2513-Article Text-10826-2-10-20210601

Journal of English Teaching
e-ISSN: 2622-4224 | p-ISSN: 2087-9628

http://ejournal.uki.ac.id/index.php/jet
Association of Organizational Learning with Leadership, Job

Satisfaction, and Engagement in an EFL Setting
Meltem Huri BATURAY

meltem.baturay@atilim.edu.tr
Atılım University, Ankara, Turkey
Ahmet Erdost YASTIBAŞ

ahmeterdost@gmail.com
Atılım University, Ankara, Turkey
Abstract
The present study investigated the relationship between
organizational learning, department leadership, teacher
leadership, job satisfaction, and engagement in a Turkish
higher education language institution. It was designed as a
quantitative study. 96 Turkish English language instructors
participated in the research. The data were collected with four
scales and analyzed through independent samples t-test, one-
way ANOVA, Pearson’s r correlation, and multiple regression
Keywords:
analysis. The findings indicated that there were no statistically
department
significant differences between the participants in terms of their
leadership,
genders, Bachelor’s degrees, the status of masters of art, and
engagement, job
the departments they worked, but of their teaching experiences
satisfaction,
concerning organizational learning, department leadership,
organizational
teacher leadership, job satisfaction, and engagement. They also
learning, teacher
showed that there were statistically significant relationships
leadership,
among these variables. Besides, they revealed that department
leadership and job satisfaction could predict organizational
learning positively and explain the 74% of the variance in
organizational learning. Department leadership can have a
central role in promoting organizational learning by creating a
working environment supporting and valuing teacher
leadership, so English language teachers/instructors can feel
more engaged and satisfied.
How to cite:
Baturay, M.H. & Yastibaş, A.E. (2021). Association of Organizational Learning with
Leadership, Job Satisfaction, and Engagement in an EFL Setting. Journal of English
teaching, 7(2), 101=117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v7i2.2513
101
Journal of English Teaching, 7(2), June 2021
INTRODUCTION
To meet the ever-changing needs of educational environments, higher education
institutions constantly follow rapid changes in the competitive world (Holyoke, Storko,
Wood, & Wu, 2012). These changes are mostly involved with the integration of
technology into programs and their improvement/development. It is suggested that
dynamic schools depend on complex adaptation systems which are based on knowledge
management and learning (Coppieters, 2005). The ones designed in the form of learning
organizations hold a decentralized management model that has systems and structures
enabling staff at all levels to learn collaboratively and continuously while working, which
means organizational learning (Silins, Mulford, & Zarins, 2002). In this type of
organization, workers are supported as professionals, which encourages them for growth
and success (Silins & Mulford, 2004). Effective school principals who have clear and
well-articulated goals, delegate tasks to others, encourage staff to participate in decision-
making, incorporate others in problem-solving, treat staff fairly and equitably, and
provide staff with support in difficult situations are significant in this organization
(Griffith, 2004).
Organizational Learning versus a Learning Organization

Organizational learning is defined as a field of study focusing on how an organization
learns independently of the individuals it works with and builds on past knowledge and
experience. Heijden (2004) also defined it as a process to explore and create new
knowledge, together with the systematic infusion of the knowledge of organization input.
It depends on organizational learning theory which explains the models of system
learning. The level of learning for an organization is associated with the potentiality with
which it can embrace change, innovation, and adaptation (Argyris, 1999). organizational
learning and change are inseparable (Boyce, 2003).
The dimensions of organizational learning were defined differently by different
researchers. For instance, Marks, Louis, and Printy (2000) identified its dimensions as the
structure of school and participative decision-making which are grounded in empowering
teachers, shared commitment, collaborative activity, knowledge, skills, leadership,
feedback, and accountability. These themes include a school’s commitment to and
ownership of the transparent, inclusive, and collaborative efforts including the greater use
of distributed leadership, taking the initiative rather than always reacting, focusing on the
learning needs of all students, and recognizing and acting on the need for all staff to be
continuously learning. Kurland and Hertz-Lazarowitz (2006) defined the elements of
organizational learning mechanisms as staff involvement, evaluation, in-school
professional development, and information management.
The concept of ‘learning organization,’ on the other hand, is a school reform
which recognizes the value of learning as a collective process (Kurland, Peretz, & Hertz-
Lazarowitz, 2010). Senge (1990) theoretically defined a learning organization as personal
mastery (involved in individual learning), mental models (the theories about how things
work in the organization), shared vision (clear communication and passion in an
organization), team learning (sharing individual learning among all organizational
Baturay, M.H. & Baturay, M.H. & Yastibaş, A.E. (2021). Association of Organizational Learning with Leadership, Job Satisfaction,
and Engagement in an EFL Setting. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v7i2.2513
102
members), and systems thinking (thinking of the cause-effect associations in the

