to examine the possible change of these structural predictive coefficients with individuals having different educational degrees and work experiences. In addition, it can be valuable to investigate the functioning of the model in different cultures through multi-group implementations. In the scope of this research, the findings reveal that direct effects were mostly significant. However, it was not examined whether they really affect directly, or they mediate the other variables. Thus, future studies can focus on examining whether they have a direct effect or mediating effect.

113 Testing the theories regarding such mediating variables and their potential impacts would contribute to the existing literature to understand the relationship between transformational leadership and groupthink better. As it is well known, the Covariance Structural Model (CSM) is a model with a confirmatory perspective and it is a theory-driven model. It is one of the powerful methods to show the relationship between variables though it does not indicate the causality between variables. However, future studies on theories may obtain dissimilar results with other models. The sample used in this study, however, may not be generalizable to all institutions since they may have different organizational characteristics.

The other limitation of the study might be a sampling issue, which is the selection process of the sample from the population. Future studies might catch a chance to generalize their findings back to the population from which they were selected. Sample representation would be another limitation of the study. This participants of the study do not always represent all of the comparable population. Thus, this problem might lead to a generalizability limitation, and it can be challenging to generalize the findings of this study to comparable populations. The solution for this limitation would be replication. Future studies can duplicate the research with different samples to get more generalizable results. Also, duplicating the study at different periods could increase the external validity of the study as well.

Selecting samples from only one institution or one occupational group is not satisfactory to get more valid results. Future researchers can choose participants from different organizations or occupational groups to get more reliable results. On the other hand, selecting participants from only one province can be another limitation issue. Selecting participants from other cities can make the results more comparable and generalizable. In this way, future studies can get more

114 representative samples. Selecting variables might be another limitation of the research. It is possible to get different results than this current research when future researchers examine other variables in addition to the variables in this study.

115 APPENDIX A

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP SCALE

A.1 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP SCALE (TLS) (ENGLISH)

The following items are related to your manager. Please read each of the following statements and pick one that best describes your answer.

Each of the items was followed by a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

1 - Strongly disagree, 2 - Disagree, 3 - Neutral, 4 - Agree, 5 - Disagree

Transformational Leadership items: My manager…

1 …tries to enhance my internal motivation when s/he wants to motivate me for a task.

2 …knows about our competencies, work-related personal concerns and needs and how to motivate each of us.

3 …makes me feel that what I do is valuable and useful.

4 …encourages us to generate ideas and gets our suggestions while planning and conducting work.

5 …makes the workplace feel like a family environment.

6 …informs me about the short- or long-term potential contributions of my work to the company.

7 …not only appreciates my ideas, but also encourages me to put them into practice.

116 8 …is a role model with the way s/he conducts work, his/her personality and communication skills.

9 …encourages me to freely express my ideas.

10 …encourages me to question the status quo, to produce new solutions and supports my creativity.

11 …encourages us to follow the innovations in the field.

12 …thrills us with the things we can do and succeed at by reminding us of our specifications and abilities.

13 …tries to convey all the information to us about the work processes.

14 …plans trainings for the areas I am in need of improving.

15 …makes me feel like there are things s/he could also learn from me.

16 …makes me feel that s/he cares about me, not only as an employee, but also as a person.

17 …considers our personal interests and abilities, when s/he allocates tasks in the team.

18 …sets us performance goals and rewards us as much as we succeed.

19 …lets me use part of my work hours for new projects that I have in mind.

20 …would help me with my personal problems.

21 …supports our attendance to personal and professional development seminars.

22 …would talk about non-work related matters with me, if I wish to.

23 …acts respectfully to me.

24 …attends non-work social events (wedding, birthday etc.) upon my invitation.

25 …supports me to take initiative.

117 26 …would give us important responsibilities, when necessary.

Transactional Leadership items: 27 …makes me feel that s/he is always alert for anything that might prevent the works from going astray.

28 …tries to change my ideas and impose his/her own ideas, when we disagree.

29 …frequently monitors and controls my acts in order to identify any possible mistakes and interfere when necessary.

30 …sometimes uses threats in order for me to work.

31 …imposes sanctions in various ways, when I cannot perform the work that was requested by me.

32 …keeps giving instructions to me in order to prevent me from doing mistakes.

33 …only rewards me contingent on completing tasks exactly the way s/he wants.

34 …makes me feel our relationship is like a trade; I can only take as much as I give.

118 A.2 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP SCALE (TLS) (TURKISH)

Birazdan okuyacağınız ifadeler, yöneticinizin çeşitli yönleriyle ilgilidir. Lütfen cümleleri dikkatlice okuyarak söz konusu ifadeye ne ölçüde katıldığınızı, 5-noktalı derecelendirme ölçeğini kullanarak işaretleyiniz.

Katılmıyorum Kararsızım Katılıyorum Kesinlikle katılıyorum Kesinlikle katılmıyorum 1. Yöneticim beni bir görev için motive

etmeye çalışırken, görevle ilgili içsel motivasyonumu

yükseltmeye çabalar.

2. Yöneticim ben ve takım arkadaşlarımın

yetkinliklerini, işle igili kişisel ilgi ve ihtiyaçlarını ve

her birimizi nasıl motive edeceğini bilir.

3. Yöneticim bana yaptığım işin değerli ve işe

yarar olduğunu hissettirir.

4. Yöneticim işleri planlar ve yürütürken bizi

de fikir üretmemiz için teşvik eder ve önerilerimizi

dinler.

119 5. Yöneticim işyerinde kendimi aile ortamında gibi hissettirir.

6. Yöneticim yaptıklarımın kısa veya uzun vadede firmaya sağlayacağı katkılar konusunda beni bilgilendirir.

7. Yöneticim beğendigi fikirlerimi takdir etmekle kalmaz, onları uygulamaya geçirmemi de teşvik eder.

8. Yöneticim iş yapış tarzı, kişisel özellikleri ve iletişim becerisiyle bize iyi bir örnek teşkil eder.

9. Yöneticim düşüncelerimi özgürce ifade edebilmem için beni teşvik eder.

10. Yöneticim beni varsayılanı sorgulamaya, yeni çözüm yolları üretmeye teşvik eder; yaratıcılığımı destekler.

11. Yöneticim alandaki yenilikleri takip etmemiz için teşvik eder.

12. Yöneticim bana ve takım arkadaşlarıma olumlu özelliklerimizi ve yeteneklerimizi hatırlatarak yapabileceklerimiz ve başarabileceklerimiz konusunda bizi heyecanlandırır.

