Korumaz, M., & Kılıç, G. N., & Kocabaş, İ. (2020). The Lived Experience of Principals for Managing Change in Their Schools: A Phenomenological Research. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8(2). 1038-1062. Received : 09.07.2020 Revised version received : 31.10.2020 Accepted : 01.11.2020 THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF PRINCIPALS FOR MANAGING CHANGE IN THEIR SCHOOLS: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH Research Article Mithat Korumaz Yıldız Technical University (Corresponding author) mithatkorumaz@gmail.com Gülenay Nagihan Kılıç Yıldız Technical University nagihangulenay@gmail.com İbrahim Kocabaş Yıldız Technical University ibrahimkocabas06@gmail.com Mithat Korumaz is an Assistant Professor of Education Faculty at Yıldız Technical University. Gülenay Nagihan Kılıç is a doctorate student of Education Faculty at Yıldız Technical University. İbrahim Kocabaş is a Professor of Education Faculty at Yıldız Technical University. Copyright © 2014 by International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET). ISSN: 2148-225X. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without written permission of IOJET mailto:mithatkorumaz@gmail.com mailto:nagihangulenay@gmail.com mailto:ibrahimkocabas06@gmail.com International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 8(2), 1038-1062. 1039 THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF PRINCIPALS FOR MANAGING CHANGE IN THEIR SCHOOLS: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH Mithat Korumaz mithatkorumaz@gmail.com Gülenay Nagihan Kılıç nagihangulenay@gmail.com İbrahim Kocabaş ibrahimkocabas06@gmail.com Abstract The aim of the study is to reveal the experiences of school principals in the process of change. Thus, this study employed a qualitative research approach through data collection and analysis procedure incorporating a descriptive phenomenological design. Participants of this research consisted of 15 volunteer school principals working in state schools in İstanbul. Criterion sampling as one of the purposeful sampling methods was preferred to determine the participants of the research. The researchers conducted in-depth face-to-face interviews with semi-structured interview questions. The content analysis technique was used to reveal codes, categories and themes from the transcribed interview records. The researchers discovered three themes so as to define the experiences of school principals in managing change as follows: ‘procedure’, ‘barriers to change’ and ‘opportunities’. The conclusion of the study showed that principals define change management as a process in the school. Teacher resistance, organizational structure and parental expectation turn into barriers for managing change. Also, school principals define the outcomes of the change as an opportunity in their schools. Keywords: Change management, Organizational change, School principals, State schools mailto:mithatkorumaz@gmail.com mailto:nagihangulenay@gmail.com mailto:ibrahimkocabas06@gmail.com Korumaz & Kılıç & Kocabaş 1040 1. Introduction Managing change seems paradoxical at first sight because change involves innovation and novelty, while management oversees conserving the existing order. According to Altrichter (2000), change refers to a process of progress and outcomes. Change is the planning of the transition from one situation to another by controlling and transforming into efficiency and synchronizing outputs with expectations (Beycioğlu & Aslan, 2010). Another definition suggests that change is a process with a certain systematic way and occurs in anything in a certain period of time (Erdoğan, 2002). According to Başaran (2004), change is the formation of an observable difference in the elements of a whole both in terms of quantity and quality. Process models of change view the process as a series of interconnected events, decisions and actions (Hayes, 2018). In this context, Tezcan (1984) argues that change is not unidirectional and that change can be forward or backward. In other words, change is a two-way process. Therefore, it is understood that change may have unplanned consequences and that the direction of change is not always positive. When thinking about the context of education, managing change is actually more complex than it might seem. As Bowe, Ball and Gold (2017) stated, in the field of education the ‘placing’ of schools, teachers and students has been largely achieved by theoretical flat. On the one hand, the struggles of activists, pressure groups and social classes within education makes it more complicated because predicting the results of school activities in society is almost impossible. At the same time, education is shaped by the forces of the emerging market economy. Most of the societies is reforming and changing schools according to the results of international reports such as PISA, TIMMS and PIRLS tests or reports prepared by World Bank, UNESCO or EU. The fact that the field of education is transformed into an international policy field means that experiencing the change and transformation of education and schools is shared by many different societies in different regions. As a result, managing change at schools has been getting more and more important in recent years. Society's expectations from schools and teachers are obviously undergoing significant change. “Schools are becoming very different places on the inside as well, and their roles and practices grow more complex as students, teachers and parents become more articulate in expressing their preferences” (Beare, Caldwell & Millikan, 2018, p. 36-37). As in all other organizations, change is a concept that is closely related to school organization because education is a multi-faceted organization that is influenced by social change and affects social change. It is inevitable that change or innovation will affect an educational organization as well as all other organizations. Unlike other organizations, change in schools International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 8(2), 1038-1062. 1041 takes place in a multiple and complex context. So, it doesn't usually happen easily (James & Connolly, 2000). When considered in terms of the management of change, the specific climate of schools and their openness to all kinds of social effects cause a very important difference. School is one of the organizations in which changing processes need to be managed professionally because all kinds of positive or negative changes in an educational organization have an effect on society through educated individuals. Hargreaves and Fullan (1998, p. 32) explain the factors that shape change in schools as follows: (a) schools are open systems; (b) schools require more diversity, more flexibility; (c) technology is breaking down the walls of schools; (d) schools are the last hope for renewal and rescue of society; (e) teachers can do more with more help; (f) education is the basis for democracy; (g) the phenomenon of competition in the education market, the preferences of the families and the desire of individuals to govern themselves necessitate the relationship of schools with a wider environment; (h) schools should have increasingly similar characteristics to life waiting for students; (i) the