institutional system). Business organizations started to use the core disciplines of a
learning organization with an emphasis on knowledge accumulation and learning attitude
(Chang & Lee, 2007). As Senge (1990) identified, members work together with mutual
trust and supplementary aids to achieve common goals and reach excellent achievement
in the teams of a learning organization.
Watkins and Marsick (1996) stated the dimensions of a learning organization as
continuous learning, inquiry and dialogue, team learning, empowerment, embedded
system, system connection, and strategic leadership. For this aim, a learning organization
endeavors to facilitate the learning of all its members and continually transforms itself
(Pedler, Burgoyne, & Boydell, 1991).
One of the barriers to becoming a learning organization is that faculty members
in academia prefer working autonomously more and are rewarded mostly for their success
and works more than for their organizational efforts and outcomes (Freed, 2001). This
culture of higher education institutions may present barriers to organizational learning,
and this individualism ends up with a collection of individuals more than an integrated
team working for common goals (Holyoke et al., 2012). However, a learning organization
requires both individual and collective learning.
Leadership at an Educational Institution

Leadership is another construct that contributes to the stimulation of organizational
learning. It is indicated as another key to school improvement besides organizational
learning (Kurland et al., 2010). Leadership highly correlates with organizational learning
and is a critical factor to affect it. Kurland et al. (2010) found out that the transformational
leadership style of the principals predicts it. To Burns (1978), effective leadership
requires the leader’s ability to make group members more interested in the group
compared to themselves. Besides, leaders profoundly affect the organizational culture and
organizational operation (the relationship between leadership and learning organization)
(Kasper, 2002). Chang and Lee (2007) reported that leadership and organizational culture
come with critical relationships to develop learning organizations and encourage
employees to use the learning facilities.
Chang and Lee (2007) stated that leadership prevalently exists within people and
organizations. It corresponds as well with some other constructs such as facilities and
resources, professional development opportunities allocated, and the support available to
teachers to improve instruction and enhance students learning (New Teacher Center
[NTC], 2013).
In a learning educational institution, teachers are assumed as having informal
leadership roles (Silins & Mulford, 2004). They are willing to work for the entire school,
but not only for their classrooms or their success. Teachers’ perceptions of school
administration and its leadership style are indicated as one of the most influencing factors
on teacher retention (Boyd et al., 2011). When responsibility in schools such as decision-
making is delivered to teachers collaboratively, it is called collective responsibility, which
is linked with the notion of leadership (Lambert, 1998). When teachers are empowered
103
by their principal or the school’s administration, they become more positive about their
school and a part of collaborative school culture, its organization, how it is run, and
participatory decision-making. Teachers’ taking of leadership roles promotes
organizational learning (Silins & Mulford, 2004). Leadership, together with
organizational culture, influences the operation of learning organizations positively and
significantly (Chang & Lee, 2007).
Engagement
Engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, and work-related state of mind which is a
more persistent and pervasive affective cognitive state that is not focused on any
particular object, event, individual, or behavior (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá &
Bakker, 2002). Maslach and Leiter (1997) stated that engagement is characterized by
energy, involvement, and efficacy. Engagement is associated with vigor (high activation)
and dedication (high identification) (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Engaged employees have
these feelings with their work activities and see themselves as capable of dealing
completely with the demands of their job.
Work engagement which closely associates with burnout, turnout intentions, and
leadership in the workplace is given prominent attention in the organizational behavior
literature (Silman, 2014). For instance, authentic leadership improved the subordinates’
trust in leadership which in turn contributed to their work engagement (Hassan & Ahmed,
2011).
Job Satisfaction
Hoppock (1935) defined job satisfaction as the mental, physical, and environmental
satisfaction of an employee. It can make employees achieve organizational goals, take
more interest in work, and feel honored to be part of their organization (Davis, 1951). It
predicts work engagement considering the competency, relatedness, and autonomy needs
of employees (Silman, 2014). It is influenced positively by the operation of learning
organizations (Chang & Lee, 2007) and a principal’s relationship with school staff
(Griffith, 2004). The latter also affects mutual trust and understanding, collaboration, staff
job performance, and organizational or school performance (Griffith, 2004).
Purpose of the Study

As the literature review has revealed, the associations among leadership, job satisfaction,
engagement, and organizational learning have not been researched in terms of English
language teachers/instructors in EFL contexts. Therefore, the present study has aimed to
find out such associations of English language instructors in an EFL context through the
following questions:
1. Are there any differences between the participants’ engagement, job satisfaction,
department leadership, teacher leadership, and organizational learning by the
participants’ demographics?
104
2. Is there a relationship between the participants’ engagement, job satisfaction,

department leadership, teacher leadership, and organizational learning?
3. Can engagement, job satisfaction, department leadership, and teacher leadership
predict organizational learning?
METHOD
Research Design
A correlational study enables researchers to study possible relationships between different
variables (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000; Johnson & Christensen, 2004) without “trying to
influence them” (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000; p. 359). Therefore, the present study
employed this design to investigate the possible relationships between engagement,
department leadership, teacher leadership, job satisfaction, and organizational learning
without influencing them.
Participants
96 Turkish English language instructors working in a Turkish university participated in
the research. The demographics of these participants are given in Table 1.
Table 1:
The Demographics of the Participants
Category Items f %
Female 76 79,2
Gender
Male 20 20,8
Department of modern languages
31 32,3
Department (DML)
Department of basic English (DBE) 65 67,7
English language teaching department
39 40,6
(ELTD)
English language and literature
33 34,4
department (ELLD)
Bachelor’s degrees English linguistics department (ELD) 5 5,2
American culture and literature
14 14,6
department (ACLD)
English translation and interpretation
5 5,2
department (ETID)
Graduated 36 37,5
The status of master’s of art On-going 35 36,5
None 25 26
1-5 19 19,8
6-10 36 37,5
Teaching experience 11-15 21 21,9
16-20 12 12,5
21 and more 8 8,3
105
As Table 1 shows, 76 participants were female, and 20 were male. 31 participants

worked in the DML, and 65 worked in the DBE. 39 participants graduated from ELTDs,
33 from ELLDs, 14 from ACLDs, five from ELDs, and five from ETIDs. Though 25
participants did not do their MA, 36 had an MA degree, and 35 continued studying in an
MA program. 37,5% of them had 6-10-year teaching experience, 21,5% had 11-20-year
teaching experience, 19,8% had 1-5-year teaching experience, 12,5% had 16-20-year
teaching experience, and 8,3% had 21-year and more than 21-year teaching experience.
Data Collection Tools

The data were collected through four scales:
1. Engagement Scale: It was developed and proved to be valid and reliable by
Schaufeli et al. (2002). It is a 17-item seven-point Likert-type scale changing from
“0: Never” to “7: Always.” Its Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.928 in this
study.
2. Job Satisfaction Scale: It was formed and proved to be valid and reliable by
Griffith (2004). It is a three-item five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “1:
Strongly disagree” to “5: Strongly agree”. Its Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was
0.895 in this study.
3. Teaching, Empowering, Leading and Learning (TELL) Survey: It was developed
and found to be valid and reliable by the NTC (2013) to measure the effects of
teaching and learning conditions on important outcomes including teacher
retention. It is a five-point Likert-type scale changing from “0: Don’t know” to
“4: Strongly agree” with 71 items and eight sub-scales. In the present study, the
school leadership and teacher leadership sub-scales of TELL were used. The first
scale has 11 items and measures what teachers think about school leadership. The
second scale has 8 items and measures what teachers think about their
“involvement in decisions that impact classroom and school practices” (NTC,
2013, p. 2). Their Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.935 in the current study.
4. Organizational Learning Scale: Silins et al. (2002) developed it to measure what
teachers think about organizational learning in their schools. It is a 26-item five-
point Likert-type scale ranging from “1: Strongly disagree” to “5: Strongly agree.”
In this study, its Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.969.
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed through:
1. independent samples t-test and one-way ANOVA for the first research question
2. Pearson’s r correlation for the second research question, and
3. multiple regression analysis for the third research question by using SPSS 20 for
MAC.
Before conducting multiple regression analysis, the assumptions for using it were
checked. The relationship between independent variables and dependent variable was
106
checked through scatterplots. The scatterplots for each independent and dependent
variable showed that the relationships between them were linear. The test value of the
Durbin-Watson test was 1,764, which is close to 2, so the values of the residuals were
independent because if it is lower than 1 or higher than 3, it may make multiple regression
analysis invalid (Field, 2009). All Cook’s distant values were lower than 1, so there were
not any influential cases biasing the model suggested in this study as Field (2009)
suggested. The plot of standardized residual vs. standardized predicted values did not
indicate clear signs of funneling; therefore, the present study has met the assumption of
homoscedasticity. To check multicollinearity in the data, the VIF values, tolerance scores,
and correlations between variables were calculated. The VIF values of engagement,
department leadership, teacher leadership, and job satisfaction were 1,679, 4,699, 3,751,
and 2,362 in order, while their tolerance scores were 0,596, 0,213, 0,267, and 0,423
successively. Their VIF values were lower than 10, and their tolerance scores were above
0.2 as reported in Field (2009). Also, the correlation between variables was not higher
than 0,90 as Field (2009) mentioned. Therefore, there was not any multicollinearity in the
data in the present study. The p-p plot of the model in the present study indicated that the
values of the residuals were normally distributed, so it met the assumption of the
normality of the residuals.
FINDINGS
Table 2 shows that there are no statistically significant differences between male and
female instructors in terms of five variables (engagement, department leadership, teacher
leadership, job satisfaction, and organizational learning) (p>.05)
Table 2:
The Independent Samples T-Test Results of the Participants in Terms of Gender
Category Group N x̄ Sd t df p
Engagement Female 76 4,3111 ,90437 -1,048 94 ,297
Male 20 4,5441 ,80313
Department leadership Female 76 2,6304 ,78685 -,167 94 ,868
Male 20 2,6636 ,81103
Teacher leadership Female 76 2,4145 ,89982 -,722 94 ,472
Male 20 2,5813 ,99280
Job satisfaction Female 76 3,8465 ,85625 -1,205 94 ,231
Male 20 4,1 ,75781
Organizational learning Female 76 3,4529 ,72807 -,504 94 ,616
Male 20 3,5462 ,76828
Table 3 indicates that no statistically significant differences were found between

