Greek Teachers’ Views about Their Organizational Commitment to Primary School

Iordanidis G.¹, Tsakiridou H.^1, and Sagiadinou G.¹

¹Department of Primary Education, University of Western Macedonia, Florina, Greece

Cite this paper:
Iordanidis G., Tsakiridou H. and Sagiadinou G.. Greek Teachers’ Views about Their Organizational Commitment to Primary School. American Journal of Educational Research. 2014; 2(8):603-611. doi: 10.12691/education-2-8-8

Abstract

The characteristics of commitment to school, students, teaching, career and profession along with a body of knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviors are those which compose the organizational commitment of teachers. The purpose of the present study is to investigate teachers’ views about their organizational commitment to primary school. More specifically, the study aims to record teachers’ views regarding seven teamwork characteristics: communication, leadership, guidance, feedback, supportive behavior, collaboration and trust. The sample was consisted of 245 primary education teachers. The results show that teachers recognize the importance of all the seven factors regarding teamwork characteristics. Moreover, teachers’ views are significantly influenced by their age and their teaching experience.

Keywords:
teachers' organizational commitment teamwork teachers’ experience

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Anagnostopoulou, Maria, Interpersonal relationships between teachers and students in the school classroom setting - A theoretical analysis and experience-based approach. Thessaloniki: PhD Thesis/AUTH. School of Philosophy and Education. Department of Education [in Greek], 2004.
[2]	Angle, H., & Perry, J. An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26. 1-14, 1981.
[3]	Becker, H. S. Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66. 32-40, 1960.
[4]	Bryk, A. and Schneider, B., Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY, 2002.
[5]	Crow. G. M.. Pounder. D. G. Interdisciplinary teacher teams: context. design. and process. Educational Administration Quarterly. 36 (2). 216-254, 2000.
[6]	Dee. J.. Henkin. Α.. Singleton. Α. Organizational commitment of teachers in urban school. Examining the effects of team structures. Urban Education. 41 (6). 603-627, 2006
[7]	Dickinson, T., McIntyre, R., Ruggeberg, B., Yanushefski, A., Hamill, L. and Vick, A., A Conceptual Framework for Developing Team Process Measures of Decision-making Performance (Final Report), Naval Training Systems Center, Human Factors Division, Orlando, FL., 1992.
[8]	French, W. and Bell, C., Organizational Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organizational Movement, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984.
[9]	Gambetta, D., “Can we trust trust?”, in Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Basil Blackwell, New York, NY, 1988.
[10]	Hackman. R. What makes for a great team? APA on line psychological science agenda. 18 (6). Retrieved on January 10. 2010.
[11]	Harrison D, Newman D and Roth P. How Important are Job Attitudes? Meta-analytic Comparisons of Integrative Behavioral Outcomes and Time Sequences, Academy of Management Journal, 49. 305-325, 2006.
[12]	Heck. H. R. Teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Investigating a multilevel cross-classified model. Journal of Educational Administration. 47 (2). 227-249, 2009.
[13]	Hitiris. L., Organizational behavior, human behavior in organizations and enterprises. Athens: Interbooks [in Greek]., 2001.
[14]	Hoffman, J., Sabo, D., Bliss, J. and Hoy, W., “Building a culture of trust”, Journal of School Leadership, 4. 484-501, 1994.
[15]	Hoy. W. A.. & Miskel. C. Educational Administration (6th ed). New York: McGraw- Hill International Edition, 2001
[16]	Hoy, W. and Kupersmith, W., “The meaning and measure of faculty trust”, Educational and Psychological Research, 5. 1-10, 1985.
[17]	Hoy, W., Tarter, C. and Wiskowskie, L., “Faculty trust in colleagues: linking the principal with school effectiveness”, Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26(1). 38-45, 1992.
[18]	Hulpia. H.. Devos G. How distributed leadership can make a difference in teachers’ organizational commitment? A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education. 26. 565–575, 2010.
[19]	Inger. Morton “Teacher Collaboration in Secondary Schools”. Center Focus. 2. 1-7, 1993.
[20]	Jaros, S., Meyer and Allen Model of Organizational Commitment: Measurement Issues. The Icfai Journal of Organizational Behavior, 6 (4), 1-25, 2007.
[21]	Kosmopoulos B. A. Relational Dynamics Education of the Person. Athens: Grigoris [in Greek], 1994.