pressure of today's complex environment on schools is increasing and (j) schools have become tired institutions with their present structures. According to the changes and developments in the world, the functions of education and school must be constantly redefined. A static future is not foreseen for education and society. On the contrary, education defines society within the living space where change constantly builds social values and aims. As we plan to lead life, we need to re-establish the school accordingly (Ada & Akan, 2007). The school is a product of the social environment in which it is located and has to adapt to the environment in order to survive and to reorganize or change the aims of the organization according to the wishes of the environment. In this case, it is seen that the interaction of the school with the environment necessitates organizational change (Budak & Budak, 2016) because the schools that cannot keep up with the changes in the environment in which they live disappear in a short time. Organizational change, which is an important concept for the school, refers to the adaptation of the organization to a new way of thinking or organizational behavior (Peker, 1995). The results of the studies on organizational change showed that change was based on different reasons such as change in human behavior, structural change and technological change. According to the literature, change in school organizations is generally due to six reasons: labor force structure, technology, economic crises, social trends, global education policies and competition. In line with these reasons, there are three basic changes in school organizations: structural, organizational politics and leadership behaviors (Bursalıoğlu, 2015). Korumaz & Kılıç & Kocabaş 1042 In educational organizations, change takes place very quickly, and everyone is able to adapt automatically, and sometimes change is highly visible and encountering resistance. According to Peker (1995), educational organizations, especially as conservative social structures, tend to resist change, and resistance to this change is a universal phenomenon. While resistance to change is visible, it is possible to take the necessary measures in the process. On the other hand, it can have negative organizational results when resistance to change is invisible. Resistance of employees to change in educational organizations is caused by habits, lack of trust, economic factors, fear of the unknown, apathy, inadequacy, fear of losing something, misunderstandings, threats to change, forced imposition of change, leaders’ lack of confidence, and emotional factors. (Özkalp & Kırel, 2018). According to Bursalıoğlu (1982), in addition to these, cultural barriers related to values and attitudes such as tradition, fatalism, pride and humility as well as social barriers related to group unity, friction, conflict, the source of competence and social structure, communication problems, learning difficulties and psychological barriers can also make change difficult and have negative effects on it. It is very important for the employees of the organization that are impacted by these processes and factors, especially the managers who will initiate and manage the change process, to clearly understand and carefully apply the steps needed for change in order to realize the objectives of the organization (Argon & Özçelik, 2008). 1.1. Roles of School Principals in Change “Change managers, at all levels, have to be competent at identifying the need for change. They also have to be able to act in ways that will secure change… And effective leaders are those who set a direction for change and influence others to achieve goals that improve internal and external alignment” (Hayes, 2018, p. 4). The most important factor for change in schools is undoubtedly school administration. This is because the school is identified with the identity of the school principal (Aksu, 2004). The ability of school administrators to meet these expectations can be related to their openness to change. As a leader, school principals are expected not only to have leadership or managerial skills, but also to initiate, manage and evaluate change (Beycioğlu & Aslan, 2010). According to Hallinger (1992), the role of the school principal was defined as the education program manager in the 1960s, the effective school and education leader in the 80s, and the leader of change and transformation in the 90s. In recent times, school principals have been seen as the leaders of the dynamic society and the schools created by the society. This current role of school principals can be considered as one of the common characteristics of both urban and rural or successful and low performing schools International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 8(2), 1038-1062. 1043 or in a large scale developed and developing societies (Finnigan & Stewart, 2009; Harris, 2006). From this point of view, one of the most important roles of school principals today is that they are the pioneers of change in schools. In this respect, it is possible to say that the roles of school principals have changed in accordance with the changes in society. School principals should identify problems in the environment where the change will take place and define their goals and develop alternative solutions. For this, the school principal is expected to have a continuous change plan. According to this plan, the implementation process should be reviewed periodically, and necessary changes should be made because the continuous monitoring and control of developments is necessary in order to achieve positive results of changing processes (Tokat, 1998). Furthermore, the process of change must be understood by everyone in the school. In addition, for the cooperation of school members, attention should be paid to the changes made to meet the needs of the school and its members, and work on organizational change should be based on mutual trust through open and clear communication. The reason for this is that the more change is accepted by the members of the school, the more successful it will be. School principals, who are expected to be constantly learning members in schools, should inform other stakeholders about change, convince them that planned change will be positive and increase school effectiveness, and mobilize school members towards change. Thus, the contribution of the dynamism of change in achieving school goals will be utilized in the most effective way. School principals should implement what they have learned, be pioneers in learning, make common decisions, see the needs of innovation and reflect this in the school, provide a safe and sincere working environment for everyone, pursue new visions for the school, try to present the technological innovations of the age to the school, and have sufficient flexibility in every subject. They should also be leaders who can exhibit such qualities, accept the school as a whole and initiate the change (Beycioğlu & Aslan, 2010). Changing roles place the responsibility of school administrators as change agents and hold them responsible for the success of change. Therefore, principals consider the management of change in the school as part of their daily routine. In today's