the participants depending on five variables in terms of their departments (p>.05).
107
Table 3:
The Independent Samples T-Test Results of the Participants in Terms of the Departments
Category Group N x̄ Sd t df p
Engagement DML 31 4,5674 ,68221 1,799 79,741 ,076
DBE 65 4,2606 ,95622
Department leadership DML 31 2,8358 ,81088 1,722 94 ,088
DBE 65 2,5427 ,76466
Teacher leadership DML 31 2,5403 1,01314 ,67 94 ,504
DBE 65 2,4058 ,76466
Job satisfaction DML 31 3,9247 ,91777 ,204 94 ,839
DBE 65 3,8872 ,80639
Organizational learning DML 31 3,5434 ,81078 ,654 94 ,515
DBE 65 3,4385 ,69772
As Table 4 indicates, there are not any statistically significant differences between
the participants depending on five variables in terms of their Bachelor’s degrees (p>.05).
Table 4:
One-Way ANOVA Test Results of the Participants in Terms of Their Bachelor’s Degrees
Category Source SS df MS F p
Engagement Between groups 4,68 4 1,17 1,526 ,201
Within groups 69,776 91 ,767
Total 74,456 95
Department leadership Between groups 4,861 4 1,215 2,045 ,095
Total 58,95 95
Teacher leadership Between groups 2,348 4 ,587 ,689 ,601
Total 79,893 95
Job satisfaction Between groups 1,179 4 ,295 ,408 ,802
Total 66,916 95
Organizational learning Between groups 2,634 4 ,659 1,236 ,301
Total 51,109 95
As understood from Table 5, whether the participants were doing MA, had an MA
degree, and did not have an MA degree did not create any statistically significant
differences between the participants depending on five variables in terms of their bachelor
degrees (p>.05).
108
Table 5:
One-Way ANOVA Test Results of the Participants in Terms of Their Status of MA
Total 74,456 95
Department leadership Between groups 1,638 2 ,819 1,329 ,27
Total 58,95 95
Teacher leadership Between groups 2,018 2 1,009 1,205 ,304
Total 79,893 95
Job satisfaction Between groups 1,039 2 ,520 ,734 ,483
Total 66,916 95
Organizational learning Between groups 1,414 2 ,707 1,323 ,271
Total 51,109 95
According to Table 6, teaching experience created statistically significant

