A Q-Methodological Analysis of School Principals’ Decision-Making Strategies during the Change Process at Schools
The purpose of the research was to explore the decision-making strategies that school principals employ while dealing with the challenges faced during the change process at schools. The study was conducted in two cities located in Central and Southeast Turkey, with a sample comprising 29 primary, middle and secondary school principals, selected via a purposive sampling technique. Q methodology, a qualitative-dominant mixed methods research design, was used in the study. The researchers developed and used a concourse of 24 specific items that target school principals’ decision-making strategies about change-related challenges in schools by taking a perception-driven decision-making model as the theoretical framework. The statistical software PQMethod was used for data analysis. The findings revealed that school principals shared similar views via the item configurations provided regarding decision-making during times of change, and had a similar profile in terms of decision-making and related strategies. The behavioural decision style was found to be the preferred style. The principals had a profile featuring a high focus on people and low cognitive complexity. The dominant beliefs driving their decision-making strategies seemed to incorporate comprehensive evaluation of the current situation, ethical concerns and organisational values, assessment of technical details, and thorough data collection. Some implications are drawn for researchers and practitioners.
Al-Omari, A. A. (2013). The relationship between decision making styles and leadership styles among public school principals. International Education Studies, 6(7), 100–110.
Al-Yahya, K. O. (2008). Power-influence in decision making, competence utilization, and organisational culture in public organizations: The Arab world in comparative perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 385–407.
Atsan, N. (2017). Karar vermede çatışma kuramı ve özsaygı ilişkisine yönelik kültürel bir inceleme [A cultural examination of the relationship between decisional self-esteem and conflict theory of decision making]. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(1), 63–73.
Bakioğlu, A., & Demiral, S. (2013). Okul yöneticilerinin belirsizlik durumlarını algılama ve karar verme tarzları [Principals’ perceptions of ambiguous situations and their decision-making styles in cases of ambiguity]. Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 38, 9–35. doi: 10.15285/EBD.2013385564
Basi, R. S. (1998). Administrative decision making: A contextual analysis. Management Decision, 36(4), 232–240.
Bayburin, R., Bycik, N., Filinov, N., Isaeva, N., & Kasprzhak, A. (2015). Does conceptual decision-making style make school principal an efficient reforms promoter? Basic Research Program, Working Papers Series: Management WP BRP 34/MAN/2015. Moscow: National Research University Higher School of Economics.
Boulgarides, J. D. (1984). The decision style inventory: O. D. applications. Management Research News, 7(4), 17–20.
Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 561–567.
Bursalıoğlu, Z. (2013). Okul yönetiminde yeni yapı ve davranış [New structure and behaviour in school management]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Calabrese, R. L., & Zepeda, S. J. (1999). Decision-making assessment: Improving principal performance. International Journal of Educational Management, 13(1), 6–13.
Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision‐making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373–386.
Crosby, R. (2015). Teachers managing work demands and maintaining a sense of wellbeing: A Q methodology study to investigate the views of primary and secondary school teachers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield.
D'Angelo, L. M. (2011). How school organisational structures impact micro-level decision making (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Washington, DC: The George Washington University.
Demir, F., & Kul, M. (2011). Algı, tutum, karakteristik özellikler, tipoloji, içerik analiz ve araştırmaları için modern bir araştırma yöntemi olarak Q metodu [Q method as a modern research method for research on perceptions, attitudes, characteristic features, typologies, and content analysis]. Ankara: Adalet Yayınları.
Drucker, P. F. (2001). The effective decision. In Harvard Business Review on decision making (pp. 1–20). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Eranova, M., & Prashantham, S. (2016). Decision making and paradox: Why study China? European Management Journal, 34(3), 193–201.
Ercan, G., & Altunay, E. (2015). İlkokul ve ortaokul yöneticilerinin kişilik özellikleri ile karar verme becerileri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [Investigation of the relationship between the personality characteristics and decision-making skills of primary and secondary school administrators (The case of the İzmir province)]. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 120–143.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
George, J. M., & Dane, E. (2016). Affect, emotion, and decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 47–55.
Güçlü, N., Özer, A., Kurt, T., & Koşar, S. (2015). Liderlik stilleri, karar verme stratejileri ve kişiliğin okullardaki karar sürecine etkilerinin çok düzeyli analizi [Multilevel analysis of the effects of leadership styles, decision making strategies and personality on the decision-making process in schools]. Journal of Human Sciences, 12(2), 1756–1791.
Halama, P. (2017). Self-regulation capacity and decision making of Slovak managers in routine situations and in situations with possible negative outcomes. Studia Psychologica, 59(2), 156–168.
Hariri, H., Monypenny, R., & Prideaux, M. (2014). Leadership styles and decision-making styles in an Indonesian school context. School Leadership & Management, 34(3), 284–298.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2010). Swift and smart decision making: Heuristics that work. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(4), 351–358.
Hutson, G., & Montgomery, D. (2011). Demonstrating the value of extending qualitative research strategies into Q. Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal of Q Methodology, 34(4), 234–246.