world, where school principals' managerial roles are gradually changing, school principals are expected to fully demonstrate their leadership roles. Educational change seems technically simple but socially complex. Hence, without leadership the expected success from a change will not be achieved (Tekin et al., 2006). In this regard, the school principal who leads the school, should have sufficient knowledge about the reasons for the change, when and how to do it, what the possible forms of resistance will be, and how to prevent such resistance. The Korumaz & Kılıç & Kocabaş 1044 most important role of the school principal in the process of change is to realize that change is not a process that can be carried out alone but that success can only be achieved with the participation of all members of the school. In this respect, the process of change must focus on all members of the organization along with organizational change (Argon & Özçelik, 2008). Therefore, principals should try to ensure the participation of all school stakeholders in the process of managing change. When change in schools is transformed into an all-involved process, the expected results will be more likely to be achieved. In this context, organizational change is realized in order to make the organization more efficient and productive. Organizational change can only be realized by effective school leaders, not by ordinary school principals. While ordinary school principals maintain the current system and provide solutions to problems in this system, effective school leaders can make drastic changes in the organization for organizational effectiveness and efficiency. In this process of change, the leader can use organizational culture and motivation tools effectively, among other things, to conduct organizational change. The aim is to create a more effective and efficient organization (Tunçer, 2011). When considered for schools, there is no area that is not affected by change. The organization must adapt to this change in order to achieve its objectives. However, organizational change is difficult to achieve with ordinary school heads. For this reason, leaders are needed for organizational change and transformation. Leaders use a variety of tools or methods to implement organizational innovation and change to achieve organizational goals more effectively and efficiently. Organizational change is made easier by changing organizational culture and using motivation tools. The leader can change the organizational structure positively with the help of these tools. These two tools used by the leader are based on people. No leader can achieve organizational change without the support of members of the organization. (Tunçer, 2011). According to the results of some researches in the field of educational leadership, what is expected from the school principal as an educational leader can be listed as follows (Şişman & Turan, 2002, p.6); (a) forming learning team at school; (b) creating a strategic plan for the school; (c) developing school policies and (d) establishing a school mission or vision. Based on all the conceptual and theoretical discussions so far, it can be concluded that school principals are one of the most important stakeholders in the success of the change process. From this point of view, the main aim of the study is to reveal the lived experiences of school principals in the process of change. In addition, how school principals conceptualize change was identified as one of the aims of the study. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 8(2), 1038-1062. 1045 2. Methodology 2.1. Research Design The current study aims to reveal the how school principals make sense of change and experiences change in school context. Thus, this study aims to answer the following research questions: - How do school principals define the concept of change in school context? - What are the potential obstacles in managing change at the schools according to school principals? - What kind of strategies do school principals use to overcome the obstacles in managing change in school context? - What are the potential outputs in managing change at the schools according to school principals? So, this study employed a qualitative research approach within data collection and analysis procedure (Stake, 2000; Yin, 2011), incorporating a descriptive phenomenological design (Padilla-Diaz, 2015) to describe how school principals describe and manage change in their schools. The qualitative approach describes the richness of content in human interpretations and experiences (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Lichtman, 2006). Therefore, it is the best criteria to use phenomenologically as one of the strengths of the qualitative approach is researching problems that require comprehending of experiences common to a group of people. Similarly, Creswell (2007) describes a phenomenological study as one that “describes the meaning for several individuals of their lived (or shared) experiences or a phenomenon” (p. 57). This phenomenological study allows for the exploration of the experiences of school principals managing the change in their schools (Berg & Lune, 2012; Creswell, 2007; Korumaz, 2016). In a phenomenological study, understanding regarding the phenomenon is elicited and insight is gained by interviewing knowledgeable participants (Yin, 2012). Thus, this study was designed to explore the experiences of school principals during the periods of change in their schools. 2.2. Participants Padilla-Diaz (2015) quoted from Creswell that “in a phenomenological research, the study group should consist of 3 to 15 members. The members of the group need to be able to articulate their lived experiences. The more diverse the experiences of participants, the harder it will be Korumaz & Kılıç & Kocabaş 1046 for the researcher to find the underlying essences and common meanings attributed to the studied phenomenon” (p. 104). Therefore, participants of this research consisted of 15 volunteer school principals working in state schools in İstanbul in the 2018-2019 academic year. Criterion sampling as one of the purposeful sampling methods was preferred to determine the participants of the research (Creswell, 2012; McMillan & Schumaer, 1993; Neuman, 2006). In this qualitative research, the purposeful sampling method enabled the researchers to find and select participants who provide a potentially wide range of data regarding the research question to be addressed (Born & Preston 2016). According to criterion sampling, the researchers determined criteria for principal participants as “working in a state school” and “the school has currently at least one fundamental change”. Accordingly, some changes in schools where the participants work were as follows: Two of the schools moved into new buildings and changed their locations. One school which had been a private school was retained by The Ministry of National Education and has newly become a state school. One of the schools had admitted students without an exam in previous years and it has just begun to admit students according to an exam result. Another school has changed the curriculum because it has been turned into a project school (a new kind of state school in Turkey; this kind of school is more independent in some administrative procedures). One of the schools has been sharing its building with another state school for 2 years because the guest schools’ building is under reconstruction. The administrative experience of the participant principals vary between two and 23 years in education. Eight of the participants are female and seven of them are male. The researchers used pseudonyms instead of participants’ real names due to ethical concerns. 