differences between the participants in teacher leadership and organizational learning
(p<.05), while it did not lead to any statistically significant differences between them in
engagement, department leadership, and job satisfaction (p>.05).
Table 6:
One-Way ANOVA Test Results of the Participants in Terms of Their Teaching Experiences
Total 74,456 95
Department leadership Between groups 5,79 4 1,448 2,478 ,05
Total 58,95 95
Teacher leadership Between groups 8,473 4 2,118 2,699 ,035*
Total 79,893 95
Job satisfaction Between groups 2,886 4 ,722 1,026 ,398
Total 66,916 95
Organizational learning Between groups 6,602 4 1,651 3,375 ,013*
Total 51,109 95
* The difference is significant at the level of 0.05.
To understand the source of the statistically significant differences, Tukey HSD

post-hoc tests were conducted. The analyses of Tukey HSD post-hoc tests are presented
in Tables 7 and 8.
109
Table 7:
Tukey HSD Post-Hoc Test Results of the Participants Depending on Teacher Leadership in Terms
of Their Teaching Experiences
Dependent variable Teaching Teaching MD SE p

experience (I) experience (J)
Teacher leadership 1-5 6-10 ,72716* ,25121 ,037
11-15 ,75345 ,2805 ,064
16-20 ,2966 ,32666 ,893
21-25 ,59868 ,37338 ,499
6-10 1-5 -72716* ,25121 ,037
11-15 ,02629 ,24326 1
16-20 -,43056 ,29530 ,592
21-25 -,12847 ,34627 ,996
11-15 1-5 -,75345 ,2805 ,064
6-10 -,02629 ,24326 1
16-20 -,45865 ,32059 ,613
21-25 -,15476 ,36807 ,993
16-20 1-5 -,2966 ,32666 ,893
6-10 ,43056 ,29530 ,592
11-15 ,45865 ,32059 ,613
21-25 ,30208 ,40436 ,945
21-25 1-5 -,59868 ,37338 ,499
6-10 ,12847 ,34627 ,996
11-15 ,45865 ,32059 ,613
16-20 -,30208 ,40436 ,945
Table 7 indicates that there is a statistically significant difference between the

participants who have 1-5-year teaching experience and the ones having 6-10-year
teaching experience (p<.05).
According to Table 8, a statistically significant difference was found between the

participants with 6-10-year teaching experience and the ones with 16-20-year teaching
experience (p<.05).
110
Table 8:
Tukey HSD Post-Hoc Test Results of the Participants Depending on Organizational Learning in
Terms of Their Teaching Experiences
Dependent Teaching Teaching experience MD SE p
variable experience (I) (J)
Organizational 1-5 6-10 ,50798 ,19831 ,086
learning 11-15 ,43137 ,22143 ,3
16-20 -,16616 ,25787 ,967
21-25 ,51493 ,29475 ,411
6-10 1-5 -,50798 ,19831 ,086
11-15 -,07662 ,19203 ,995
16-20 - ,23311 ,038
,67415*
21-25 ,00694 ,27335 1
11-15 1-5 -,43137 ,22143 ,3
6-10 ,07662 ,19203 ,995
16-20 -,59753 ,25307 ,136
21-25 ,08356 ,29056 ,998
16-20 1-5 ,16616 ,25787 ,967
6-10 ,67415* ,23311 ,038
11-15 ,59753 ,25307 ,136
21-25 ,68109 ,31921 ,215
21-25 1-5 -,51493 ,29475 ,411
6-10 -,00694 ,27335 1
11-15 -,08356 ,29056 ,998
16-20 -,68109 ,31921 ,215
As Table 9 demonstrates, there are statistically significant relationships among the

five variables (p<.001). Engagement is moderately correlated with department leadership,
teacher leadership, and organizational learning in a positive way (r=0.523, 0.403, and
0.511 successively), while its correlation with job satisfaction is highly positive
(r=0.614). Department leadership is highly positively correlated with teacher leadership,
job satisfaction, and organizational learning (r=0.853, 0.698, and 0.844 respectively).
Similarly, there are highly positive correlations between teacher leadership and job
satisfaction and between teacher leadership and organizational learning (r=0.612 and
0.759 successively). Likewise, the correlation between job satisfaction and organizational
learning is highly positive (r=0.716).
Table 9:
Pearson’s R Correlation Coefficients among Five Variables
1 2 3 4 5
Engagement --
Department leadership ,523** --
Teacher leadership ,403** ,853** --
Job satisfaction ,614** ,698** ,612** --
Organizational learning ,511** ,844** ,759** ,716** --
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
111
According to Table 10, department leadership and job satisfaction can predict
organizational learning (F(4,91)=67.652, p<0.01, R=.865, R2=.748, R2adj=.737).
Department leadership (ß=.556, t=4.877, p<0.01) and job satisfaction (ß=.23, t=2.849,
p<0.05) predict organizational learning positively. Department leadership and job
satisfaction can explain the 74% of the variance in organizational learning.
Table 10:
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for the Variables Predicting Organizational Learning
Variables B SE ß t p
(Constant) ,969 ,21
Engagement ,021 ,056 ,025 ,373 ,71
Department leadership ,518 ,106 ,556 4,877 ,00**
Teacher leadership ,107 ,081 ,133 1,31 ,193
Job satisfaction ,201 ,071 ,23 2,849 ,005*
a. Dependent variable: Organizational learning. *p<0.05, **p<0.01
DISCUSSION
The findings of the study were discussed according to the research questions in order.
Differences between the Participants in Terms of Five Variables by Their