120 13. Yöneticim iş süreçleriyle ilgili tüm bildiklerini bana aktarmaya çabalar.

14. Yöneticim eksik veya gelişime açık yönlerim için eğitimler planlar.

15. Yöneticim bana onun da benden

öğrenebilecekleri olduğunu hissettirir.

16. Yöneticim beni bir çalışan olmanın dışında bir insan olarak da önemser.

17. Yöneticim görev dağılımı yaparken, kişisel ilgilerimizi ve yeteneklerimizi de göz önünde bulundurur.

m Kesinlikle Kesinlikle Kararsızım Katılmıyoru Katılıyorum katılıyorum katılmıyorum

18….bu maddeyi kararsızım şeklinde cevaplayınız.

19. ...mesai saatlerimin bir bölümünü, aklımdaki yeni projeler üzerinde çalışmam için kullanmama müsaade eder.

20. Yöneticim ihtiyaç duyduğumda iş dışı özel problemlerim için bana yardım eder.

121 21. Yöneticim hem mesleki hem kişisel gelişimim için çeşitli seminerlere katılımımı destekler.

22. Yöneticim istersem iş dışı konularda da benimle konuşur.

23. Yöneticim bana saygılı davranır.

24. Yöneticim davet etmem halinde özel hayatımdaki önemli sosyal etkinliklere katılır (düğün, doğum günü)

25. Yöneticim inisiyatif almamı destekler.

26. Yöneticim gerektiğinde bize önemli sorumluluklar verir.

27. işlerin olması gereken şekilde gitmesini engelleyecek her türlü duruma karşı tetikte olduğunu hissettirir. (binişen madde)

28. kendisinden farklı düşündüğüm durumlarda, fikirlerimi değiştirmeye ve kendi fikirlerini empoze etmeye çalışır. (Dönüştürücü liderlik boyutuna yüklenen madde)

122 29. Yöneticim olası herhangi bir hatamı tespit etmek ve gerekirse müdahalede bulunmak adına sıklıkla davranışlarımı gözler ve kontrol eder.

30. Yöneticim bana herhangi bir işi yaptırmak için tehdit kullandığı olur.

31. Yöneticim istediği bir işi yapamadığımda bana çesitli yollarla yaptırım uygular.

32. Yöneticim bana bir görev verdikten sonra, hata yapmamı önlemek için talimat vermeye devam eder.

33. Yöneticim ancak istediği işi, istediği

şekilde tamamlamama bağlı olarak beni ödüllendirir.

34. Yöneticim ancak verdiğim kadarını alabileceğimi hissettirir; ilişkimiz bir çeşit ticarete benzer.

123 APPENDIX B

GROUPTHINK SCALE

B.1 GROUPTHINK SCALE (ENGLISH)

Concurrence Seeking (Groupthink Factor 1) During the crisis event:

1. Members criticized others who raised questions concerning the selected solution.

2. When new information was contradictory to our decision, we tried to rationalize our decision.

3. Most members did not raise objections in order to maintain unity of my team.

Group Identity (Groupthink Factor 2)

During the crisis event:

1. We believed that our solution was right in the face of ethical consideration.

2. All members completely agreed to the selected solution.

3. We were confident that we could produce high-quality solutions.

Symptoms of Defective Decision Making

During the crisis event:

1. My team surveyed as many alternatives as possible to solve the problem (R).

2. My team surveyed as many objectives as possible to solve the problem (R).

3. My team did not reevaluate our solution for unforeseen risks after we originally adopted it.

4. My team put effort to obtain expert advice or qualified information from outside the team (R).

124 5. My team considered the advice of outsiders even when it was contrary to our preferred solution (R).

6. My team developed contingency plans to be used if our first solution did not work (R).

Internal Activities

During the crisis event:

1. The leader of our team facilitated open communication among members.

2. We used monetary and material resources available to us.

3. We freely communicated among members to share relevant information.

External Activities

During the crisis event:

1. We communicated with other teams within our organization effectively.

2. We communicated with executive managers effectively.

3. We obtained information and other resources from other teams within our organization.

4. We obtained endorsement and support from executive managers.

Team Performance

1. We could resolve the crisis with efficiency in terms of cost.

2. The crisis was resolved in a way that moved us toward our goal.

3. We are satisfied with the results of the crisis resolution.

4. Overall, we coped with the crisis effectively.

Note. (R) = reverse-scored items.

125 Each of the items was followed by a 6-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. 1 - Strongly disagree, 2 - Disagree, 3 - Somewhat disagree, 4 - Somewhat agree,

5 - Agree, 6 - Strongly agree

126 B.2 GROUPTHINK Ölçeği (TURKISH)

katılmıyorum rarsızım Kesinlikle Katılmıyorum Ka Katılıyorum Kesinlikle katılıyorum Kesinlikle katılıyorum

Kriz sırasında;

1. Üyeler, seçilen çözümleri sorgulayan diğer üyeleri eleştirmişlerdir. 2. Yeni bilgilerin kararımızla çelişmesi durumunda kendi kararımızı rasyonelleştirmeye çalıştık 3. Çoğu üye, ekibimin birliğini muhafaza etmek adına itirazda bulunmamıştır. 4. Çözümümüzün, etik değerler açısından doğru olduğuna inandık. 5. Tüm üyeler, seçilen çözüme tamamıyla katılmıştır. 6. Bizler, yüksek nitelikli çözümler üretebileceğimizden emindik. 7. Ekibim, sorunu çözmek için mümkün olduğunca fazla alternatif araştırdı. 8. Ekibim, sorunu çözmek için mümkün olduğunca çok hedef araştırdı. 9. Ekibim, ilk başta benimsediğimiz çözümden sonra öngörülemeyen riskler sözkonusu olduğunda çözümümüzü yeniden değerlendirmedi. 10. Ekibim, dışardan uzman tavsiyesi veya nitelikli bilgi almak için çaba harcamıştır.