[22]	Kuhnert. K. W.. Vance. R. J. Job insecurity and moderators of the relations between job insecurity and employee adjustment. In Quick.J.C.. Murphy. L.R. & Hurrell. J.J.J. (Eds). Stress and well being at work. Assessments and interventions for occupational mental health. Washington. D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1992.
[23]	Lee.V. E.. Smith. J. B. Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in achievement and engagement for early secondary students. American Journal of Education. 104. 103-147, 1996.
[24]	Lee T, Mitchell T, Sablynski C, Burton J and Holtom B. “The Effects of Job Embeddedness on Organizational Citizenship, Job Performance, Volitional Absences, and Voluntary Turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, 47. 711-722, 2004.
[25]	Little. J. W. The persistence of privacy: autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record. 91 (4). 509-536, 1990.
[26]	Lortie. Dan C. Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.
[27]	Louis. K. Effects of teacher quality of worklife in secondary schools on commitment and sense of efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 9 (1). 1-27, 1998.
[28]	Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. Organizational commitment: Toward a three-component model. Research Bulletin No. 660. The University of Western Ontario, Department of Psychology, London, 1987.
[29]	Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18, 1990.
[30]	Meyer J, Becker T and Van Dick R (2006), “Social Identities and Commitments at Work: Toward an Integrative Model”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27. 665-683, 2006.
[31]	Mitchell T R, Holtom B C, Lee T W, Sablynski C J and Erez M. “Why People Stay: Using Job Embeddedness to Predict Voluntary Turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, 44. 1102-1121, 2001.
[32]	Mobley, W., Griffeth, R., Hand, H., & Meglino, B. Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Pychological Bulletin, 86. 493-522, 1979.
[33]	Morrow. P. Concept redundancy in organizational research. The case of work commitment. Academy of Management Review. 8. 486-500, 1983.
[34]	Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14. 224-247, 1979.
[35]	Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W. & Steers, R. M. Employee- Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover. New York: Academic Press, 1982.
[36]	O'Reilly, C. III and J. Chatman. Organizational Commitment and Psychological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification, and Internalization on Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (3). 492-499, 1986.
[37]	Park. S.. Henkin. A.. Egley. R. Teacher team commitment. teamwork and trust: exploring associations. Journal of Educational Administration. 43 (5). 462-479, 2005.
[38]	Pfeffer, J., & Lawler, J. Effects of job alternatives, extrinsic rewards, and behavioral commitment on attitude toward the organization: A field test of the insufficient justification paradigm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 38-56, 1980.
[39]	Pounder. D. G. Teacher teams: exploring job characteristics and work-related outcomes of work group enhancement. Educational Administration Quarterly. 35 (3). 462-479, 1999.
[40]	Reyes. P.. Linking commitment. performance. and productivity. In P. Reyes (Eds.). Teachers and their workplace: Commitment. performance. and productivity. San Francisco: Sage, 1990.
[41]	Rusbult, C., & Farrell, D. A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68. 429-438, 1983.
[42]	Saitis. Ch. Management and Administration in Education. Athens: Self-published [in Greek], 2005a.
[43]	Saitis. Ch. School Management. Athens: Self-published [in Greek], 2005b.
[44]	Saraphidou. G. O. Linkages between quantitative and qualitative approaches. The experience-based research. Athens Gutenberg [in Greek], 2011.
[45]	Sergiovanni, T. Leadership for the Schoolhouse, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1996.
[46]	Smith. P. L.. Hoy. F. Job satisfaction and commitment of older workers in small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management. 30 (4). 106-118, 1992.
[47]	Smith, P., Hoy, W. and Sweetland, S. “Organizational health of high schools and dimensions of faculty trust”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 11, pp. 135-50, 2001.
[48]	Somech. A.. Bogler. R. Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational and professional commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly. 38. 555-577, 2002.
[49]	Tschannen-Moran, M. “Collaboration and the need for trust”, Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4). 308-31, 2001.
[50]	Vegas. E. Teacher labor markets in developing countries. The Future of Children. 17 (1). 219-232, 2007.
[51]	Zahorik. John “Teachers' Collegial Interaction: An Exploratory Study”. The Elementary School Journal. 87 (4). 385-396, 1987.