Demographics
According to the study, there is not a statistically significant difference between female
and male participants in terms of five variables, which can result from the number of
female/male participants and the effect of the organizational culture of the research
context on them. In Turkey, English language teaching is dominated by female
teachers/instructors, so naturally, there are more female participants than male
participants in this study. The averages of the female and male participants for each
variable are very close to each other because the organizational culture of the research
context may affect them to similar extents. The research context provides them with clear
information about what they are expected to do, so this awareness can shape their attitudes
toward their job and school in similar ways.
There are two departments in the research context: DML and DBE. Though both
departments have different functions, their organizational patterns and expectations from
the participants are the same. Both departments are led by one chair and two vice-chairs
under the coordination of the school of foreign languages. In both departments, the
participants follow and teach the syllabi, join professional development activities, and do
the necessary assessment. Only the contents of the courses change in both departments.
Therefore, such a similarity can influence the participants’ attitudes toward their jobs,
department leadership, and organizational learning similarly, which did not create a
statistically significant difference between the participants in this aspect.
Graduating from five departments is a requirement to work as an English language
teacher/instructor in Turkey. The participants graduated from one of these departments,
but having different Bachelor’s degrees did not create a statistically significant difference,
which may be because the research context is a private institution, so renewing the
112
contract may encourage the participants to prioritize personal development and

organizational culture more. To work effectively and efficiently, an employee should be
engaged and satisfied in his/her job. This relates to the employee’s state of mind
(Hoppock, 1935; Schaufeli et al., 2002), which can be under the influence of several
factors including organizational culture. Leadership can also affect an employee’s
efficient and effective work in a private institution because it can impact the employees’
attitudes toward their job and organization (Chang & Lee, 2007; Kasper, 2002; Kurland
et al., 2010). Consequently, working effectively and efficiently in the private sector can
help the participants form similar attitudes toward their job and school, so having
graduated from different departments did not become very effective in this process.
Similarly, the master status of the participants did not create a statistically significant
difference in terms of five variables. It may be because of the reasons mentioned in this
paragraph.
Teaching experience created a statistically significant difference between the
participants with 1-5-year teaching experience and the ones with 6-10-year teaching
experience. The participants with less teaching experience may consider themselves as
not effective leaders like the ones with 6-10-year teaching experience because they may
think that they need to improve themselves more to participate in the decision-making
process to solve problems and be considered as educational experts who can make sound
decisions about their instruction, which according to NTC (2013), teachers with effective
teacher leadership do. Besides, teaching experience created another statistically
significant difference between the ones with 6-10-year teaching experience and the ones
with 16-20-year of teaching experience. The participants with less experience may be
more open to learning collaboratively and continuously while working (Silins et al., 2002)
than the ones with more experience because the ones with more experience may form
their way of teaching which may affect their attitudes toward organizational learning.
They may use their way as a determiner to decide what may and may not work in an
organization in case of different situations because they may believe that they experienced
them before, so they know what may and may not work. However, organizational learning
requires learning collaboratively and continuously (Silins et al., 2002), so it encourages
employees for growth and success (Silins & Mulford, 2004). Yet, experience may hinder
it. Being more experienced may also impact team working and learning (Serge, 1990;
Watkins & Marsick, 1996) because teachers with more experience may help the ones with
less experience, but the ones with less experience may not accept their help.
Relationships between Engagement, Job Satisfaction, Department Leadership,