127 11. Ekibim, tercih ettiğimiz çözümümüzle çelişse bile ekip dışından insanların tavsiyelerini dikkate almıştır. 12. İlk çözümümüzün işe yaramadığı durumlar için, ekibim acil eylem planları geliştirmiştir. 13. Ekibimizin lideri, üyeler arasında açık iletişimi kolaylaştırmıştır. 14. Elimizdeki mevcut parasal ve maddi kaynakları kullandık. 15. İlgili bilgileri paylaşmak için üyeler arasında özgür bir şekilde iletişim kurduk. 16. Kurumumuzda bulunan diğer ekiplerle etkin bir şekilde iletişim kurduk. 17. Üst düzey yöneticilerle etkin bir şekilde iletişim kurduk. 18. Kurumumuzdaki diğer ekiplerden bilgi ve diğer kaynakları edindik. 19. Üst düzey yöneticilerden onay ve destek aldık. 20. Krizi maliyet açısından verimlilikle çözebiliriz. 21. Kriz, bizi hedeflerimize itecek şekilde çözülmüştür. 22. Kriz çözümünün sonuçlarından memnunuz. 23. Genel olarak, krizle etkili bir şekilde başa çıktık.

128 APPENDIX C

QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE STUDY (TURKISH)

Bu anket, dönüştürücü liderliğin grup düşünüşü üzerindeki etkisini ölçmek amacıyla hazırlanmıştır. Anketin tamamlaması yaklaşık 10 dakika sürecektir. Vermiş olduğunuz cevaplar gizli kalacak, rızanız dışında hiçbir şekilde açıklanmayacak ve sadece toplu sonuçlar kamuoyu ile paylaşılacaktır. Anket kağıtlarında cevaplayan kişinin veya temsil ettiği kurumun kim olduğunun anlaşılmasına neden olacak hiçbir madde bulunmamaktadır.

Çalışmada elde edilen veriler, yalnızca bu çalışma kapsamında ve/veya bu çalışmaya dayalı yayınlar ortaya çıkarmak için bilimsel amaçlı olarak kullanılacak, yanıtlar gizli tutulacak ve katılımcıların talep etmeleri durumunda araştırma sonuçları hakkında bilgilendirilmeleri sağlanacaktır.

Araştırmaya değerli bilgi ve görüşlerinizle yapacağınız katkılar ve ayıracağınız zaman için şimdiden teşekkür ederim.

Adem Kaya

University of Texas at Dallas

Rıza Formu

129 BÖLÜM 1

DEMOGRAFİK BİLGİLER

1. Cinsiyetiniz Kadın ( ) Erkek ( )

2. Yaşınız (lütfen belirtiniz):

3. Mesleğinizdeki hizmet süreniz? (Lütfen belirtiniz):

4. Mezun olduğunuz alan nedir? (Lütfen belirtiniz):

5. Eğitim düzeyiniz? ( ) Ön lisans ( ) Lisans ( ) Lisans üstü

6. Görev yaptığınız okulun türünü belirtiniz? Devlet okulu ( ) Özel Okul ( )

7. Branşınız nedir? (Lütfen belirtiniz):

8. Görev yaptığınız yer: İl merkezi ( ) İlçe merkezi ( ) Köy ( )

9. Daha önce okul yöneticiliği yaptınız mı? Evet ( ) Hayır ( )

10. Gelecekte bir okul yöneticisi olma planınız var mı? Evet ( ) Hayır ( )

11. Yöneticilerinizle ne sıklıkla görüşüyorsunuz? Her gün ( ) Haftada bir kaç kez ( ) Ayda bir kaç kez ( ) Yılda bir kaç kez ( )

130 BÖLÜM 2

TLS DÖNÜŞTÜRÜCÜ VE ETKİLEŞİMLİ LİDERLİK ÖLÇEĞİ

esinlikle K Kesinlikle Kararsızım katılıyorum Katılıyorum katılmıyorum Katılmıyorum

1. Yöneticim beni bir görev için motive etmeye çalışırken, görevle ilgili içsel motivasyonumu yükseltmeye çabalar. 2. Yöneticim ben ve takım arkadaşlarımın yetkinliklerini, işle igili kişisel ilgi ve ihtiyaçlarını ve her birimizi nasıl motive edeceğini bilir. 3. Yöneticim bana yaptığım işin değerli ve işe yarar olduğunu hissettirir. 4. Yöneticim işleri planlar ve yürütürken bizi de fikir üretmemiz için teşvik eder ve önerilerimizi dinler. 5. Yöneticim işyerinde kendimi aile ortamında gibi hissettirir. 6. Yöneticim yaptıklarımın kısa veya uzun vadede firmaya sağlayacağı katkılar konusunda beni bilgilendirir. 7. Yöneticim beğendigi fikirlerimi takdir etmekle kalmaz, onları uygulamaya geçirmemi de teşvik eder. 8. Yöneticim iş yapış tarzı, kişisel özellikleri ve iletişim becerisiyle bize iyi bir örnek teşkil eder. 9. Yöneticim düşüncelerimi özgürce ifade edebilmem için beni teşvik eder. 10. Yöneticim beni varsayılanı sorgulamaya, yeni çözüm yolları üretmeye teşvik eder; yaratıcılığımı destekler.

131 11. Yöneticim alandaki yenilikleri takip etmemiz için teşvik eder. 12. Yöneticim bana ve takım arkadaşlarıma olumlu özelliklerimizi ve yeteneklerimizi hatırlatarak yapabileceklerimiz ve başarabileceklerimiz konusunda bizi heyecanlandırır. 13. Yöneticim iş süreçleriyle ilgili tüm bildiklerini bana aktarmaya çabalar. 14. Yöneticim eksik veya gelişime açık yönlerim için eğitimler planlar. 15. Yöneticim bana onun da benden öğrenebilecekleri olduğunu hissettirir. 16. Yöneticim beni bir çalışan olmanın dışında bir insan olarak da önemser. 17. Yöneticim görev dağılımı yaparken, kişisel ilgilerimizi ve yeteneklerimizi de göz önünde bulundurur.

Kesinlikle Kesinlikle Kararsızım katılıyorum Katılıyorum katılmıyorum Katılmıyorum 19. ...mesai saatlerimin bir bölümünü, aklımdaki yeni projeler üzerinde çalışmam için kullanmama müsaade eder. 20. Yöneticim ihtiyaç duyduğumda iş dışı özel problemlerim için bana yardım eder. 21. Yöneticim hem mesleki hem kişisel gelişimim için çeşitli seminerlere katılımımı destekler. 22. Yöneticim istersem iş dışı konularda da benimle konuşur. 23. Yöneticim bana saygılı davranır. 24. Yöneticim davet etmem halinde özel hayatımdaki önemli sosyal etkinliklere katılır (düğün, doğum günü) 25. Yöneticim inisiyatif almamı destekler.