2.3. Data Collection Procedures The most suitable data collection strategies are open-ended and semi-structured face-to-face interviews in a phenomenological research (Marshall & Rossman, 2010). Semi-structured interview questions in a face-to-face interview allow researchers to reach the phenomenon profoundly (Padilla-Diaz, 2015). In the study, the researchers conducted in-depth face-to-face interviews with the school principals to discover their shared experiences on how they manage the process of change in schools. For reaching this main aim of the research, the semi-structured interview questions were formed by the researcher in three stages. First of all, the researchers reviewed the literature and specified the scope of interview questions according to the aim of the research. In the second stage, draft interview questions were sent to two academics working in the department of education administration in a university to examine the harmony between the aim of the research and scope of questions as Creswell (2012) suggested ‘peer-review’. The International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 8(2), 1038-1062. 1047 academics suggested revising three questions and discarding one question. In the final stage, the researchers tested the interview questions and interview strategy with a pilot interview. Interview questions are as follows; 1. How would you define change? 2. How does change occur in schools? How do you think it should happen? 3. Who or who should make the change in schools? 4. What are the factors that facilitate change in schools? 5. What are the factors that make change difficult in schools? (Are you taking precautions against these factors?) 6. What are the possible consequences of change in schools? (Is it positive or negative?) 7. What could be the potential benefits or harms of change in schools? 8. How does change in schools affect interpersonal relationships? Ethics committee approval was received for this study. The researchers then phoned all of the participants and made an appointment with them. The principals who were willing to participate in the research were sent a consent form via e-mail. The consent form includes the aim of the research and the procedure. The researchers also noted on the consent form that participants have the right to withdraw from the study at will. Each of the interviews was conducted at the principals’ school because the researchers wanted to make participants feel safe emotionally. Conducting interviews in the school context enabled the researchers to take field notes and to observe the natural settings (Berg & Lune, 2012; Patton, 2002). The interviews lasted 40 to 50 minutes. All of the interviews were recorded via audio devices with the permission of the participants. Each of the researchers attended the interviews so as to take field notes and analytic memos. This attendance of the researchers in interviews provides investigator triangulation (Creswell, 2012). The researchers checked their notes right after the interviews. The audio records were transcribed after the interviews and sent to the participants to share their views as a member checking (Creswell, 2012). 2.4. Data Analysis The transcripts, field notes and analytic memos were examined by each of the researchers and draft examination sent to academics for ‘peer-review’. This multiple examination contributed to the reliability of the analysis. The analysis of the data was conducted manually. Korumaz & Kılıç & Kocabaş 1048 The content analysis technique was used to reveal codes, categories and themes from the transcribed interview records (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2005). Saldaña (2009) suggests analyzing data within a cycle. According to Saldaña’s (2009) suggestion, the researchers used In Vivo coding to find initial codes. In the second cycle, the researchers created categories involving initial codes. Lastly, the researchers gathered categories under themes according to their similarities. The researchers asked for ‘peer-review’ again in analysis of the data. The researchers created the themes in this research as follows; ‘procedure’, ‘barriers to change’ and ‘opportunities’. These themes reflect the similarities of the codes and categories (Saldaña, 2009). 3. Findings The analysis of the data in this study showed that ‘procedure’, ‘barriers to change’ and ‘opportunities’ were the most emphasized notions. The themes and categories are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Theme and categories Theme Categories Procedure Positive Negative Teacher resistance Barriers to change Organizational structure Parental expectations Communication Opportunities Quality Organizational climate Most of the participants agreed on the theme ‘procedure’ as the definition of change in the schools. Participants also shared the theme ‘barriers to change’, referring to the obstacles of managing change in schools. The final theme that the participants agreed on was ‘opportunities’, referring to the potential outcomes of managing change in schools. 3.1. Theme One: Procedure The researchers revealed that school principals defined managing change as a ‘procedure’ which has two categories: positive and negative. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 8(2), 1038-1062. 1049 Figure 1. Categories of procedure theme For instance, Ayşe, who has one year of administrative experience and works in the school retained by the Ministry of National Education that recently became a state school, defined change as a positive procedure as follows: ...Change is the process. It is the result of the process. The difference between the start point and the end point. Generally positive. It can happen physically and intellectually at the school. Change begins with the principals, with the guidance and the collaboration of teachers... It is possible to say that Ayşe is a conservative principal about starting change at the school. Another more experienced school principal Mustafa, who has 13 years of experience in an administrative position, emphasized the positive aspect of change as a procedure and thought more flexibly about who started change at the school as follows: I prefer to define change as the way we go about making our negative sides more positive. The difference we have reached at the point we have reached constitutes the change itself. This requires a process. It is positive. Not only physical, but also change in thought. Physical changes in school also affect intellectual changes. But I must say that making physical changes is easier than making mental changes. And I cannot guess who will start change at my school. Maybe a teacher or one of my students... Emre, who has 10 years of experience in school administration, spent lots of time moving his school to another