Teacher Leadership, and Organizational Learning
The research context has a centralized organizational structure which consists of two
departments. This organizational structure is run by a general director with two vice
directors. There are collaboration and cooperation between it and its departments. While
each department makes their department-related decisions about their language teaching
programs in collaboration with each other under the supervision of the administration of
the school, other issues such as professional development are determined by the
113
administration of the school in collaboration with the departments. Therefore, the school
and department administration is very effective in the research context. The
administration promotes instructors’ professional development and participation in the
decision-making process related to language teaching. Such an attitude may increase the
participants’ job satisfaction and support their leadership in teacher leadership-related
issues NTC (2013) mentioned. This may be the reason for the finding that department
leadership was highly correlated with organizational learning as supported by the
literature (Chang & Lee, 2007; Griffith, 2003; Kasper, 2002), with teacher leadership as
mentioned by Lambert (1998), and job satisfaction as stated by Griffith (2004) in this
study. Besides, job satisfaction was found to be highly correlated with organizational
learning in the study. According to Davis (1951), job satisfaction enhances employees’
goal achievement and makes them more interested in their job, so they feel themselves
parts of the organization. Likewise, the participants were very satisfied with their jobs in
this study, so this may help them feel a part of the organization, which may result in their
positive attitudes toward and participation in organizational learning.
According to NTC (2013), teachers can be considered as effective leaders and
educational experts in an organization so that they can take part in decision-making
processes to solve instructional problems effectively and to improve instruction, which
can increase teachers’ job satisfaction (Chang & Lee, 2009; Davis, 1951; Griffith, 2003).
Therefore, they can participate in organizational learning more (Chang & Lee, 2009;
Davis, 1951; Griffith, 2003). Similarly, having a central but supportive administration can
help the participants to consider themselves as effective leaders who can join in making
decisions related to instruction and instructional problems, so this can make them more
satisfied in their jobs. Considering themselves as effective leaders can increase their
willingness to work for the school as Silins and Mulford (2004) stated, which can promote
organizational learning in the research context because Lambert (1998) emphasized that
empowering teachers results in promoting organizational learning. These reasons can
explain why highly positive correlations were found between teacher leadership and job
satisfaction and between teacher leadership and organizational learning.
Besides, the participants in this study were satisfied with their jobs. They were
engaged in their work because they may have a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of
mind which does not concentrate on any particular object, event, individual, or behavior
as Schaufeli et al. (2002). This positive state of mind can provide them with energy,
involvement, and efficacy which engagement includes and promotes (Maslach & Leiter,
1997), so such a positive state of mind among the participants can contribute to their
mental, physical, and environmental satisfaction at work as Hoppock (1935) emphasized.
This relation may create a highly positive correlation between engagement and job
satisfaction in this study.
Predictors of Organizational Learning

According to the study, department leadership and job satisfaction predict organizational
learning in this research context. Department leadership has a significant place in the
school in the study. In addition to the centralized organizational structure of the school,
114
the administration makes decisions about instruction, professional development, and

curriculum. Teacher autonomy in their classes is supported and promoted by the school
and departments, but the participants can participate in the decision-making process
related to instruction under the supervision of the administration. Therefore, department
leadership is prioritized more than teacher leadership in the school. In addition, the
participants in both departments are supposed to work as a team to achieve the goals set
by the departments because there are centralized syllabi that they have to follow in their
classes for the assessment and evaluation of the students and courses and for their
instruction. Therefore, the participants’ leaderships as teachers are somehow limited,
which can avoid the issues resulting from individualism in academia (Freed, 2001;
Holyoke et al., 2012). Thus, as Burns (1978) suggested, department leadership can make
the participants interested more in the group compared to themselves, so they are
encouraged to use learning facilities more in line with what Chang and Lee (2007) stated.
Besides, job satisfaction has an important place in the participants’ participation in
organizational learning because job satisfaction is related to leadership which increases
the participants’ goal achievement, mutual trust and understanding between them, and
their job performance (Davis, 1951; Griffith, 2003).
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER STUDIES