132 26. Yöneticim gerektiğinde bize önemli sorumluluklar verir. 27. işlerin olması gereken şekilde gitmesini engelleyecek her türlü duruma karşı tetikte olduğunu hissettirir. (binişen madde) 28. Yöneticim kendisinden farklı düşündüğüm durumlarda, fikirlerimi değiştirmeye ve kendi fikirlerini empoze etmeye çalışır. 29. Yöneticim olası herhangi bir hatamı tespit etmek ve gerekirse müdahalede bulunmak adına sıklıkla davranışlarımı gözler ve kontrol eder. 30. Yöneticim bana herhangi bir işi yaptırmak için tehdit kullandığı olur. 31. Yöneticim istediği bir işi yapamadığımda bana çesitli yollarla yaptırım uygular. 32. Yöneticim bana bir görev verdikten sonra, hata yapmamı önlemek için talimat vermeye devam eder. 33. Yöneticim ancak istediği işi, istediği şekilde tamamlamama bağlı olarak beni ödüllendirir. 34. Yöneticim ancak verdiğim kadarını alabileceğimi hissettirir; ilişkimiz bir çeşit ticarete benzer.

133 BÖLÜM 3

GRUP DÜŞÜNÜŞÜ ÖLÇEĞİ

ızım

Kriz sırasında; s Kesinlikle Kesinlikle Kesinlikle Karar katılıyorum katılıyorum Katılıyorum katılmıyorum Katılmıyorum Katılmıyorum 1. Üyeler, seçilen çözümleri sorgulayan diğer üyeleri eleştirmişlerdir. 2. Yeni bilgilerin kararımızla çelişmesi durumunda kendi kararımızı rasyonelleştirmeye çalıştık 3. Çoğu üye, ekibimin birliğini muhafaza etmek adına itirazda bulunmamıştır. 4. Çözümümüzün, etik değerler açısından doğru olduğuna inandık. 5. Tüm üyeler, seçilen çözüme tamamıyla katılmıştır. 6. Bizler, yüksek nitelikli çözümler üretebileceğimizden emindik. 7. Ekibim, sorunu çözmek için mümkün olduğunca fazla alternatif araştırdı. 8. Ekibim, sorunu çözmek için mümkün olduğunca çok hedef araştırdı. 9. Ekibim, ilk başta benimsediğimiz çözümden sonra öngörülemeyen riskler sözkonusu olduğunda çözümümüzü yeniden değerlendirmedi. 10. Ekibim, dışardan uzman tavsiyesi veya nitelikli bilgi almak için çaba harcamıştır. 11. Ekibim, tercih ettiğimiz çözümümüzle çelişse bile ekip dışından insanların tavsiyelerini dikkate almıştır. 12. İlk çözümümüzün işe yaramadığı durumlar için, ekibim acil eylem planları geliştirmiştir.

134 REFERENCES

Akcekoca, A., & Bilgin, K. (2016). Okul Müdürlerinin Liderlik Stilleri ve Öğretmen Performansı1. Çağdaş Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(2).

Akyüz, M. (2002). Çağdaş okulda liderlik. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 1(2), 109-119.

Alban-Metcalfe, R., & Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2000). The transformational leadership questionnaire. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(6), 280-296.

Aldag, R., & Fuller, S. (1993). A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 533-552.

Ali, M., Manjunath, L., & Yadav, V. (2014). A scale to measure the transformational leadership of extension personnel at lower level of anagement. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 5(1), 120-127.

Appannaiah, H. R., Reddy, P. N., & BR., K. (2010). Organisational behaviour. Himalaya Publishing.

Asch, S. (1952). Group forces in the modification and distortion of judgments. Prentice-Hall.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6(1995), 199-218.

Avolio, B., & Bass, B. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Avolio, B., Bass, B., & Jung, D. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462.

Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Vol. 2. JAI Press.

Aydoğdu, S. (2013). An empirical study of the relationship between leadership styles and organizational commitment: The mediating role of empowerment. (Doctoral dissertation). Okan University.

Aytaç, T. (2000). Okul Merkezli Yönetim. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.

Baptist, R. (2015). Measuring predictors of Groupthink: Instrument development and validation. (Doctoral dissertation). Illinois State University.

135 Bass, B. (1981). Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. (1985a). Leadership: Good better best. Organisational Dynamics, 13(13), 26-40.

Bass, B. (1985b). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(1997), 130-139.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-121.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B., Avolio, B., & Goodheim, L. (1987). Biography and assessment of transformational leadership at the world class level. Journal of Management, 13(1), 7-13.

Bass, B., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217.

Bass, B., & Yammarino, F. (1991). Congruence of self and others’ leadership ratings of naval officers for understanding successful performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 40(4), 437-454.

Battaglio, R., & Gelgec, S. (2016). Exploring the structure and meaning of public service motivation in the Turkish public sector: A test of the mediating effects of job characteristics, stewardship, and empowerment. Public Management Review.

Bazerman, M., & Moore, D. A. Moore. (2012). Judgment in managerial decision making (7th ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(6), 989.

136 Behling, O., & McFillen, J. (1996). Asyncretical model of charismatic/transformational leadership. Group and Organizational Management (21), 163-191.

Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729-750.

Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid: The key to leadership excellence. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.

Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A., & Dennison, P. (2003). A review of leadership theory and competency frameworks. Report for Chase Consulting and the Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter.

Bottomore, T. (1965). Sociology. Unwin University Books.

Bozdoğan, K., & Sağnak, M. (2011). ilköğretim okulu müdürlerinin liderlik davranişlari ile öğrenme iklimi arasindaki ilişki. Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 137-145.

Brooks, I. (2006). Organisational Behaviour: Individiul Groups Organisations. Pearson Education Ltd.

Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press.

Burke, W. W. (2010). Organization change: Theory and practice. SAGE Publications.

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Büyükgebiz, O., Tarhan, A., & Uluçınar, A. (2000). Bir Üniversite Hastanesi Acil Servisinde Grup Dinamiği Etmenlerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Ulusal Travma Dergisi, 207-211.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 468.

Calıskan, S. (2008). Yöneticilerin bireysel yetkinliklerinin liderlik tarzlari ve lider üye etkileşimine verdikleri önem üzerindeki etkileri ve bu etkileşimde kültürel varsayimlarin rolü . Marmara Univ. Dissert.