James, C. (2011). The importance of affective containment for teacher effectiveness and successful educational change. In C. Day & J. C.-K. Lee (Eds.), New understandings of teacher’s work: Emotions and educational change (pp. 119–134). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kalman, M., & Arslan, M. C. (2016). School principals’ evaluations of their instructional leadership behaviours: Realities vs. ideals. School Leadership & Management, 36(5), 508–530.
Kasprzhak A. G., & Bysik, N. V. (2015). Decision-making styles of Russian school principals. Russian Education and Society, 57(7), 590–613.
Khasawneh, S., Alomari, A., & Abu-tineh, A. (2011). Decision-making styles of department chairs at public Jordanian universities: A high-expectancy workforce. Tertiary Education and Management, 17(4), 309–318.
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organisational change: Creating change through strategic communication. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2010a). The decision making process. National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal, 27(4), 1–12.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2010b). The principal and the school: What do principals do? National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal, 27(4), 1–13.
Mason, S. L. (2016). An inquiry into how principals make decisions in secondary schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana, IN: Indiana State University.
McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. B. (2013). Q methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Misra, S., & Srivastava, K. B. L. (2012). Decision-making: Path to effectiveness. Human Resource Management Research, 2(4), 46–52.
Newman, I., & Ramlo, S. (2010). Using Q methodology and Q factor analysis in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.) (pp. 505–530). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Nixon, L. A. (2017). School leaders’ decision-making process for academic program placement: A phenomenological study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Johnson City, TN: East Tennessee State University.
Paige, J. B. (2014). Making sense of methods and measurement: Q-methodology-part I-philosophical background. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 10(12), 639–640.
Paige, J. B. (2015). Making sense of methods and measurement: Q-methodology-part II-methodological procedures. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 11(1), 75–77.
Podrug, N. (2011). Influence of national culture on decision-making style. South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 6(1), 37–44.
Ramlo, S., & Newman, I. (2011). Reply to Gourlay. Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal of Q Methodology, 34(3), 213–214.
Ramlo, S. (2005). An application of Q methodology: Determining college faculty perspectives and consensus regarding the creation of a school of technology. Journal of Research in Education, 15(1), 52–69.
Ramlo, S. (2011). Facilitating a faculty learning community: Determining consensus using Q methodology. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 24(1), 30–38.
Ramlo, S. (2016a). Mixed method lessons learned from 80 years of Q methodology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 28–45.
Ramlo, S. (2016b). Students’ views about potentially offering physics courses online. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 489–496.
Ramlo, S. (2016c). Centroid and theoretical rotation: Justification for their use in Q methodology research. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 28(1), 73–92.
Rowe, A. J., & Boulgarides, J. D. (1983). Decision styles: A perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 4(4), 3–9.
Schechter, C., & Shaked, H. (2017). Leaving fingerprints: Principals’ considerations while implementing education reforms. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(3), 242–260.
Schmolck, P. (2015). PQMethod (Version 2.35) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod/downpqwin.htm
Sezer, Ş. (2016). Okul müdürlerinin görev öncelikleri ve karar alma süreçlerini etkileyen faktörlere ilişkin görüşleri [School administrators’ opinions on task priorities and the factors affecting their decision-making processes]. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(3), 121–137.
Shakeel, M. D., & DeAngelis, C. A. (2017). Who is more free? A comparison of the decision-making of private and public school principals. Journal of School Choice, 11(3), 442–457.
Şişman, M. (2010). Türk eğitim sistemi ve okul yönetimi [The Turkish education system and school management]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Smollan, R. K. (2017). Supporting staff through stressful organisational change. Human Resource Development International, 20(4), 282–304.
Stenner, P. (2011). Q methodology as qualiquantology: Comment on Susan Ramlo and Isadore Newman’s “Q methodology and its position in the mixed methods continuum”. Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal of Q Methodology, 34(3), 192–203.
Trimmer, K. (2016). Measurement and modelling: Sequential use of analytical techniques in a study of risk-taking in decision-making by school principals. Teacher Development, 20(3), 398–416.
Weiss, H. A. (1956). Decision-making in secondary schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 37(5), 207–210.
Yang, G. (2016). A study of cross-cultural decision-making styles: Is cognitive mapping an effective methodology for data analysis? (Unpublished master’s thesis). Milton Keynes, UK: The Open University.
Yang, Y. & Bliss, L. B. (2014). A Q factor analysis of college undergraduate students' study behaviours. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(6), 433–453.
Yıldırım, İ. (2017). Students’ perceptions about gamification of education: A Q-method analysis. Eğitim ve Bilim, 42(191), 235–246.
Zabala, A. (2014). qmethod: A package to explore human perspectives using Q methodology. The R Journal, 6(2), 163–173.
In order to ensure both the widest dissemination and protection of material published in CEPS Journal, we ask Authors to transfer to the Publisher (Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana) the rights of copyright in the Articles they contribute. This enables the Publisher to ensure protection against infringement.