Like any higher education institution, organizational learning is significant for any school
of foreign languages where students are taught any foreign language including English
for general, academic and occupational purposes. To promote organizational learning
among English language instructors, the study has indicated that the administration of the
school and departments, if any, has a central role because as the study has shown, the
administration of the school and departments plays key roles in creating a working
environment in which instructors are valued and their leadership is promoted. Therefore,
instructors can get more engaged in their jobs and feel satisfied in their workplaces.
Consequently, a higher education language institution similar to the one in the study can
be made a learning organization by the administration and teachers/instructors working
there as the study has mentioned.
This study has limitations because of its research context and quantitative nature.
Future studies can be made in other higher education language institutions by following
the same methodology. Also, qualitative or mixed-methods research can be used as
methodologies in such studies. The findings of such studies can be compared with the
findings of this study and each other so that a more general understanding of the nature
of organizational learning in higher education language institutions can be obtained.
REFERENCES
Argyris. C. (1999). On organizational learning (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
Boyce. M. E. (2003). Organizational learning is essential to achieving and sustaining
change in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 28(2), 119-136.
115
Boyd. D., Grossman. P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The
influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American
Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303-333.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper and Row.
Chang, S. C., & Lee, M. S. (2007). A study on relationship among leadership,
organizational culture, the operation of learning organization and employees' job
satisfaction. The Learning Organization, 14(2), 155-185.
Coppieters, P. (2005). Turning schools into learning organizations. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 28(2), 129-139.
Davis, R. C. (1951). The fundamentals of top management. Harper and Row.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd Edition). Sage Publications Ltd.
Fraenkel, R. J., & Wallen, E. N. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education
(4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Freed, J. E. (2001). Why become a learning organization? About Campus, 5(6), 16–21.
Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job
satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational
Administration, 42(3), 333-356.
Hassan, A., & Ahmed, F. (2011). Authentic leadership, trust and work engagement.
International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 6(3), 164-170.
Heijden, K. (2004). Can internally generated futures accelerate organizational learning?
Futures, 36(2), 145-59.
Holyoke, L. B., Sturko, P. A., Wood, N. B., & Wu, L. J. (2012). Are academic
departments perceived as learning organizations? Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 40(4), 436-448.
Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. Harper and Row.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2004). Educational Research: Quantitative,
Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. Allyn and Bacon.
Kasper, H. (2002). Culture and leadership in market-oriented service organizations.
European Journal of Marketing, 36(9), 1047-57.
Kurland, H. & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2006). Organizational learning as a lever for
realizing an educational vision. Dapim, 41, 230-71.
Kurland, H., Peretz, H., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2010). Leadership style and
organizational learning: the mediate effect of school vision. Journal of
Educational Administration, 48(1), 7-30.
Lambert, L. (1998). How to build leadership capacity. Educational leadership. ASCD.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997) The truth about burnout. Jossey Bass.
Marks, H., Louis, K. S., & Printy, S. (2000). The capacity for organizational learning:
Implications for pedagogical quality and student achievement. In K. Leithwood
(ed.), Understanding schools as intelligent systems (pp. 239-266). JAI.
116
New Teacher Center, (2013). TELL (teaching, empowering, leading, and learning)
Kentucky survey: Validity and reliability report. Retrieved from
https://tellkentucky.org/uploads/File/KY13_val_rel.pdf
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1991). The learning company: A strategy for
sustainable development. McGraw-Hill.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor
analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. Random House.
Silins, H. & Mulford, B. (2004). Schools as learning organisations - Effects on teacher
leadership and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
15(3-4), 443-466.
Silins, H. C., Mulford, W. R. & Zarins, S. (2002). Organizational learning and school
change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 613-642.
Silman, F. (2014). Work-related basic need satisfaction as a predictor of work
engagement among academic staff in Turkey. South African Journal of
Education, 34(3), 1-5.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1996). In action: Creating the learning organization.
American Society for Training and Development.
117

2513-Article Text-10826-2-10-20210601

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

2513-Article Text-10826-2-10-20210601

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2513-Article Text-10826-2-10-20210601

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of English Teaching

e-ISSN: 2622-4224 | p-ISSN: 2087-9628

Association of Organizational Learning with Leadership, Job

Meltem Huri BATURAY

Ahmet Erdost YASTIBAŞ

Organizational Learning versus a Learning Organization

members), and systems thinking (thinking of the cause-effect associations in the

Leadership at an Educational Institution

Purpose of the Study

2. Is there a relationship between the participants’ engagement, job satisfaction,

As Table 1 shows, 76 participants were female, and 20 were male. 31 participants

Data Collection Tools

Table 3 indicates that no statistically significant differences were found between

According to Table 6, teaching experience created statistically significant

To understand the source of the statistically significant differences, Tukey HSD

Dependent variable Teaching Teaching MD SE p

Table 7 indicates that there is a statistically significant difference between the

According to Table 8, a statistically significant difference was found between the

As Table 9 demonstrates, there are statistically significant relationships among the

Differences between the Participants in Terms of Five Variables by Their

contract may encourage the participants to prioritize personal development and

Relationships between Engagement, Job Satisfaction, Department Leadership,

Predictors of Organizational Learning

the administration makes decisions about instruction, professional development, and

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER STUDIES

You might also like