Callaway, M. R., & Esser, J. K. (1984). Groupthink: Effects of cohesiveness and problem- solving procedures on group decision making. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal , 12(2).

Callaway, M. R., Marriott, R. G., & Esser, J. K. (1985). Effects of dominance on group decision making: Toward a stress-reduction explanation of groupthink. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(4), 949.

137 Can, H. (2007). Yönetim Bilimi ve Tarihçesi. In S. Güney, Yönetim ve Organizasyon El Kitabı. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.

Carless, S., Wearing, A., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(2000), 389-405.

Carol, S., & Tosi, H. (1977). Organizational behavior. Clair Press.

Celmer, D. (2007). Fear, organizational learning, and groupthink in the small work group. (Doctoral dissertation). Fordham University.

Chapman, J. (2006). Anxiety and defective decision making: An elaboration of the groupthink model. Management Decision 44(10), 1391-1404.

Choi, J. N., & Kim, M. U. (1999). The organizational application of groupthink and its limitations in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 297– 306. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.297

Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

Colbert, A., Kristof-Brown, A., Bradley, B., & Barrick, M. (2008). CEO transformational leadership: The role of goal importance congruence in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 81-96.

Conger, J., Kanungo, R., & Sanjay, T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 747-767.

Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider's perspective on these developing streams of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 145-179.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Courtright, J. A. (1978). A laboratory investigation of groupthink. Communications Monographs, 45(3), 229-246.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, 16.

Daft, L., & Marcic, D. (2006). Understanding management. Thomsan Southwestern.

Daft, R. L. (2008). Management. Thompson South Western.

138 Dağlı, A. (2000). lköğretim öğretmenlerinin algılarına göre ilköğretim müdürlerinin etkili müdürlük davranışları. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 23, 431-442.

Dansereau, F., Cho, J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2006). Avoiding the “fallacy of the wrong level”: A within and between analysis (WABA) approach. Group & Organization Management, 31(5), 536-577.

Day, D. V., & Antonakis, J. (2011). The nature of leadership. SAGE Publications.

Demir, C., Yılmaz, K., & Çevirgen, A. (2010). Liderlik Yaklaşımları ve Liderlik Tarzlarına İlişkin Bir Araştırma. Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi , 2(1), 129-152.

Den Hartog, D., House, R., Hanges, P., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S., & Dorfman, P. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219-256.

Dereli, B., & Cengiz, D. (2011). İnsan Kaynakları Yönetiminde Grup, Grup Dinamiği Kavramları ve Grup Dinamiğinin Ölçülmesi Üzerine Uygulama Örneği. Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 35-43.

Donmez, S., & Toker, Y. (2017). Construction of a Likert-type transformational leadership scale. DTCF Dergisi , 57(2), 753-775.

Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J., Hibino, S., Lee, J., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 233- 274.

Downton, J. (1973). Rebel leadership. Free Press.

Dumdum, U., Lowe, K., & Avolio, B. (2002). Meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In B. Yammarino, & F. Avolio, In transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. JAI Press.

Eaton, J. (2001). Management communication: The threat of groupthink. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(4), 183-192.

Erçetin, Ş. (2000). Lider sarmalında vizyon. Ankara: Nobel.

Eren, E. (2014). Örgütsel Davranış ve Yönetim Psikolojisi. Beta Yayıncılık.

Erkutlu, H. (2008). The impact of transformational leadership on organizational and leadership effectiveness: The Turkish case. Journal of Management Development, 27(7), 708-726.

Erturgut, R. (2012). Toplam Kalite Yönetimi ve Liderlik. Seçkin Yayıncılık.

139 Ertürk, M. (2009). İşletmelerde Yönetim ve Organizasyon. Beta yayıncılık.

Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 73(2), 116-141.

Fichter, J. (1959). Sociology. University of Chicago Press.

Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(1).

Flippen, A. R. (1999). Understanding groupthink from a self-regulatory perspective. Small Group Research, 30(2), 139-165.

Flowers, M. (1977). A laboratory test of some implications of Janis’ groupthink hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(12), 888-896.

Fodor, E., & Smith, T. (1982). The power motive as an influence on group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 178-185.

Freedman, J., Carlsmith, J., & Sears, D. (1974). Social psychology. Prentice Hall.

Fullagar, C., McCoy, D., & Shull, C. (1992). The socialization of union loyalty. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13(1), 13-26.

Fuller, S., & Aldag, R. (1998). Organizational tonypandy: Lessons from a quarter century of the groupthink fiasco. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 163- 184.

Gibson, A., Ptaff, D., Mendelsohn, B., Catenacci, L., & Burke, W. (2017). Women and leadership. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(1), 32-65.

Gönüllü, M. (2001). GRUP VE GRUP YAPISI. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 2(1), 191-201.

Gumus, Sedat, Okan Bulut, and Mehmet Sukru Bellibas. "The relationship between principal leadership and teacher collaboration in Turkish primary schools: A multilevel analysis." Education Research and Perspectives 40 (2013): 1.

Gümüşburun Ayalp, v., & Öcal, M. (2012). Türk Inşaat Sektöründe Grup Davranışı Ve Grup Yönetimi. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 189-202.

Gündoğdu, G. (2018). Liderlik tarzlarinin özel okullarda çalişan öğretmenlerin iş tatminleri ve motivasyonlari üzerindeki etkileri: görgül bir araştirma. Çukurova Üniv. Doktora Tezi.

Güney, S. (2007). Yönetim ve Organizasyon . Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.

140 Güney, S. (2009). Davranış Bilimleri. Ankara: Nobel Basımevi.

Güney, S. (2009). Davranış Bilimleri. Nobel Basımevi.

Gürsel , M. (1996). Lise ve dengi okul yöneticilerinin rol algilama biçimlerinin kişilerarasi Ilişkiler açisindan analizi. Eğitim Yönetimi, 2(3), 395-400.

Guzzo, R., Wagner, D., Maguire, E., Herr, B., & Hawley, C. (1986). Implicit theories and the evaluation of group process and performance. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 37(2), 279-295.

Hackman, M., & Johnson, C. (2009). Leadership. Waveland Press.

Hair, J., Black, W. B., & Anderson, R. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

Hart, Paul't. (1991). Irving L. Janis' victims of groupthink. Political Psychology 12(2), 247-278.

