Güven Özde, Tevfik Uzun, Melike Günbey, Eray Kara


The job of an effective school supervisor has multiple faces. They are supposed to be mentors, strategists and managers as well as the representatives of the up-to-date regulations. Top-down changes or mandated change originate at government or bureaucratic level. Bottom-up changes are the ones initiated by opponents of an organization. It is known that bottom-up changes take more time than top-down changes. When it comes to educational systems, it will not be wrong to say that most changes are still mandated or top-down way. This research aims to find out the supervisors’ reactions towards change and see whether the heads of the department apply the procedure of change management. Qualitative data collection techniques were used to implement this study.  Semi-structured interview form was used to collect data, and seven questions were posed to 9/11 participants. Obtained responses were analysed via descriptive analysis methods. Findings show that Lewin’s (1947) change model theory is disregarded among MoNE authorities.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



supervisor, change management, mandated change, Lewin’s change model


Anderson, C. (2010). Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(8), 141.

Arabacı, B. İ. (1999). MEB supervision policies (1), Journal of Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 5(4), 545-575.

Bailey, B. (2000). The impact of mandated change on teachers. in the sharp edge of educational change: teaching, leading and the realities of reform, edited by N. Bascia and A. Hargreaves, 112128. London: Routledge Falmer.

Balcı, A. (1995). Organizational Development. Ankara: Pegem Press. Published No:18.

Başaran, İ. Ethem. (2004). Human Relations in Management. Ankara: Nobel Press.

Beer, M.,and Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 782, 133-141.

Bilir, M. (1991). Structure and Process of Inspection in Turkish Education System. (Doctoral Dissertation, Ankara University, Social Sciences Institute, Ankara).

Bovey, W.H. and Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: the role of cognitive and affective processes, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,Vol. 22, pp. 372-81.

Brown, K. M., Anfara, V. A., Hartman, K. J., Mahar, R. J., & Mills, R. (2002). Professional development of middle level principals: Pushing the reform forward. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1(2), 107 – 143.

Buluç, B. (1997). Process of inspection and supervision as sub-systems in Turkish Education System, Journal of Education in Information Age, Oct., Nov., Dec., Ankara, s.27-30.

Bursalıoğlu, Z. (2015). New way and structure in schools management.. Ankara: Pegem Publishing.

Celep, C. (2000). Organizational commitment in education and teachers. Ankara: Anı Publishing.

Çelebioğlu, Fuat. (1982). Organizational change in terms of behavior. Istanbul:Istanbul University. Business Administration Periodicals.

Clement, J. (2014). Managing mandated educational change, School Leadership & Management, 34:1, 39-51, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2013.813460

Connor, P. & Lake, L. (1986). Managing organizational change. Praeger Publications, New York.

Cummings, T. G. and Huse, E. F. (1989).Organization development and change, 4th edition. St Paul, MN: West Publishing.

Duren, A. Z. (2000). Management in the 2000s. Istanbul, Turkey: Alfa Publishing.

Ekiz, D. (2003). Introduction to research methods and Techniques in education. Ankara: Anı Publishing.

Elving, W. J. (2005). The role of communication in organisational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10, 129-138.

Escalente, E. (2005). Organizational change/transformation strategies. Retrieved 12 April, 2017 from http://www.voctechorgbnVirtuallib/programme/Regular/Hrm98/Change_transform.html.

Fullan, M. (1982). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating Top-down and Bottom-up Strategies for Educational Reform. In Systemic Reform: Perspectives on Personalizing Education, edited by R. J. Anson, 723. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teacher College Press.

Glickman, C. D. (1990). Supervision in transition: A developmental approach. (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Guth, W.D. and MacMillan, I.C. (1986), Strategy implementation versus middle management self-interest. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 313-27.

Hargreaves, A. (2002). Sustainability of educational change: The role of social geographies. Journal of Change, 3(3-4), 189–214.

Kapusuzoğlu, Ş. (2004). Evaluation of functionality and contribution of supervision system schools based. Paper presented in 8th.National Educational Sciences Congress, Inönü University Education Faculty, Malatya.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics’. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Field Theory in Social Science. London: Social Science Paperbacks.

Lawler, E. E.,and Worley, C. G. (2006). Built to change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lippit, Gordon L. (1969). Organizational Renewal. Prence- HallInc. Englevood Cliffs New Jersey.

Lunenberg, F. C.,and Ornstein, A. C. (2004). Educational administration: Concepts and practice. California: Wadswortrh.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education – a qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-BassPublishers.

Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Özdemir, S. (2000).Organizational innovation in education. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Publishing.

Özmen, F., and Sönmez Y. (2007). The roles of change agents during change process in educational organizations. Fırat University Social Sciences Journal, 2(17), 177–198.

Öztop, S. (2014). Public employees’ perception toward management of organizational change. Doctoral dissertation, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey).

Piderit, S.K. (2000), “Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 783-4.

Pierce, R. A. And Rowell, J. S. 2005. Effective supervision: A Developmental Approach. White paper, January 2005, Retrieved on 14-12-2016 from

Robbins, S. (2003). Organizational behavior. 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sabuncuoğlu, Z. and Tüz, M. (1995). Organizational Psychology. Bursa: Alfa Basım Press.

Schein, E. H. (1996).‘Kurt Lewin's change theory in the field and in the classroom: notes towards a model of management learning’. Systems Practice, 9, 1, 27–47.

Susanto, A. B. (2008). “Organizational readiness for change: a case study on change readiness in a manufacturing company in Indonesia”, International Journal of Management Perspectives, 2(1), pp. 50–61.

Taşlıyan, M.,ve Karayılan, D. (2011). Organizasyonlarda değişim ve yönetimi. Çağdaş yönetim yaklaşımları içinde, Ss, 253-269.

Taymaz, Haydar. (2011). Supervision (Concepts, Principles, Methods).

Yeniçeri, Ö. (2002). Organizational change management, Ankara: Nobel Press.

Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek H. (2011). Qualitative research methods in social science. Ankara: Seçkin Press.

Waldersee, R.,and Griffiths, A. (1996). The changing face of organizational change. Working Papers of Centre of Corporate Change, Australian Graduate School of Management, 065.

Wallace, M. (2004). Orchestrating complex educational change: Local reorganisations of schools in England. Journal of Educational Change, 5(1), 57–78.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Güven Özde, Tevfik Uzun, Melike Günbey, Eray Kara

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2023. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).