location this year. He specifically emphasized the negative aspects of change. He also drew attention to the bureaucratic structure of the educational system and to need for taking more initiatives: Korumaz & Kılıç & Kocabaş 1050 I think change can be expressed as a change from a situation that is better. There are also negative aspects of change. This process can be expressed as a negative development but not negative change. There must be a team. In this way, changes are applied more quickly. The change takes place from top to bottom. We follow the orders of the Ministry. We have no chance to take initiative. As a school administrator, we cannot change the existing system. We follow the rules. I think the practice should be left to the teacher, the same change can be made, but the way should be flexible, but it is not. Similarly, another administrator named Suzan, whose school has shared the same building with another school for two years, defines change as a new product of the innovation procedure and criticized the bureaucracy in this procedure. She discussed the importance of sociological aspects of the school as follows: Change is the renewal of one's self by improving existing knowledge and skills. It is the process of regeneration of products and their function of use, and change as a product is insufficient. The change in schools takes place within the framework of new rules, laws and curricula. However, the change in schools should be based on the socio-economic environment in which the school is located. The facilities in the schools should be changed according to the facilities in the vicinity. For example, schools in an industrial region should operate in such a way that they will be productive from industry and productive to industry. The curricula of the schools in a historical area should be such that they can promote the historical structures. On the whole, the analysis of the data presented by the participants showed that the theme ‘procedure’ was stressed regarding the definition of change at the school. Specifically, the principals who preferred to define the phenomenon as a negative procedure complain about the bureaucracy in the education context. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 8(2), 1038-1062. 1051 3.2. Theme Two: Barriers to Change The participant school principals used the notion of ‘barriers to change’ to define obstacles in managing change at their schools. According to the analysis of the data in this research it was seen that ‘barriers to change’ involved ‘teacher resistance’, ‘organizational structure’ and ‘parental expectations’ as three of the most agreed upon categories. Figure 2. Categories of barriers to change theme For example, Mahmut, one of the school principals whose school underwent large scale reconstruction last year, addressed both the resistance of teachers and parental expectations as follows: The most important obstacle is the habits of teachers. The fact that the teachers think that the workload is increasing and do not want the order to be disrupted prevents them from accepting change. Parents' attitude also created resistance. To prevent this, I arranged a meeting with the class representatives and explained the reasons for the change. The lack of support from the teachers made it difficult, not supported. Sharing in social media can also make change difficult. I try to prevent resistance by communicating. There are two ways to overcome resistance: forcing or persuading. As far as we understand from his statements, Mahmut prefers to persuade both teachers and parents at the school as a strategy to overcome the obstacles. Duygu is the principal at the school which was moved to another location in the same district. She emphasized organizational structure: System-related problems prevent change. The school climate is changing. If the school head manages this change well, it creates a positive environment, but if she Korumaz & Kılıç & Kocabaş 1052 does not show good leadership, it harms the school's positive climate. The organizational structure in which education takes place prevents the change from taking place in a healthy way. Similarly, Suzan pointed out the organizational aspects of change at the school, but she put forward the importance of street-level bureaucrats as follows: As far as I observe, I can say that the change does not take place because of the rules and the bureaucrats who are closed to change. In order to overcome these negativities, it is necessary to plan the change process in detail and explain to everyone in detail. Kadir, who has 10 years of experience in school administration, expressed that high parental expectations and involvement in school was one of the most important obstacles against managing change. He stated his thoughts as follows: We have a very high level of parent involvement in our school. But parents' high expectations of academic success prevent us from making changes and managing the process positively. The attitude of the parents makes the change difficult. Inadequacies of the physical environment, students' indifference or lack of awareness, the impact of the environment, the region where the school is located, the financial situation of the family may make it difficult... The barriers to change theme consists of some obstacles making change difficult at schools. School principals put forward teacher resistance, organizational structure, and high parental expectations and involvement in the process as the primary obstacles. 3.3. Theme Three: Opportunities An analysis of the findings of the research reveals that the phrase “opportunities” was also a regularly repeated notion by most of the principals. This theme includes the potential outputs of managing change at school. This theme involves three categories: ‘communication’, ‘quality’ and ‘organizational climate’. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 8(2), 1038-1062. 1053 Figure 3. Categories of opportunities theme For example, Fatma, who is the most experienced principal among participants with 23 years of administrative experience, emphasized positive organizational climate and communication as potential outputs of managing change at school: One of the most important consequences of change in schools is the positive organizational climate. Positive organizational climate also positively influences relationships between administrators, teachers, and students. Conflict is inevitable in the process of change, but it is important to manage it. Yasin, who has 10 years of experience in school administration, discussed the potential outputs of managing change and emphasized happiness and success in the context of communication between individuals at the school: Happiness and success come first. The success and happiness of education stakeholders are two factors triggering each other. Using the positive effects of change to reduce negative impacts allows us to experience the least damage from negative impacts. Possible benefits are achieving and sustaining the goal. This brings sustainable success and happiness ... As I said before, people's motivation can come from different areas, which is an uncontrollable area. For this reason, the greatest facilitator in the process will be to ensure that relations between individuals are protected through open communication. Kadir talked about the quality of a school as a potential output of managing change. He preferred to use the term quality both for the quality of education and the quality of management. He stated his thoughts as follows: Korumaz & Kılıç & Kocabaş 1054 The most likely consequence of managing education in schools is that the quality of education is improving. I see that many problems are solved with increasing quality. Improving student behavior and managing the change process with greater quality are often inevitable because the changes are aimed at the better. A general analysis of the answers revealed that happiness, communication, positive organizational climate, and increasing quality both in education and managing the change process were the potential results of managing change at schools. These outputs were conceptualized as opportunities by the researchers. 4. Discussion and Conclusion The results of the study showed that school principals preferred to define managing change at the school as “procedure”. They mostly emphasized that managing change at school is a process which has negative and positive aspects. Çelikten (2001) also defined change as a process and stated that it does not happen overnight. School administrators should also guide teachers and school stakeholders to achieve success in this process. One of the fundamental changing theories by Lewin (1951) suggested that a successful change consists of three stages. According to Hayes (2018), unfreezing, which is the first stage, involves “destabilizing the balance of driving and restraining forces” (p.21). Similarly, Tidd and Bessant (2018) stated that change means incidence of discontinuities is likely to raise linked instabilities. School principals are seen as initiator leaders of change at the school like in other social organizations. In this context, the first stage, unfreezing, may even include rethinking of the vision. The second stage of the change is moving to a new level. In this stage the balance of forces of change is revised to reach a new level of equilibrium (Hayes, 2018). An organization and specifically schools moving to a new level might be the pivotal field for principals to show their change management talents because the success or failing in this stage of the change process will determine the whole result (Beech & MacIntosh, 2017). Movement as a part of change modifies the process, system and structures that effect the attitudes and performance in the school (Hayes, 2018). The third stage of the change is refreezing. This stage means institutionalizing the new behavior, system and structure. In the final stage of the change, school principals should focus on conserving the gains of the change process. The attitudes of school principals through the process of change may avoid the regression in the final stage, and this allows school principals to manage change and keep their schools alive (Hatch, 2015). International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 8(2), 1038-1062. 1055 As a result of this study, school principals mostly emphasized teachers’ resistance, organizational structure and parental expectations as “barriers to change” in the school. Resistance to change is a natural reaction. Instead of eliminating this reaction, its negative effects should be prevented (Çolakoğlu, 2005). It is natural for teachers to show resistance when faced with an unknown situation. School administrators are expected to bring this natural reaction to a positive direction. When thinking that managing change in the school is a process which has both negative and positive aspects, the performance of school members other than principals becomes more and more important in this process. Many of the reforms and changes bring constraints and a number of bureaucratic requirements for the members of the school. Thus, these kinds of new requirements harm the potential and performance of teachers and others (Helsby, 1999). According to Lagana (1989), teacher and principal empowerment ensure long-lasting school improvement in the change process, and this empowerment change is also the center of power for gaining control over people to bring about outcomes. Besides, Howard and Mozejko (2015) stated that “... a culture of change has instead simply increased teacher disengagement and thereby resulted in teachers being erroneously labeled by policy actors, administrators and technology enthusiasts as ‘resistant’ to change, ‘luddites’ and ‘risk averse’” (p. 307). On the other hand, Reinders (2018) suggested that the resistance or resilience of teachers in the process of implementing change in the educational context is considered a key factor. Also, some of the environmental variables, such as cognitive and affective ones, play important roles in how teachers respond to the change in schools. The resistance of the members in an organization against change can be evaluated as a chance for improvement by the administrators because every resistance brings power (Mabey & Mayon-White, 1993). According to Dean and Dean (2002), one of the most important reasons of teacher resistance against change in the school is having change imposed on them. Actually, the ideal is change by consensus. Those who will be most affected by change should be encouraged to change by assigning important tasks. In order to ensure active participation, a coalition should be established among school members, and importance should be given to communication and educational activities (Tunçer, 2013). The school members’ behaviors are the hearth of change because managing change at the school becomes possible through the members who determine the success of organizational change. As a result, school members’ resistance to change must be seen as a reaction against the change (García-Cabrera, Suárez-Ortega & Hernández, 2016). The results of the discussion on teacher resistance in managing change in schools showed that resistance could be defined as an opportunity for development both for individuals and the organization. Korumaz & Kılıç & Kocabaş 1056 According to another result of the study, another barrier of change is the organizational structure of schools. Rigby, Woulfin and März (2016) stated that changes and reforms are made in schools at an alarming rate, and educators are left to prioritize and integrate them into their schools quickly. The prioritizing of change mostly depends on not only the authentic needs of the school but also the formal requirements of the current policy. Schools need to adjust their operations according to their organizational structures (Král & Králová, 2016). Although the organizational structure of schools is important for change management, schools’ organizational structures require people, meanings, actions, and other contingencies to become a meaningful organizational element (Bate, Khan & Pye, 2000). Organizational development and change are based on the type of organizational structure and include communication, decision making, applying change and any other procedures. These aspects of organizational structure have no need of hierarchical management; on the contrary, managing change requires sharing of responsibilities and allowing school principals to be more autonomous (Anderson, 2016). Most of the school principals who emphasized organizational structure addressed the bureaucratic and hierarchical structure of the educational context in Turkey. It is possible to say that school principals do not feel autonomous enough to manage change in their schools because of the organizational structure. Bureaucratic management of schools affects the atmosphere of the school and formalizes relationships. In schools where relationships are formalized, teachers' resistance to change also increases (Buluç, 2009). In addition to principals’ description of teachers’ resistance and organizational structure as barriers to change, they added the effects of parental involvement or parental expectation in the process of change management. Indeed, parental involvement has been studied in different areas of education. For instance, parental involvement in schools has significant effects on achievement of students (Englund et al., 2004); parents’ high expectations for students' short- and long-term plans contributed positively to high educational expectations among adolescents (Lazarides et al., 2016); families strengthen the partnership between schools (Stefanski et al., 2016) and so on. In the change management process in schools, principals need the support of parents because they have an extremely wide impact on school activities. Parents sometimes provide financial support, attend school activities, create partnership and support teaching (Epstein, 2018). This kind of support from parents would speed up the change in schools and make school administrators' job easier. The last result of the study showed that school principals define potential outputs of the procedure as opportunities. Communication among school members, quality in school routines International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 8(2), 1038-1062. 1057 and organizational climate are the elements or the categories of the potential outputs of change management in the school. In most of the societies, change in education can be seen as a potential for growth and progress because post –modernist views on society and also schools try to define and comprehend the reality to the exclusion of deterministic results (Smith & Wexler, 1995). Change is something important because it provides opportunities for growth, development, increasing resources and seizing a moment (Lewis, 2019). Similarly, Rogiest, Segers and van Witteloostuijn (2015) stated that “quality change communication is the only process variable that directly impacts affective commitment to change... and an involvement- oriented climate positively affects affective commitment to change, mediated through quality change communication” (p.1105). A successful management of change in school also enhances the quality of the school routines. Jeffrey and Woods (2003) describe a unique or successful school as the one which manages to successfully maintain creative values despite the increasing pressure of change. This kind of creativeness in changing schools is supposed to provide high quality education from curriculum to teachers’ professional development. While managing change in the school, principals also ensure improving the quality of education for all. According to Hopkins’ approach (2015), the quality of education for all includes strengthening school capacity, school development, collaboration, schools’ long-term ability to cope with the change, and the teaching-learning process. At the same time, school principals emphasized that one of the outcomes of managing change at the school is the organizational climate. The activities carried out by the principal in the change process increase the relationship between the members. Having common experiences of teachers, students and administrators strengthens the school culture. In the process of change, school administrators should turn the school culture they have created into an opportunity (Töremen, 2002). According to Kuenzi and Schminke (2009), the organizational climate literature is not consistent; nevertheless, the climate of the organization is defined as the shared experiences and perceptions of school members or “experientially-based description of what people see and report happening to them in an organizational situation” (Ostroff, Kinicki & Tamkins, 2003, p. 566). Hence, it is possible to state that when school principals manage change successfully in the school, teachers’ experience and perceptions about a positive school climate, higher quality of the educational process, and better communication can be shared widely. Change is inevitable in education, as in every field. In order to keep pace with the times, meet expectations, direct the society and ensure its development, schools must adapt to change and initiate change when necessary. Although change attempts do not always result in negative Korumaz & Kılıç & Kocabaş 1058 results, positive results are not observed when mismanaged (Oakland & Tanner, 2007). Successful change in schools is associated with school administrators. Therefore, school administrators need to develop their skills in managing change. School administrators are expected to lead the change, to involve school stakeholders in the process and to be a guide for the positive result of the change process. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 8(2), 1038-1062. 1059 References Ada, Ş., & Akan, D. (2007). Değişim sürecinde etkili okullar. KKEFD, 16, 343–373. Aksu, M. B. (2004). İlköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin yöneticilik eğilimleri: Malatya ili örneği. İnönü University Journal of Education Faculty, 5(8), 3-16. Altrichter, H., & Elliott, J. (2000). Images of educational change. UK: Open University Press. Anderson, D.L. (2016). Organization development: The process of leading organizational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Argon, T., & Özçelik, N. (2008). İlköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin değişimi yönetme yeterlikleri. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 8(16), 70– 89. Başaran, İ. E. (2004). Yönetimde insan ilişkileri. Ankara: Nobel Bate, P., Khan, R., & Pye, A. (2000). Towards a culturally sensitive approach to organization structuring: Where organization design meets organization development. Organization Science, 11(2), 197–211. https:// doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.2.197.12509. Beare, H., Caldwell, B. J., & Millikan, R. H. (2018). Creating an excellent school: Some new management techniques. London: Routledge. Beech, N., & MacIntosh, R. (2017). Managing change: Enquiry and action. London: Cambridge University Press. Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th Ed). Boston, MA: Pearson. Beycioğlu, K., & Aslan, M. (2010). Okul gelişiminde temel dinamik olarak değişim ve yenileşme: Okul yöneticileri ve öğretmenlerin rolleri. Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Education Faculty, 7(1), 153–173. Born, S. L., & Preston, J.J. (2016). The fertility problem inventory and infertility-related stress: a case study. The Qualitative Report, 21(3), 497–520. Bowe, R., Ball, S.J., & Gold, A. (2017). Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology. London: Routledge. Budak, G., & Budak, G. (2016). İşletme yönetimi. Ankara: Nobel Buluç, B. (2009). The relationship between bureaucratic school structure and leadership styles of school principals in primary schools. Education and Science, 34(152), 71-86. Bursalıoğlu, Z. (2015). Okul yönetiminde yeni yapı ve davranış. Ankara: Pegem Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Çelikten, M. (2001). Okul müdürlerinin değişimi yönetim becerileri. Education and Science, 26(19), 14-19. Çolakoğlu, M. (2005). Eğitim örgütlerinde liderlik. Journal of Hasan Ali Yücel Faculty of Education, 1, 63-77. Dean, M. J., & Dean, J. (2002). Managing the primary school. London: Routledge. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Korumaz & Kılıç & Kocabaş 1060 Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds). (2008). Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. CA: Sage. Englund, M. M., Luckner, A. E., Whaley, G. J. L., & Egeland, B. (2004). Children's achievement in early elementary school: Longitudinal effects of parental involvement, expectations, and quality of assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 723–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.723. Epstein, J. L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. New York: Routledge. Erdoğan, İ. (2015). Eğitimde değişim yönetimi. Ankara: Pegem. Finnigan, K. S., & Stewart, T. J. (2009). Leading change under pressure: An examination of principal leadership in low-performing schools. Journal of School Leadership 19(5), 586-621. García-Cabrera, A. M., Suárez-Ortega, S. M., & Hernández, F. G. B. (2016). Managerial practices as antecedents of employees' resistance to change: Organizational change and human resource management. In AML Casademunt (Ed). Strategic labor relations management in modern organizations. Hersey, PA: IGI Global. Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration 30(3), 34–49. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What's worth fighting for in education?. Buckingham: Open University Press. Harris, A. (2006). Leading change in schools in difficulty. Journal of Educational Change, 7(1-2), 9-18. Hatch, T. (2015). Managing to change: How schools can survive (and sometimes thrive) in turbulent times. NY: Teachers College Press. Hayes, J. (2018). The theory and practice of change management. London: Palgrave. Helsby, G. (1999). Changing teachers' work: The "reform" of secondary schooling. Changing Education Series. London: Taylor & Francis. Hopkins, D. (2015). Improving the quality of education for all: A handbook of staff development activities. NY: Routledge. Howard, S. K., & Mozejko, A. (2015). Teachers: technology, change and resistance. In M. Henderson M. J. Henderson and Romeo, G. (Eds). Teaching and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions. London: Cambridge University Press. James, C., & Connolly, U. (2000). Effective change in school. Psychology Press. Jeffrey, B., & Woods, P. (2003). The creative school: A framework for success, quality and effectiveness. London: Routledge. Král, P., & Králová, V. (2016). Approaches to changing organizational structure: The effect of drivers and communication. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5169–5174. Kuenzi, M., & Schminke, M. (2009). Assembling fragments into a lens: A review, critique, and proposed research agenda for the organizational work climate literature. Journal of Management, 35(3), 634–717. Lagana, J. F. (1989). Managing change and school improvement effectively. NASSP Bulletin, 73(518), 52–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.723 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 8(2), 1038-1062. 1061 Lazarides, R., Viljaranta, J., Aunola, K., Pesu, L., & Nurmi, J. E. (2016). The role of parental expectations and students' motivational profiles for educational aspirations. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 29–36. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (Edited by Dorwin Cartwright). Oxford, England: Harpers. Lewis, L. (2019). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons. Litchman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mabey, C., & Mayon-White, B. (1993). Managing change. New York: Sage. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2010). Designing qualitative research (5th Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual understanding. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Toronto: Pearson. Oakland, J. S., & Tanner, S. (2007). Successful change management. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18(1-2), 1-19. Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. (2003). Organizational culture and climate. In WC Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds). Comprehensive handbook of psychology (Vol 12). New York: I/O Psychology. Özkalp, E., & Kırel, Ç. (2018). Örgütsel davranış. Ankara: Ekin Kitabevi Yayınları. Padilla-Díaz, M. (2015). Phenomenology in educational qualitative research: Philosophy as science or philosophical science. International Journal of Educational Excellence, 1(2), 101–110. Peker, Ö. (1995). Yönetimi geliştirmenin sürekliliği. Ankara: TODAI. Reinders, H. (2018). Teacher resistance and resilience. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1–6. Rigby, J. G., Woulfin, S. L., & März, V. (2016). Understanding how structure and agency influence education policy implementation and organizational change. American Journal of Education, 122(3), 295–302. Rogiest, S., Segers, J., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2015). Climate, communication and participation impacting commitment to change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(6), 1094–1106. Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications Ltd. Smith, R. A., & Wexler, P. (1995). After postmodernism: Education, politics, and identity (Vol. 3). Psychology Press. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds). The Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stefanski, A., Valli, L., & Jacobson, R. (2016). Beyond involvement and engagement: The role of the family in school-community partnerships. School Community Journal, 26(2), 135–160. Şişman, M., & Turan, S. (2002). Dünyada eğitim yöneticilerinin yetiştirilmesine ilişkin başlıca yönelimler ve Türkiye için çıkarılabilecek bazı sonuçlar. Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 2(1), 13-26. Korumaz & Kılıç & Kocabaş 1062 Tekin, M., Güleş, H., & Öğüt, A. (2006). Değişim çağında teknoloji yönetimi. Ankara: Nobel Tezcan, M. (1984). Sosyal ve kültürel değişme. Ankara: Ankara University Publication Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. R. (2018). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. Wiley India: John Wiley & Sons. Tokat, B. (1998). Örgütlerde değişim ve değişimin yönetimi. Kütahya: Dumlupınar University Publications Töremen, F. (2002). The obstacles and seasons of the change in educational organizations. Fırat University Journal of Social Science, 12(1), 185-202. Tunçer, P. (2011). Örgütsel değişim ve liderlik. Sayıştay Dergisi, 22(80), 57–83. Tunçer, P. (2013). Change resistance in the process of change management. Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Education Faculty, 32(1), 373-406. Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.