Harung, H. S. (1995). Total management: Integrating manager, managing and managed. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(2), 4-21.

Hater, J., & Bass, B. (1988). Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695- 702.

Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In Leader behavior. Its description and measurement. Ohio State University.

Henningsen, M. (2002). Groupthought: Analysis and reconceptualization of groupthink. Annual Meeting of the Central States Communication Association.

Hensley, T. R., & Griffin, G. W. (1986). Victims of groupthink: The Kent State University board of trustees and the (1977) gymnasium controversy. Journal of Conflict Resolution 30(3), 497-531.

Herek, G. M., Janis, I. L., & Huth, P. (1987). Decision making during international crises is quality of process related to outcome? Journal of Conflict Resolution 31(2), 203-226.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Publisher.

Hiller, N. J. (2011). Searching for outcomes of leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management , 37(4), 1137-1177.

141 Hirokawa, R., Gouran, D., & Martz, A. (1988). Understanding the sources of faulty group decision making: A lesson from the Challenger disaster. Small Group Research, 19(4), 411-433.

Hodgetts, R. M. (1990). Management : Theory, process, and practice. Thomson Learning.

Hoffner, L. (2018). Leadership is more than a noun. Parks Recration, 51-53.

Hogan, R., Gordon, C., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(1994), 493-493.

Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1998). Friendship and group identification: A new look at the role of cohesiveness in groupthink. European Journal of Social Psychology 28(3), 323-341.

House, R. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 321-339.

House, R., & Aditya, R. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473.

House, R., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman, Leadership theory and research: perspectives and directions. Academic Press.

Howell, J., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.

Howell, J., & Higgins, C. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 317-341.

Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1– 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Hui, H., Warren , C., Philip , L., Cheng, K., & Herman , H. (2007). The effects of service climate and the effective leadership behavior of supervisors on frontline employee service quality: A multi-level analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(1), 151-172.

Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1990). Military executive leadership. In K. E. (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 281-295). West Orange.

Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Publisher.

142 Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.

Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. The Free Press.

Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-767.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4), 765.

Jung, D. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2001), 185-195.

Jung, D., & Avolio, B. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural values on performance under different task structure conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 208-218.

Jung, D., & Sosik, J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33(3), 313-336.

Kamer, H. (2018). Hastane yöneticilerinin liderlik arzlarinin çatişma yönetim stratejilerine etkisi. Marmara Üniv. Sağlık Bilimleri Enst. Doktora Tezi.

Karasar, N. (1991). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler. Ankara.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). Social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.) New York: John Wiley.

Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. C. (1950). Productivity, supervision, and morale in an office situation. Institute for Social Research.

Keller, R. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18(3), 489-501.

Kirkpatrick, S., & Locke, E. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 36-51.

Klein, K. J., & House, R. J. (1995). On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly 6(2), 183-198.

Kline, R. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. Guilford Press.

143 Kocacık, F. (1997). Toplumbilim. C.Ü. Yayınları.

Koçel, T. (2011). İşletme Yöneticiliği. Beta.

Koerber, C., & Neck, C. (2003). Groupthink and sports: An application of Whyte’s model. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(1), 20-28.

Kotter, J. P. (1988). The leadership factor. New York: Free Press.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2012, February). Leadership practices inventory: LPI. http://www.debonogroup.com/images/LPI4eSampleIndividualReport.pdf

Kramer, M., & Dougherty, D. (2013). Groupthink as communication process, not outcome. Communication and Social Change, 1(1), 44-62.

Kramer, R. (1998). Revisiting the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam decisions 25 years later: How well has the groupthink hypothesis stood the test of time? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 236-271.

Kumar, V., & Gopinadhan, S. (2009). Organisational behaviour and mass media. Himalaya Publishing.

Leana, C. (1985). A partial test of Janis’ groupthink model: Effects of group cohesiveness and leader behavior on defective decision making. Journal of Management, 11(1), 5-18.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. McGraw-Hill.

Longley, J., & Pruitt, D. G. (1980). Groupthink: A critique of Janis’s theory. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(1980), 74-93.

Louis, M. (1990). Acculturation in the workplace: Newcomers as lay ethnographers. In I. B. Schneider, Organizational climate and culture (pp. 85-129). Jossey-Bass.

Lowe, K., Kroeck, G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.

MacKenzie, S., Podsakoff, P., & Rich, G. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2), 115- 134.

McCauley, C. (1989). The nature of social influence in groupthink: Compliance and internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 250-260.

Miner, J. (2006). Organisational behaviour essential theories of motivation and leadership. M.H. Sharpe Inc.

144 Mishra, M. (2010). Organisational behaviour and corporate development. Himalaya Publishing House.

Moorhead, G., Ference, R., & Neck, C. (1991). Group decision fiascoes continue: Space shuttle Challenger and a revised framework. Human Relations, 44(6), 539- 550.

Moorhead, M., & Montanari, J. (1986). An empirical investigation of the groupthink phenomenon. Human Relations, 39(5), 399-410.

Mullins, L. (2005). Management and organisational behaviour. Prentice Hall.

Nair, S. R. (2009). Organisational behaviour. Himalaya Publishing House.

Neck, C., & Moorhead, G. (1995). Groupthink remodeled: The importance of leadership, time pressure, and methodical decision-making procedures. Human Relations, 48(5), 537-557.

Newstorm, J., & Davis, K. (1997). Organizational behaviour: Human behaviour at work. McGraw Hill.

Niehoff, B. P., Enz, C. A., & Grover, R. A. (1990). The impact of top-management actions on employee attitudes and perceptions. Group & Organization Management 15(3), 337-352.

Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.

O’Connell, T., & Cuthbertson, B. (2009). Group dynamics in recreation and leisure. Human Kinetics.

Orhan , U. (2016). Örgütlerde Grup Düşünüşün Sessizliğe Etkisi Üzerine Ampirik Bir Araştırma. Ege Akademik Bakış, 16(1), 135-145.

Orhan, U. (2013). Korku ve Grup Düşünüşün Hatali Karar Verme Üzerine Etkisi: Sağlik Sektöründe Bir Araştirma. G.Ü. Dok. Tezi.

Ozankaya, Ö. (1986). Toplumbilim. İstanbul: Tekin Yayınevi.

Özkalp, E. (1998). Sosyolojiye Giriş. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Vakfı Yayını.

Park, W. (2000). A comprehensive empirical investigation of the relationship among variables in the groupthink model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 873-887.

Paulus, P. (1998). Developing consensus about groupthink after all these years. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 362-374.

Peterson, R., Owens, P., Tetlock, P., Fan, E., & Martorana, P. (1998). Group dynamics in top management teams: Groupthink, vigilance, and alternative models of organizational

145 failure and success. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 272-305.

Pillai, R., Scandura, T., & Williams, E. (1999). Leadership and organizational justice: Similarities and differences across cultures. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(4), 763-779.

Ployhart, R. E., Lim, B-C., & Chan, K-Y. (2001). Exploring relations between typical and maximum performance ratings and the five factor model of personality. Personnel Psychology 54(4), 809-843.

Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 107-142.

Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80(6), 918.

Raven, B. (1998). Groupthink, Bay of Pigs, and Watergate reconsidered. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 352-361.

Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2013). Organisational behaviour. Prentice Hall.

Rose, J. (2011). Diverse perspectives on the groupthink theory – A literary review. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 4(2011), 37-57.

Rowold, J., & Rohmann, A. (2009). Relationships between leadership styles and followers' emotional experience and effectiveness in the voluntary sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 38(2), 270-286.

Saeed, T., Almas, S., Anis-ul Hag, M., & Niazi, G. (2014). Leadership styles: Relationship with conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25(3), 214- 225.

Sahin, S. (2005). İlköğretim .Okulu Müdürlerinin Dönüşümcü ve Stirdürümcü Liderlik Stilleri. Eğilim ve Bilim, 30(135), 3949.

Sahin, Z. (2011). Ortaöğretim okul müdürlerinin öğretimsel liderlik rolleri. Inönü Univ. Bilim uzmanlığı tezi.

Schafer, M., & Crichlow, S. (1996). Antecedents of Groupthink: A Quantitative Study. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40(3), 415-435. Retrieved May 1, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/174313

146 Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S., & Cha, S. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1020-1030.

Schein, E. (1980). Organizational psychology. Prentice-Hall.

Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16(4), 693-703.

Senturk, C., & Sagnak, M. (2012). Ilköğretim okulu müdürlerinin liderlik davranişlari ile okul iklimi arasindaki ilişki. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(1), 29-47.

Sevinc Caglar, E. (2011). The impact of empowerment on work engagement mediated through psychological empowerment: Moderating roles of leadership styles and work goals. Marmara Üniv. Doktora Tezi.

Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, and identities: The sources of collectivistic work motivation. Human Relations, 43(1990), 313-332.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science 4(4), 577-594.

Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27(187).

Singer, M. S., & Singer, A. E. (1990). Situational constraints on transformational versus transactional leadership behavior, subordinates' leadership preference, and satisfaction. The Journal of Social Psychology 130(3), 385-396.

Şirin, E. F., & Yetim, A. A. (2008). Beden eğîtîmî ve spor yüksekokulu yöneticilerinin dönüşümcü ve etkileşimci liderlik stillerinin incelenmesi. Gazi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 4, 31 - 46.

Snaebjornsson, I., Edvardsson, I., Zydziunaite, V., & Vaiman, V. (2015). Cross-cultural leadership: Expectations on gendered leaders’ behavior. Sage Open, 1-8.

Sökmen, A. (2010). Yönetim ve organizasyon. Beta yayıncılık.

Sökmen, A. (2010). Yönetim ve Organizasyon. Detay Yayıncılık.

Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1997), 89-103.

Sosik, J., Avolio, B., & Kahai, S. (1998a). Inspiring group creativity: Comparing anonymous and identified electronic brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29(1998), 3-31.

147 Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S. S., & Jung, D. I. (1998b). Computer-supported work group potency and effectiveness: The role of transformational leadership, anonymity, and task interdependence. Computers in Human Behavior 14(3), 491-511.

Steiner, I. (1972). Group processes and productivity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Stringer, L. (2006). The link between the quality of the supervisor-employee relationship and the level of the employee’s job satisfaction. Public Organization Review, 6(2), 125-142.

Subba, R. (2010). Organisational behaviour. Himayala Publishing.

Tabachnick, B., & L.S., F. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson.

Tahaoğlu, F., & Gedikoğlu, T. (2009). Ikögretim Okulu Müdürlerinin Liderlik Rolleri. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 15(58), 274-298.

Takavol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s α. International Journal of Medical Education, 2(2011), 53-55.

Tan, M., Hee, T., & Piaw, C. (2015). A qualitative analysis of the leadership style of a vice chancellor in a private universty in Malaysia. Sage Open.

Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review (March-April), 95-101.

Tanrıöğren, A. (2000). Yol-Amaç Kuramı Açısından Yönetici-Öğretmen İlişkileri. Eğitim Araştırmaları, 1(2), 80-83.

Taş, A., & Çetiner, A. (2011). Ortaöğretim okulu müdürlerinin dönüşümcü liderlik davranişlarini gerçekleştirme durumlarina ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(2), 369-392.

Tetlock, P. E. (1979). Identifying victims of groupthink from public statements of decision makers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(8), 1314.

Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., McGuire, C., Chang, S-J., & Feld, P. (1992). Assessing political group dynamics: A test of the groupthink model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(3), 403.

Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. Training & Development Journal.

Tracey, J. B. (1998). Transformational leadership or effective managerial practices? Group & Organizational Management, 22(1998), 220-236.

Turgut, M., & Baykul, Y. (2010). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

148 Turker, M. (2013). The mediating role of motivation types in employees’ organizational commitment and perceived leadership styles relationship. (Doctoral dissertation). Marmara University.

Turner, M., & Pratkanis, A. (1998). Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 105-115.

Turner, M. E., Pratkanis, A. R., Probasco, P., & Leve, C. (1992). Threat, cohesion, and group effectiveness: Testing a social identity maintenance perspective on groupthink. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(5), 781.

Uçar, Ö. (2018). İşgörenlerin dönüşümcü ve etkileşimci liderlik tarzlari algilamalari ile öz- yeterlilikleri arasindaki ilişkide yöneticiye duyulan güvenin aracilik rolü: bir zincir otel uygulamasi. Akdeniz üniversitesi doktora tezi.

Uzun, G. (2005). Kadin ve erkek yöneticilerin liderlik davranişlari arasindaki farkliliklar ve bankacilik sektöründe uygulama. Çukurova Üniv. Yüksek Lisans Tezi.

Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Einstein, W. O. (1987). Leadership and the outcomes of performance appraisal processes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 177-186.

Waldman, D., & Yammarino, F. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 266-285.

Waldman, D., Bass, B., & Yammarino, F. (1990). Adding to contingent reward behavior: The augmenting effects of charismatic leadership. Group & Organization Studies, 15(4), 381- 394.

Wang, G., Oh, I-S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management 36(2), 223-270.

Whyte, G., & Levi, A. S. (1994). The origins and function of the reference point in risky group decision making the case of the Cuban missile crisis. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 7(4), 243-260.

Yalçınkaya, M. (2000). Örgüt İklimi ve İş Doyumu. İzmir:E.Ü. Eğitim Fakültesi.

Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of analysis. Personnel Psychology, 47(1994), 787-817.

Yeşilbaş, M. (2011), Mart). Kırsal kalkınma politikalarının gelişim çizgisi ve planlı dönemde kırsal kalkınma yaklaşımları. Türk İdare Dergisi (470), 153-175.

Yeşilbaş, M. (2008a, May). Politik Bir İkna Enstrümanı Olarak Yerel Yönetimlerde Halkla ilişkiler. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, VI(11), 97-118.

149 Yeşilbaş, M. (2008b). Açık Toplumun Yeni Elementi: Bilgi Edinme Hakkı ve Türkiye Deneyimi. Türk İdare Dergisi.

Yeşilbaş, M. (2014). Region-based development practices within the perspective of the growth pole theory, ‘Reflection, progress and uncertainties: Theories and practices for innovative governance. The Southeastern Conference for Public Administration. Atlanta, GA: American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) and Clark Atlanta University.

Yeşilbaş, M. (2015). The impact of mobbing and job-related stress on burnout and health-related quality of life: The case of Turkish territorial state representatives. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida.

Yeşilbaş, M., & Wan, T. (2017). The impact of mobbing and job-related stress on burnout and health-related quality of life: The case of Turkish territorial state representatives. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(12), 1024-1035.

Yiğit, M. (2016). Vatandaşin Sosyal Yardim Hizmet Algisi Ve Yönetimi: Diyarbakir Örneği. İnönü Üniv. Doktora Tezi.

Yukl, G. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. (1989a). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management , 15(2), 251-289.

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations. Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. A. (1989b). Leadership in organizations. Pearson Education India.

Zel, U. (2001). Kişilik ve Liderlik Evrensel Boyutlarıyla Yönetsel Açıdan Araştırmalar Teoriler Yorumlar. . Seçkin Yayınları.

Zhu, W., Avolio, B., & Walumbwa, F. (2009). Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group & Organization Management, 34(5), 590-619.

150 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Adem Kaya was born on November 8, 1979 in Gaziantep Province of Turkey. He went to Nezihe

Osman Atay primary school, and then completed secondary and high school at Fitnat Nuri

Tekerekoglu Anotolian High School in the same city. He attended the University of Istanbul

Faculty of Economics for his bachelor’s degree. After earning his degree in 2003, he was hired by the Turkish Ministry of Interior as a District Governor Candidate. During his 3-year intensive program, he received a Master of Arts degree with a major in ‘Public Administration’ from the

University of Exeter in 2006. After completing the candidacy training program, he served as a

District Governor in the Altinekin and Idil districts between 2007 and 2011. Thereafter he was appointed as Deputy Governor to the Kilis Province and worked at this position until the beginning of 2012. During his tenure at the Ministry of Interior, he has been rewarded numerous citation awards. Also, he was honored as the “Administrator of the Year” for the whole country in 2010.

In January 2012, he joined the graduate program in Public Affairs at The University of Texas at

Dallas. In 2018, he started work as Chief Operating Officer for Cars and Credit Master in Dallas,

Texas. He is married and has two daughters.

151 CURRICULUM VITAE

ADEM KAYA

Personal

• Birth Date : 08.11.1979 • Birth Place : Gaziantep, Turkey • Marital Status : Married • Present Position : PhD Candidate in University of Texas at Dallas

Education

2018 Present COO at Pacific Deals Inc. DBA Cars and Credit Master 2012 Present PhD Candidate, Public Affairs, University of Texas at Dallas, Social Sciences Master’s Degree, in Public Administration 2005 - 2006 University of Exeter; Exeter, UK 1998 - 2003 Economics, İstanbul University; İstanbul, TURKEY 1995 - 1998 Anotolian High School,Gaziantep, TURKEY

Professional Experience

İdil District Governorship September, 2009—August, 2011 SIRNAK District Governor: Chief Executive Officer in the District. Responsible for Economic Development, efficient use of public resources and administration of Public Services such as Health, Education, Security, and Housing.

152 Altınekin District Governorship May, 2007—September, 2009 KONYA District Governor: Chief Executive Officer in the District. Responsible for Economic Development, efficient use of Public Resources and Administration of Public Services such as Health, Education, Security, and Housing.

Turkish Ministry of Interior July, 2004—April, 2007 GAZİANTEP,MERSİN, EXETER

Candidate District Governor: Training period for District Governors, includes several courses in Turkey and England and temporary positions at different districts.

Awards and Honors Award of the ‘Administrator of the Year’, Turkish Administrators Assocation, 2010 Salary Award of Minister of Interior, 2010 Citation Award of Sırnak Governorship, 2010 Citation Award of Konya Governorship, 2009 Citation Award of Konya Governorship, 2008 Citation Award of Gaziantep Governorship, 2004

Other Courses “The Project of E-Interior Ministry” Turkish Ministry of Interior, 2010, Antalya “Managing Flood Disaster,” General Directorate of Turkey Emergency Management Under Prime Ministry, 2009, Sırnak ‘Sustainable Underground Water Management’ (Panelist), Fifth World Water Forum, 2009, Istanbul “Monitoring Places of Detention” (Training of Trainers), Turkish Ministry of Interior, 2007, Ankara “Enhancing The Capacity of the Deputy/ District Governors for the Effective Administration of Law Enforcement,” Turkish Ministry of Interior, 2006, Ankara

153 “Advanced Level Computer Skills,” Turkish Ministry of Interior, 2004, Ankara “District Governorship,” Turkish Ministry of Interior, 2006, Ankara “Public Diplomacy Course,” Insitute of Turkish and Middle East Public Administration, Ankara, 2006

154