Advertisement

Investigation of Organizational Intelligence Level of Schools According to Teachers’ Opinion

  • Gülşah İmamoğlu Akman
  • Yener Akman
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

In this study, the organizational intelligence perception of teachers that work in public schools of Altındağ district in Ankara province is investigated. Besides, it is examined that the organizational intelligence perception of teachers may create a significant difference according to various demographic variables. The study is carried out with the participation of 226 teachers in the 2016–2017 academic year. “Multidimensional organizational intelligence scale” has been used as a tool to gather data. Data has been analyzed with descriptive statistics, t-test for independent groups, and one-way analysis of variance. Data analysis has been carried out with SPSS 22.0 and LISREL 8.8 softwares. According to study findings, it is found out that teachers perceived their schools’ organizational intelligence in a high level. Additionally, it is understood that whereas teachers’ perception of organizational intelligence differs significantly according to teachers’ sex and the schools’ socioeconomic condition, it does not differ significantly according to variables like teachers’ year of service and level of education and the school’s number of students.

Keywords

Organizational intelligence Teacher Multidimensional organizational intelligence scale 

References

  1. Akbari, N. (2016). Analyzing the relationship between organizational intelligence and organizational learning among school principals of Pakdasht County. Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 8(2S), 651–670.Google Scholar
  2. Akgün, A. E., Lynn, G. S., & Byrne, J. C. (2003). Organizational learning: A socio-cognitive framework. Human Relations, 56, 839–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albrecht, K. (2002). Seven traits of the intelligent organization. https://www.karlalbrecht.com/books/chapters/MAW03.pdf. E.T.:02.12.2017.
  4. Allensworth, E., Ponisciak, S., & Mazzeo, C. (2009). The schools teachers leave teacher mobility in chicago public schools. Consortium on Chicago school research at the Unıversity of Chicago Urban Education Institute, Research Report.Google Scholar
  5. Press Announcement Agency. (2017). 130 bin misafirimiz var. http://www.bik.gov.tr/130-bin-misafirimiz-var/. E.T.: 01.12.2017.
  6. Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2006). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 28, 25–48.Google Scholar
  7. Çakır, R. (2008). Örgütselzekânıngeliştirilmesineilişkinyapılanbirçalıştayınörgütselzekâdüzeyiningeliştirilmesineetkisi. YayımlanmamışDoktoraTezi. Atatürk Üniversitesi, SosyalBilimlerEnstitüsü, Erzurum.Google Scholar
  8. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., Vigdor, J. L., & Diaz, R. A. (2004). Do school accountability systems make it more difficult for low performing schools to attract and retain high-quality teachers? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(2), 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Courbon, J., & Trahand, J. (1993). Organizational intelligence and enabling Technologies.Proceedings of IEEE Systems Man and Cybernetics Conference, 1, 678–681. 17–20 Oct 1993.Google Scholar
  10. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). SosyalBilimlerİçinÇokDeğişkenliİstatistik SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları. Ankara: PegemAkademi.Google Scholar
  11. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  12. De Angelis, C. T. (2013). A knowledge management and organizational intelligence model for public administration. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(11), 807–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Directorate General of Migration Management. (2016). 2016 Türkiye göç raporu. http://www.goc.gov.tr/files/files/2016_goc_raporu_.pdf. E.T: 20.11.2017.
  14. Domagalski, T. A. (1999). Emotion in organizations: Main currents. Human Relations, 52(6), 833–852.Google Scholar
  15. Ekici, Ö. (2007). Resmiveözelilköğretimokullarındaörgütselzekâdüzeylerineilişkinyöneticiveöğretmengörüşleri (Sakaryailiörneği).YayımlanmamışYüksekLisansTezi. SakaryaÜniversitesi, SosyalBilimlerEnstitüsü, Sakarya.Google Scholar
  16. Ekici, Ö. O., & Titrek, O. (2011). İlköğretimokullarındaörgütselzekâdüzeylerineilişkinyöneticiveöğretmengörüşleri. HacettepeÜniversitesiEğitimFakültesiDergisi, 40, 152–163.Google Scholar
  17. Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (2001). ÖrgütselZekâ. Ankara: Nobel YayınDağıtım.Google Scholar
  18. Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (2004a). Okullardaörgütselzekânıneylemselboyutları. TürkEğitimBilimleriDergisi, 2 (1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  19. Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (2004b). ÖrgütselZekâveÖrgütselAptallık. Ankara: AsilYayınDağıtım.Google Scholar
  20. Erçetin, Ş. Ş., Çetin, B., & vePotas, N. (2007). Multi-Dimensional organizational intelligence scale (Muldimorins). World Applied Sciences Journal, 2(3), 151–157.Google Scholar
  21. Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (Ed.). (2009). Organizational intelligence in question. Booksurge, USAGoogle Scholar
  22. Glynn, M. A. (1996). Innovative genius: A framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1081–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (2007). Pay, working conditions, and teacher quality. Future of Children, 17, 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karasar, N. (2000). Bilimselaraştırmayöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel YayınDağıtım.Google Scholar
  26. Lefter, V., Prejmerean, M., & Vasilache, S. (2008). The dimensions of organizational intelligence-a human capital perspective. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 10(527), 39–52.Google Scholar
  27. Leidner, D. E., Carlsson, C., Elam, J., & Corrales, M. (1999). Mexican and Swedish managers’ perceptions of the impact of EIS on organizational intelligence, decision making, and structure. Decision Sciences, 30(3), 633–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Matheson, D., & Matheson, J. (1999). Akıllıörgüt. (Çev.,MeralTüzel). İstanbul: Boyner Holding Yayınları.Google Scholar
  29. Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwaninger, M. (2003). A cybernetic model to enhance organizational intelligence. Systems Analysis Modelling Simulation, 43(1), 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simic, I. (2005). Organizational learning as a component of organizational intelligence. Information and Marketing Aspects of the Economically Development of the Balkan Countries. ISBN 954–90277–8-3.Google Scholar
  32. Stonehouse, G. H., & Pemberton, J. D. (1999). Learning and knowledge management in the intelligent organisation. Participation and Empowerment: An International Journal, 7(5), 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tanrıkulu, F. Z. (2014). Ortaöğretimokullarındayöneticiveöğretmenlerinörgütselzekâyailişkinalgıdüzeyleri (Çanakkaleiliörneği).YayımlanmamışYüksekLisansTezi. ÇanakkaleOnsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, EğitimBilimleriEnstitüsü, Çanakkale.Google Scholar
  34. Thannhuber, M. J., Bruntsch, A., & Tseng, M. M. (2017). Knowledge management: Managing organizational intelligence and knowledge in autopoietic process management systems- ten years into industrial application. Procedia CIRP, 63, 384–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vince, R. (2001). Power and emotion in organizational learning. Human Relations, 54, 1325–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2004). Decoupling task and relationship conflict: The role of intragroup emotional processing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 589–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yıldırım, E. (2010). Örgütsel öğrenmenin öncülü olarak örgütsel zekâ: teori ve bir uygulama. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 20, 145–170.Google Scholar
  38. Yolles, M. (2005). Organisational intelligence. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(1/2), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yörük, S. (2006). İlköğretimokullarınınörgütselzekâdüzeyleriniyansıtmadüzeyleri (Elazığiliörneği).YayımlanmamışDoktoraTezi. FıratÜniversitesi, SosyalBilimlerEnstitüsü, Elazığ.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gülşah İmamoğlu Akman
    • 1
  • Yener Akman
    • 1
  1. 1.Ministry of National EducationAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations