Macro role transition after subtractive status degradation: A case study of Turkish principals

Abstract

This qualitative case study examines the macro role transition experiences of the ex-school principals who were returned to teaching following an abrupt policy change in 2014. Based on an existing model of macro role transition and role identification by Ashforth, the present study aims to understand the challenging consequences of this subtractive status degradation for these ex-principals as well as their identity remaking processes. The data was collected through semi-structured interviews with 15 ex-principals who underwent this experience. The thematic analysis of the data revealed that the high-magnitude and socially undesirable nature of their macro role transition fostered negative valence and increased the difficulty of transferring into the teaching role. The analysis also demonstrated that this troublesome role transition experience had some detrimental effects on their identity remaking. A well-planned and clearly articulated policy change could provide principals with the necessary psychological and academic support, and lessen the speculations that could have impaired the role transition process.

Keywords

Macro role transition status degradation role identification principals identity remaking

Introduction

Education research has confirmed that school principals have a significant effect on the success of a school by shaping school conditions, teacher performance and, in return, student learning (Coburn, 2005; Grissom and Loeb, 2011; Lee, 2015; Leithwood et. al, 2007; Robinson, 2008). Becoming a school principal is often regarded as a career pattern within the field of education, and people who want to take on more responsibility and acquire a higher status in the field often aspire to take this career path (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003). Although principalship occurs as a transition from teaching to the administrative role, the transformation into a successful principal requires a process (Crow and Glascock, 1995), which involves “learning and reflection that require socialization into a new community of practice and assumption of a new role identity” (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003: 470).

Although it is possible to locate studies that focus on the transition into principalship, studies that focus on role transition from principalship to teaching are quite rare. In fact, the transition from principalship to teaching could require a reverse socialization and create a unique challenge for these principals. Therefore, it is worth looking into this transition process and the results could contribute to the education literature. Hence, the present study aims to investigate the experiences of school principals who were demoted to teaching positions following an unexpected, abrupt policy change in 2014 in Turkey.

Practice of assigning school principals in Turkey

In Turkey, school principals are assigned from among teachers, and there are no legal requirements mandating that these teachers receive administrative training. In the National Education Basic Law (1973), the job of teaching is defined as “a profession that is entrusted with education, teaching and the related administrative duties of the state.” It could be inferred from the law that teachers who were once appointed to school administration could well be returned to teaching (Aslanargun, 2011; Bursalıoğlu, 2002). However, since the enactment of 1973 Law, which is, for over 40 years, no school administrator has been returned to teaching, except in cases of felony convictions or upon the special demand of a superior after an illegal act. Hence, assignment to school administration has traditionally been regarded as a promotion in a teaching career, and a higher status has been attached to this post both in the education community and the larger society (Ayral, 2016; Balyer and Gündüz, 2011).

Although there have been frequent changes regarding the selection and appointment criteria of school administrators in the last 20 years (Ayral, 2016), the most significant policy change initiative related to school principals’ status was the rotation policy proposed in 2005. The policy prescribed the rotation of school principals in four-year intervals, but it could not be implemented due to strong criticisms from different stakeholders. Most of the criticisms were concerning the duration of rotation and its unplanned nature. The reform was also criticized for not differentiating successful school principals from those who demonstrate poor performance. However, the 2005 policy proposal was eventually enacted into a policy in 2010. The rotation interval was extended to eight years instead of four, but the unplanned nature of the policy remained the same. Therefore, both schools’ and principals’ needs and abilities were not matched up. In other words, principals who were deemed very successful in generating projects and were in the middle of new successful undertakings in large urban schools were assigned to very small schools in rural villages in the outskirts of the same city. This was, at the time, interpreted in the education community as “mobbing” or as “exile” rather than rotation for “a good cause.” Since the rationale behind the policy could not be convincingly justified, it continued to evoke criticisms on occasion, and it was speculated to be a politically motivated action meant to compel principals who did not adopt the ideology of the current government to retire (Tonbul and Sağıroğlu, 2012).

The school principal assignment policy enacted in 2014 was, however, unprecedented because it declared that school principalship was not a post but a quadrennial duty. The regulation brought new evaluation protocols that required the appraisal of school principals every four years based on the views of different stakeholders (i.e. four teachers from the school, the chair of the student council, the chair and the deputy of parent-teacher association board, and the chair of district national education directorate as well as human resources and school representatives of the directorate). School principals who received over 75 points from the new evaluation were given the right to continue as school principal for another four years. Accordingly, in the year 2014, nearly 16,000 principals who had been in the position for four years or longer were subjected to the new evaluation system. About 9000 of these principals, who received 75 or above from the new evaluation system, were allowed to continue principalship. However, the remainder, about 7000 principals, failed to receive 75 points and was returned to teaching positions in different schools. The 7000 vacancies for school principals were filled with teachers selected through an interview protocol as specified in the 2014 school principal assignment policy. Consequently, teachers with no prior management training or experience suddenly held principalship positions. Hence, the 2014 policy change was speculated to be a complement of 2010 policy, one that aimed to finish what the first one had started.

Although the new policy seemed, at first glance, to be more democratic with its participatory evaluation scheme, it aroused strong criticisms from several perspectives. To exemplify some of the prominent criticisms, the process was regarded as “status degradation” rather than a duty change since school principalship was “traditionally perceived” to be a permanent post, and no effort had been made to address this change in perspective with the education community or society at large. In addition, the majority of the evaluation input (60%) was from the representatives of the board of national education, which meant that those who were actually closer to principals and thus better qualified to evaluate their performance did not have a significant contribution to their total score. Thus, principals who received top points from students, teachers and parents were found unsuccessful as they received low grades from the upper board which was, in fact, the principals’ distant circle and comprised newly assigned officials with a limited knowledge of these principals. The fact that several of these demoted school principals had been previously rewarded with significant prizes, testimonials and monetary awards due to their success or after thorough inspection of their schools supported these criticisms. Furthermore, demoted school principals were assumed to be “guilty of something” both by the school community and the broader society since the only previously recognized criterion for suspending a school principal was a felony conviction. The new policy was also criticized for disregarding all the other criteria required to assign a school principal except the possession of a teaching diploma and experience, and thus was interpreted as retrogression especially by education scholars.

In the literature, this kind of sudden change in the role and status of a person is called a subtractive change, in which a concrete aspect of the work environment that a person identifies with is removed beyond his/her control (Corley and Gioia, 2004), and an essential facet of the person’s sense of self is suddenly lost (Hakak, 2015). Such instances can be particularly challenging since people find themselves asking “who am I now?” and experiencing serious confusion and ambiguity in relation to their present and future work identity (Corley and Gioia, 2004). From this perspective, our case offers a unique context in which to study the influence of the sudden status degradation from principalship to teaching since such instances do not usually occur in large numbers. Focusing on the experiences of these “demoted principals,” this paper aims to develop an understanding into the effects of the role succession processes that might guide future educational policies or reforms. In addition, the study could contribute to the literature since the qualitative analysis of this unique case could help develop a theory of organizational succession in school environment. With this stance, the present study seeks answers to two particular questions.

How have school principals experienced macro role transition after an abrupt unexpected status degradation? (What challenges have they had in the process, if any?)

How have principals undergoing macro role transition identified with the new role (teaching) and managed their identity remaking process?

Theoretical background

The conceptual framework of the present study is based on role theory (Biddle, 2013), particularly the concepts of role discontinuity, and Ashforth’s (2001) macro role transition model. Role theory is concerned with the study of behaviors along with the processes that produce, explain or are affected by these behaviors within specific contexts (Biddle, 1986). The theory investigates human behavior in the light of a prescribed set of rules and norms called “roles.” According to Levinson (1959), roles comprise structurally imposed demands (e.g. norms, societal expectations, responsibilities), personal role conception (e.g. personal definitions of roles in one’s social position), and role behavior (how members of a position prefer to act). The perspective of role theory is particularly useful for understanding professional role transitions since role change is inevitable (Loder and Spillane, 2005). Changing roles require a perspective change, which usually results in a conflict between the two roles (old and new) (Byrnes and Taylor, 2015; Merton, 1968). Divergent expectations, demands and personal concepts associated with these roles might result in a perception of role discontinuity and thus lead to role conflicts.

Many scholars today seem to agree that teaching and administration are two distinct job domains that comprise different responsibilities and require different skills and relationships (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Matthews and Crow, 2003; Strong et al., 2002). Thus, the transition from administration to the teaching role could possibly result in role discontinuity and conflicts. Ashforth (2001) calls this kind of role transition a “macro role transition” that defines job changes, transitions between organizations, internal promotions, or downward status moves. Macro role transitions are passages between sequentially held roles and often result in permanent changes in people’s lives (Ashforth, 2001; Ibarra and Barbulescu, 2010) as opposed to micro role transitions that require temporary and recurrent role exits and entries in daily life (Ashforth et al., 2000). Because the present study investigates the case of the school principals who experienced status degradation following an abrupt policy change, Ashforth’s (2001) macro role transition model was deemed useful.

Ashforth (2001) used a continuum of seven attributes (i.e. low magnitude versus high magnitude; socially desirable versus socially undesirable; voluntary versus involuntary; predictable versus unpredictable; long duration versus short duration; collective versus individual; and reversible versus irreversible) to assess the difficulty and valence (attractiveness) of a macro role transition. According to Ashforth (2001: 88), “valence is determined by the process of transition and by the content of role identities,” and the difficulty of the transition process correlates negatively with valence. In terms of the content of role identities, a transition that is consistent with a desired positive self-fosters positive valence while a transition that is closer to a feared self-fosters negative valence.

The first attribute, magnitude of role transition (low magnitude vs. high magnitude), refers to the extent of the differences between the old and the new role. The intensity of the changes involved and the degree to which the new role allows the exercise of previous knowledge, skills and relationships is defined as magnitude (Ashford, 2001). High magnitude of change is expected to result in role ambiguity and difficulty in role transition (Ashforth, 2001; Nicholson, 1984; Nicholson and West, 1989).

The second attribute, social desirability of a role (socially desirable vs. undesirable), is related to how the new role set is viewed by the person and the society. If the new role set does not represent progress or is assumed to be less prestigious, such as in the case of the loss of a status or title, then the role transition is possibly more difficult and less attractive. According to Ashforth (2001), socially undesirable role transition within the same organization could result in more negative feelings because working with old colleagues acts as recurrent reminder of their degraded status.

The third attribute, involuntary transition (voluntary vs. involuntary) between roles, is regarded as more difficult and less attractive because this threatens the person’s sense of control (Ashforth, 2001; Sargent, 2003). Similarly, if the transition is unpredictable and happens in such a short time that it does not allow the person to prepare for the transition, it is usually associated with negative valence and difficulty in the role transition. Finally, if the role transition is not perceived as reversible, that is, if the role transition is “long term, open-ended, dissimilar to previous roles, and highly visible or public” (Ashforth, 2001: 104), the transition could be particularly difficult and take a much longer time to come to terms with because it fosters negative valence.

As stated by several scholars (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Ibarra and Barbulescu, 2010; Illeris, 2014; Kauppila, 2014; Simpson and Carroll, 2008), macro role transitions are significant in terms of role identity since profound changes may happen during these transitions. Role identities are “socially constructed definitions of self-in-role” (Ashforth, 2001: 27), and ambiguities due to the role change result in destabilization, which, in turn, necessitates a process of restabilization (Curry, 2003). In brief, the role changing process requires identity work that could counteract external tensions, struggles, contradictions, fragmentation, crises and discord (Alvesson et al., 2008; Watson, 2008).

Status degradation, namely downward status change, is considered to have a more significant impact on people’s identity since their status can demonstrate a formal position in the organizational hierarchy, prestige, a higher level of training or a social standing that provides self-verification as well as identity cues for colleagues or society at large (Knottneruss, 1997; Stryker and Burke, 2000). After status degradation, the person is likely to perceive a reduced level of responsibility and authority as well as a less desirable job function and compensation (Hall and Isabella, 1985; More, 1968). Therefore, status degradation could change the person’s career-related outcomes, threaten work identity and result in a decreased sense of self (Sargent, 2003).

Ashforth (2001) also defines a model of identity making (i.e. role identification) after a macro role transition. His model includes three stages: de-identification, transitional identity, and identification (or role ambivalence). The term “de-identification” refers to the process of the separation of a person from the previous role so that the person can assume the new role identity. In other words, the first stage of role identification is exiting the prior role identity. This first stage is followed by transitional identity, that is, “a partially realized identity, a way station on the road towards being accepted by oneself and one’s role set as the bona fide exemplar of the role identity” (Ashforth, 2001: 74). Beech (2011) calls this stage a liminal transition phase in which the person assumes neither the old nor the new role identity but puts effort toward identity recovery due to a sense of work identity loss (Conroy and O’Leary-Kelly, 2014). The issue here is not identity conflict but a lack of a sufficiently strong identity which involves a “great deal of confusion as to what people believe who they are and where they will be in the future. This specifically occurs after situations of subtractive change” (Hakak, 2015).

Once the person starts to define her/himself with the new role, identification occurs. If the person cannot fulfill a successful identification, this might lead to role ambivalence, namely “conflicted identification” or “indifference” (Ashforth, 2001). Conflicted identification involves the highest level of ambivalence along with strong tensions and disidentification. This stage cannot last long and it either leads to dissidence within the organization, reconciliation with the new role identity, or role exit. Indifference, on the other hand, is characterized with low interest both in the role and in associating with or disassociating from the role (Ashforth, 2001).

Ashforth’s (2001) model of role transition with its seven attributes and three stages of identity making could be particularly useful for analyzing the situation of the school principals in our case. In terms of Ashforth’s seven attributes, the role transition of these school principals could be defined as one that is socially undesirable, collective, unpredictable, and irreversible as well as having high magnitude and short duration. As previously stated, up until the 2014 policy change, school principalship was regarded as a higher post with a higher status and responsibility than teaching, and thus was attached with a higher value by the stakeholders (i.e. teachers, students, parents and the broader society). It was also perceived to be a permanent post that signaled career progress and could open doors to higher status positions in national educational directorates. In addition, before the new regulation, school principalship was terminated solely in the case of a felony conviction. Therefore, returning these school principals back to teaching was viewed negatively in the society and brought discredit upon them in terms of their teaching ability and skills as well. From this perspective, the role transition of these school principals was socially undesirable. Furthermore, this regulation did not allow discussions that could mold public opinion, and influenced thousands of people. Thus, the role transition was collective, unpredictable, and happened in short duration as well as being involuntary in nature.

Magnitude refers to role contrast and the higher the difference between roles, the higher the magnitude (Ashforth, 2001). In the present case, it could be argued that the roles of principalship and teaching are interrelated, and thus the role transition should be low in magnitude. However, in the literature, the two roles are defined as different job domains that require different skills and knowledge (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Matthews and Crow, 2003; Strong, et al., 2002). In Turkey, the responsibilities of school principals such as the financial, bureaucratic, physical and technological maintenance of the school often precede educational leadership (Aslan and Karip, 2014; Gümüşeli, 2009). In addition, since many of the demoted school principals had been away from the classroom for a long time, their teaching skills were likely to have attenuated. Hence, the magnitude of these school principals’ role transition could have been higher than expected. In addition to high magnitude, these school principals could have possibly perceived the incident as irreversible due to its public and highly visible nature, which could make the transition more difficult and displeasing (Ashforth, 2001). Since the school principalship post had been a permanent rather than a temporary duty for so long, these school principals had been recognized as principals for quite a long time in their close environment, so their demotion was highly visible. In addition, the policy change attracted great media-interest due to the strong political and academic criticisms regarding the practice.

In light of Ashforth’s attributes, the school principals in our case could have perceived their role transition as more difficult, which is expected to foster negative valence. From this stance, the process of this macro, downward role transition could have had a significant impact on their identity remaking.

Method

As Yin states (2014: 913), case studies are useful as a research method when “a how or why question is being asked about a contemporary set of events over which the investigator has little or no control,” and case study research can facilitate engagement with the complexity of real-life events (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2014). Considering the research questions, our study employs a qualitative case study to develop an in-depth understanding into the macro role transition experiences of the ex-principals who were returned to teaching due to an abrupt policy change, which offers a unique case for studying macro role transition in an educational context.

Because qualitative studies aim to create an in-depth interpretation of events through studying a relatively small number of people, 15 participants among the ex-principals who had the experience under investigation were selected through the snowball sampling method. The snowball sampling method is generally used to locate information-rich cases by asking a number of people (in this study teachers and school principals) who else to talk with, and the snowball gets bigger and bigger as you reach information rich-cases (Patton, 1990). In this study, 10 participants were first contacted in such a manner, and their data were analyzed qualitatively. Later, three and two more participants, respectively, were included in the study consecutively to observe any possible additional information would arise. The last five cases added no significant new information to the existing data, which indicated that data saturation had been reached for the analysis. The first participant was a former acquaintance of the interviewer’s, and he provided the contact details of the second participant and the process continued as such until the 15th participant was interviewed. In brief, the interviewer did not personally know any of the participants before the study except the first participant. The demographics of the participants are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

The demographics of participants.

Participant code	Gender	Age	Teaching experience (years)	Administration experience (years)	Teaching specialization
P1	M	48	22	5	Homeroom teacher
P2	M	43	6	14	History
P3	M	45	3	15	Accounting
P4	M	43	8	9	History
P5	M	44	11	10	Counseling
P6	F	46	9	12	Homeroom teacher
P7	M	52	13	11	Turkish language
P8	M	45	8	14	Religions
P9	M	52	21	14	Homeroom teacher
P10	M	53	7	17	Homeroom teacher
P11	F	39	8	8	Homeroom teacher
P12	M	48	16	13	Homeroom teacher
P13	M	59	5	30	Homeroom teacher
P14	M	51	19	11	Special education
P15	M	57	12	22	Chemistry

Data for the present study were gathered through approximately 1-h-long, semi-structured, uninterrupted interviews which were held nearly one year after the 2014 regulation was implemented. Questions were formulated to inquire about the participants’ experiences during this one year after the status change. The interviews were transcribed verbatim from digital recording. All personal identifiers were removed to preserve anonymity and the participant codes (e.g. P1, P2 and so on) are used to refer to the participants in text.

After reading and rereading the transcripts for an initial and holistic understanding of the participants’ perceptions, a thematic analysis was carried out. In regard to two research questions mentioned previously, our analysis was focused on how the former principals have experienced the role transition and what challenges they have had regarding the new role identification process. Codes and initial categories were first independently formed by the two researchers and then compared to form a final agreed list of categories. Categories were also discussed with some uninvolved colleagues or in reference to existing literature. Based on these final categories, two themes and related categories emerged (Table 2).

Table 2.

Themes and related categories.

Themes	Categories
I. Role transition experience	Socially undesirable role transition external psychological pressures internal psychological pressures High magnitude role transition differences in skills and knowledge differences in responsibilities differences in audiences differences in the range of power and privileges
II. Role identification	De-identification Transitional (liminal) identity Role ambivalence (conflicted identification/indifference)

In order to ensure the credibility of the study, special attention was given to careful data analysis. The data were first analyzed by three researchers independently and consistent patterns were included in themes. The peer debriefing strategy was also used, and the results of the analysis were independently checked by colleagues external to the study. In addition, participants were e-mailed their transcribed interviews including the related emergent categories, and their approval and feedback were taken into consideration (member checking) to ensure validity.

Findings

Analysis of the data revealed two themes, which were named after Ashforth’s attributes of macro role transition. The first theme is called role transition experience and consists of two categories: socially undesirable role transition and high magnitude role transition. This theme and its categories define the psychological processes resulting from the abrupt status degradation, and highlight the external and internal psychological pressures experienced due to the role transition. The second theme is called role identification and defines the emergent challenges of the role transition and their impact on the identity work. This theme comprises three categories that actually define the three stages of the role identification: de-identification, transitional (liminal) identity, and role ambivalence (conflicted identification and indifference). Each theme and category will be detailed below with reference to particular excerpts from participants’ narratives.

Role transition experience

Data analysis revealed that higher status was attached to school management compared to teaching, and thus the abrupt role transition of the school principals from management to teaching was both socially and individually undesirable as well as being unpredictable and involuntary. Therefore, this kind of transition from one role to another seemed to yield some psychological processes not only in those who experienced the role transition but also in the observers of this transition process, which exerted additional psychological pressure on the transitioning subjects. In addition, since management and teaching were considered two different job domains as shown by the analysis, the role transition was high in magnitude with several key differences between the two roles, which could have increased the difficulty of the role transition while fostering negative valence.

Socially undesirable role transition

External psychological pressures

Analysis revealed that demoted school principals were subject to some psychological pressures from the new management, their new colleagues (teachers), the parents, the students and even their neighbors or the distant family members. According to the data, two common questions arose in their minds: (a) why would they have been demoted unless they had done something illegal or unless they had been insufficient and ineffective as an administrator (was this demotion a punishment for something they had done wrong)? and (b) could they teach well since they had been an administrator for a long time? As these questions were posed verbally or behaviorally, school principals felt they had to explain and justify themselves. This appears to have put another burden on them.

Right from the first day, I could see it in their doubtful eyes, in the way they looked at me, the management, the teachers, the students; ‘why did he come here?’ Some kept asking one another, gossiping, ‘did he do something wrong?’, ‘is this a punishment?’, ‘who knows what he did’. Then you feel the need to justify yourself. This was really hard. Even if you explain yourself, there are still those who do not believe in you, or you feel that people do not rely on you anymore (P4).

When they assigned me to a class, some parents came to school to share their concerns; they said ‘he seems too old’, ‘is he capable enough to teach our students’, ‘what if he did something wrong before?’. The same happened with the teachers. Many were even reluctant to greet me at the beginning (P2).

The quotes above are only two of the many examples provided by the participants regarding the pressure they faced in their new circumstances. These pressures seem to have exerted feelings of guilt or inefficiency on these demoted school principals, which was another challenge for them to struggle with in their new circumstances. In addition, as can be understood from the quotes below, many of them were considered to be a burden by the management of their new schools.

Evidently there was the idea that ‘he cannot do well in class, how can I assign him a class at this time of year, I hope he retires and goes away’. In some schools, they were even offered to get a sick report and not come to school (P1).

You can see the discomfort in the school management; feel that they see you as a rival. Why? Because you were an administrator before, you can see their weaknesses or mistakes more easily. Or they feel the need to justify that they are better than you. So they could not embrace us or they tried to keep us isolated (P12).

Internal psychological pressures

From our analysis, many expressions of strong feelings emerged, all signaling a traumatic experience due to the abrupt role transition and status degradation. Since the degradation was unpredictable and involuntary, it seemed to foster negative valence and result in strong negative feelings such as “suffocation,” “failure,” “being marginalized,” “insufficiency,” “being wasted,” “offense,” “disappointment,” “pitifulness,” “alienation,” and “being punished”; or as one participant defined, they “all felt like a fish out of water” (P8).

All these strong feelings were actually dependent on one feeling: a feeling of injustice as explained well by this quote; “I did not deserve this” (P2). This feeling of injustice can also be seen in the following quotes.

I am not reacting against becoming a teacher again, actually. What I cannot stand is this unfair deal. I was a good manager; I received several awards, from the same government that demoted me for no reason. I cannot understand this, not only me but many others like me, actually (P10).

This has hurt us, really, because it is surely unjust. It looks as if they punished us but for what? For nothing we have done (P6).

It felt like a coup to many skillful, successful administrators who earned their place through hard work and achievements. And I feel like I am imprisoned in the classroom even though I could achieve better things as an experienced administrator (P11).

High magnitude role transition

The second category defines the magnitude of the role transition, and underlines the perceived differences between the ex-role of administration and the new role of teaching. According to our analysis, the role of administration and the role of teaching were regarded as “two distinct fields of expertise” (P6, P5), or two different job domains that required distinct skills and knowledge, assigned different types and ranges of responsibilities, addressed different audiences, and differed in their range of power and privileges. These perceived differences seemed to increase the magnitude of the role transition, which resulted in role conflict or ambiguity as well as fostering negative valence and making the transition more difficult.

Differences in skills and knowledge

Although these former school principals had all received pedagogical education and had teaching background, they later developed more technical skills required to manage a school. According to our findings, while the role of administration required knowledge and skills in finance, construction, resource management, risk taking, decision-making, supervision and legislation, the role of teaching required knowledge and skills in pedagogy, classroom management, syllabus design and subject area. Participants believed that after long years in administration, much of this insight into teaching had atrophied, which made returning to teaching a harder experience.

I have not been teaching for nearly 30 years. Returning to teaching after such a long time is not easy. You see the course content, the student profile, the teaching methods and tools have all changed. Many do not want to continue working just because of that (P3).

Being pushed into teaching again after the age of 60 is stressful. Everything is different in the classroom now, and it is not easy to keep up with all these changes in a short time, especially after this age (P1).

You cannot sit and work in a classroom. You have to be active, keep communication going, and attract students’ attention. After a long break, it was not so easy to adapt to all this (P4).

From the quotes above, it can be inferred that not only the demotion but also the transition from one job role to another was troublesome for several of these ex-principals due to the high magnitude of the change. They seemed to feel as if they had been assigned to a completely different job and their lifelong career plans regarding their previous job had been demolished. It was also evident that the magnitude of the role transition was especially higher for older principals and for those who had been principals for more years. Especially classroom management and the use of technology in the classroom along with outdated teaching skills or obsolete subject area knowledge appear to have caused difficulty adapting to the new role, which was mostly underlined by the younger participants of the study.

Differences in responsibilities

Another difference between the two roles was defined in terms of responsibilities. The general consensus among the participants was that the role of administration was more complicated and required more time and energy since it assigned more responsibilities to the administrator.

When you are an administrator, you are responsible for and to all the teachers, the students, the parents and your superiors. If your responsibility is 100% as an administrator, it goes down to 10% as a teacher. You are only responsible for your students in your class, and to their parents. That’s all (P4).

As an administrator, I used to deal with the problems of the school, of all the teachers and the students. I was responsible for a thousand students, nearly fifty teachers and eight other staff. Now I only teach a small group of students for 24 h a week; nothing more (P1).

As these quotes imply, participants seemed to believe that the role of administration is more diverse and larger than the teaching role. The teaching role seemed to be regarded as more restricted and less satisfying, expressed eloquently by the following participants.

Let’s assume that you are a heavy-duty vehicle that can carry 40 tons, and you have no problems carrying it. But one day they start to load only a few kilos of hay on you. Then what happens? You do not use this vehicle at full capacity, but at an idle capacity. We feel like this vehicle now (P5).

With all the new projects I left behind, what I do here does not satisfy me. I feel restricted because there is nothing much I do for the good of the school. Even if you want to do something, they do not let you because it is not your business any more (P6).

Differences in audiences

The transition from administration to teaching required addressing different audiences as emerged from the analysis. According to the participants, they used to address adults such as teachers, their superiors, and other shareholders, whereas in class they had to communicate with children or teenagers, and as they asserted, these two audiences were distinct from each other in terms of their needs, manners, understanding and expectations. This belief is well-summarized by the following participant.

As an administrator, you address thousands of people inside and outside the school, and they are all adults, easy to communicate with. However, now in class you have to communicate with children, who have far different viewpoints than you; you have to make yourself understood but there is a huge generation gap. After 14 years of administration, it takes time to develop the necessary skills to reach your new audience (P9).

From the quote above, it can also be seen that homeroom teachers had more difficulty adjusting to this difference in audience because they had to deal with younger children. Communicating with children or helping them learn requires new skills so a lack of these skills could make classroom management especially difficult as mentioned by several participants.

I had real difficulty managing the classroom at the beginning. Taking control of the class was totally different from working with teachers. I still do not feel comfortable in class, to be honest (P6).

Differences in the range of power and privileges

Since a higher status is attached to the administrator role, returning to teaching seemed to result in the loss of power and privileges enjoyed as an administrator. As a result, many school principals had difficulty accepting their new role and status, as revealed during data analysis.

I am not involved in the school decision-making anymore; nobody asks my opinion regarding school-related issues. As an administrator, I used to make such decisions, my requests were regarded as an order; everybody would do what I said. But now things have changed (P8).

When you are an administrator, students respect you more; they are more obedient to you. Teachers respect you; some even button up their jackets when they come to your office. Suddenly they have become my colleagues; we have the same status now (P2).

Role identification

This theme and its related categories were named based on the stages of role identification during macro role transition as defined in the literature, because the codes that emerged from the analysis reflected the characteristics of these stages, and addressed the challenges and struggles of the participants in developing a new role identity.

De-identification

According to our analysis, many of the participants experienced difficulty in detaching themselves from the role of an administrator. Many stated that they still felt responsible for school-related problems but no longer had the power to interfere in such issues. It could also be inferred from the data that de-identification with a role from which a person was involuntarily and unpredictably removed could be a highly challenging experience and take longer than expected.

You observe the problems and have some solutions in mind but people do not pay as much attention as they did when I was the principal. It gets on my nerves or gives me hard feelings sometimes (P1).

Being a principal was so significant for me. I worked really hard to acquire it, I found meaning in it and now that I lost it, I still feel like a fish out of water (P12).

It also emerged that being a school principal for a greater number of years made the de-identification process harder, because they seemed to have fully blended into the management role after all those years; especially for the older school principals, because many had no intent or expectation to return to teaching as they were almost due to retire.

After 20–30 years in administration, it sticks to your behaviors, your reflexes. You inevitably act like a school principal when you see the walls need painting or the desks need mending (P3).

I was hoping to retire as a school principal actually. Bu now I have to forget about managing my school and adapt to this new idea of teaching (P13).

Transitional (liminal) identity

It emerged that nearly all of the participants experienced problems de-identifying with their previous role, and could not move beyond a transitional identity, a form of temporary, weak identity. Some participants seemed to be “betwixt and between” continuing their career as a teacher or striving to return to administration, and many filed lawsuits against the policy, expecting to return to administration despite starting to like their new role in the meanwhile.

On one hand, I want to return because going into administration was my acquired right. I took them to court because I want to get my rights. On the other hand, I have started to like being in the classroom. I am indecisive at the moment (P3).

Several participants highlighted that they had developed sympathy towards teachers and could understand their problems better through their teacher lens. This was another finding related to transitional identity, because all stated that this understanding could be useful for them if (or when) they returned to administration one day.

The process was really disturbing, but it was also constructive. I have not been able to fully adapt to being a teacher yet but I had a chance to observe the school environment from a teacher’s perspective and I developed sympathy towards teachers. When I return to administration, this experience could contribute to my performance, I believe (P1).

Role ambivalence (conflicted identification and indifference)

Analysis has revealed that these principals had difficulty developing a strong identity with regard to their new role, and experienced serious role ambiguity. Although some reflected this role ambiguity through indifference (namely remaining uninterested in the new role and not considering or attempting to return to administration), many of them experienced conflicted role identification (namely attempting to fight back against the injustice done to them or role exit through sick reports or retirement).

I feel strong resentment, I must admit. Now I am in the classroom at the assigned times, then I go home. I do not take any other responsibilities at school. I am in search of new activities or hobbies (P8).

As far as I can observe, we actually discussed this with many colleagues with the same experience; many people, especially the older ones take sick reports, so as not to take any classes. Some of my colleagues retired because they thought they could not continue under these circumstances. Most importantly, we lost our passion, our interest in our job due to this injustice done to us (P2).

I have not given up. This is what keeps me going actually. I will strive until I get my rights. I am trying to adapt but I can’t help thinking that I do not belong in this place (P6).

Discussion

To develop a better understanding of role transitions from administration to teaching, this study investigated the experiences of school principals who were returned to teaching after an abrupt policy change (which is a rare case and understudied in education literature). The study revealed significant findings that could contribute to the macro role transition literature and highlighted the deleterious influences of such status degradation on the psychology, performance and role identification processes of the individuals undergoing this transition process. Despite being a small-scale study, the findings of the research could yield some implications for future policies regarding the training, assignment and mobility of school principals, especially from the perspectives of role transition and identity development.

As the findings of the study indicated, the socially undesirable, high-in-magnitude, unpredictable, involuntary and abrupt nature of the 2014 policy change that resulted in the status degradation of a large number of school principals was a difficult and unpleasant experience with a negative impact on the identity work. As Ashforth (2001) highlighted, when a role transition is socially and personally (i.e. involuntary) undesirable, the transition between roles is harder and deferred. In our context, the new regulation addressed that school principalship was a temporary duty given to selected teachers but not a permanent post that indicated a promotion or upward career move. However, school principals, teachers, parents and even students seemed to perceive this subtractive change as status degradation. This could be due to the fact that in Turkey, school administration has traditionally been regarded as a promotion to a higher status since it gives school principals wider control and responsibility other than teaching. Furthermore, school management could be a step forward to higher management positions in nationwide branches of the Ministry of Education, which makes school principalship a significant turning point in the teaching career. Thus, the stakeholders might have interpreted this subtractive change negatively, based on the aforementioned attributes. Hence, all ex-principals in our context perceived it as unjust and many decided to resist and seek after what they considered their vested rights. Although the regulation involved thousands of school principals, the collective nature of the role transition did not support the process positively, in contrast to Ashforth’s (2001) claim that collective changes could be perceived in a positive way. On the contrary, the collective nature of the role transition made it highly visible and public, which could have been perceived as irreversible in Ashforth’s (2001) terms, and the more irreversible the transition is perceived, the longer it takes to adapt to the new role, as supported by our findings.

As compatible with the findings of several other studies in the education literature (i.e. Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Jackson, 1990; Sigford, 1998; Strong et al., 2002), our study also highlighted that the role of teaching and administration were regarded as two separate job domains that were characterized with different skills, responsibilities, audiences and communication patterns. This was significant in terms of the macro role transition experience because these differences make the transition high in magnitude. In this case, transition between the two roles could result in a role discontinuity perception (Loder and Spillane, 2005) and role ambiguity (Nicholson, 1984; Nicholson and West, 1989), which makes the role transition more difficult and slower (Ashforth, 2001). Our findings indicated that school principals who were returned to teaching after a long time had difficulty adapting to the classroom environment, as well as following the curriculum or catching up with the new techniques and technologies of teaching. Furthermore, the principals who were older, had had a longer tenure as a manager, and those who had returned to primary school as homeroom teachers, had more difficulty adapting to their new role because their skills had become more obsolete or because communicating with and teaching children required totally different skills than communicating with adults. For those principals, the magnitude of the role transition was higher, and adapting to the new role was likely to be harder and more distressing.

The findings also showed that the unpredictable and involuntary nature of the status degradation combined with the concerns of adapting to the new role resulted in psychological resistance. As Sargent (2003) stated, this sudden change could have threatened their “self of control,” and not giving enough time and support to prepare for the new role could have made the role transition harder. Role transition from a less desirable job to a more desirable one is accepted easily since it offers career progress and becomes a strong motivation factor (Ashforth, 2001; Hakak, 2015; Sargent, 2003). However, sudden departures from established conventions to a less prestigious role require greater justification to both the self and to others because it disrupts how people view themselves as well as how others perceive and interact with them (Beech, 2011; Ibarra and Barbulescu, 2010). In Ashforth’s (2001) terms, a transition that is inconsistent with a desired positive self-fosters negative valence and thus makes the transition harder. Similarly, role transition requires identification with the new role so it requires changes to these two concepts of identity: “how I see myself” and “how others see me in this new context” (Byrnes and Taylor, 2015).This was clear in the narratives of our participants who explained the justification process as a psychological burden that resulted in great stress and inner turmoil.

As stressed by several scholars (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Coburn, 2005; Grissom and Loeb, 2011; Lee, 2015; Loder and Spillane, 2005), role transition is a significant process that produces serious outcomes in regard to teacher, student and school performance because such incidents are strongly linked to role identity and the school culture in broader terms. Our study focused on the school principals who experienced this role transition and revealed significant findings regarding their role identification. In our case, experiences of demoted school principals were in line with the role identification stages of Ashforth’s (2001) model, except our participants seemed to either be stuck in a transitional identity stage or experience role ambivalence reflected as conflicted identification or indifference. According to Ashforth (2001), identification with the new role begins with de-identification from the previous role, which assumes that de-identification is the prerequisite of identification with the new role. However, in the case of unexpected, sudden role transition, the role changer is likely to experience a sudden perception of role discontinuity, that is, a “role shock” (Minkler and Biller, 1979). Ashforth (2001) proposes that this perception of sharp discontinuity while expecting continuity could make the role transition more objectionable and harder. He also states that de-identification with the ex-role becomes a harder and longer process especially when the role changer is strongly identified with the ex-role for a long period. These two views could also explain our finding that ex-principals with a longer school management background as well as older principals who were not expecting such a role change found it harder to de-identify with their management role. Ashforth et al. (2008) also underline that deeper identification with the role involves a strong connection between the self-at-work and the broader self-concept, which makes the role transition more troublesome since it results in a deeper sense of uncertainty and a more significant loss of meaning. Therefore, the ex-principals in our context, at least some if not all, might have had problems transitioning to the teaching role as they were deeply identified with their management role and found meaning in it.

The role transition for the principals in our case could also be troublesome because they were pushed to change their role identity without any academic or psychological support to provide them with the necessary rite of passage from one role to the other. Rites of passage are significant as they facilitate the exit from the previous role and the entry into the new role, and they acknowledge both the role changer and the others affected (e.g. parents, students, colleagues in the former and new schools in our case) by the role transition (Ashforth et al., 2000). Namely, rites of passage are necessary for a smooth, effective role transition, and “minimize the social-psychological and organizational disruptions of a role exit” (Ashforth, 2001: 11). Similarly, as Ashforth et al. (2008) state, identity reconstruction starts with sense-breaking, is facilitated by sense-giving, and achieved through sense-making. “Sense-breaking” occurs when one’s existing role identity is challenged and a meaning gap is accentuated. Thus, the person is actually motivated to search for a new identity to fill this meaning gap. However, without any kind of sense-giving, the person remains devoid of the social momentum that could validate and encourage the development of the new role identity. In that regard, rites of passage could serve as a means of sense-giving, which promote sense-making and help enact the new role identity. On the other hand, without rites of transition and incorporation, role changers are likely to maintain a liminal identity (Ashforth, 2001) that delineates a phase “where one is neither an outsider nor a true insider” (Ashforth, 2012: 170), as revealed in our case.

The stage of de-identification is particularly troublesome when re-identification is connected to feelings of uncertainty, loss of meaning, self-esteem, ambiguity and a sense of disequilibrium (Ashforth et al., 2008; Corley and Gioia, 2004; Fiol, 2002). In such a case, status changers engage in specific behavioral and cognitive strategies to attain or establish a state of equilibrium (Hakak, 2015), and these strategies take them to the transitional (liminal) identity stage. At this stage, the person projects temporary and weak identities, questioning themselves and the views of others, and then reacts to the identity that is already projected on him/her (Beech, 2011). Status degradation that is abrupt, unpredictable and involuntary could have destructive effects on the status changer since the incident conveys a strong perception of prestige loss and incongruence with personal ideals (Ashforth, 2001; Sargent, 2003). Our case supports these views in that our ex-principals tended to experience feelings of status loss and resisted designing a new role identity as projected on them. In such a case, role ambiguity is considered to be inevitable (Ashforth, 2001; Hakak, 2015) as observed in our study as well. These unresolved feelings of uncertainty and ambiguity, along with a perception of threat, could perpetuate this liminal (or lingering) identity as adjustment to the new role is unable to be fulfilled, especially in the absence of the necessary rites of passage (Wittman, 2018).

Role ambiguity has also been strongly correlated with performance and attitudes of employees as compared to role conflict and role overload (Ashforth et al., 2008; Kauppila, 2014), and is considered to result in conflicted identification or indifference. Conflicted identification is positively related to turnover intentions and destructive behaviors to organizations, and negatively related to job satisfaction, commitment and citizenship behaviors (Ashforth et al, 2008; Hakak, 2015; Sargent, 2003), which was supported by our findings as well. In our case, several of the ex-principals expressed that teaching could not satisfy them since their responsibilities had decreased significantly or that they did not volunteer for or refused to do any additional school work. Another behavioral outcome of role ambiguity is stated as indifference to both the old and the new role (Ashforth, 2001; Kreiner and Ashforth, 2004). In this case, the person demonstrates a state of neutral identification, prefers to remain detached from the organizational demands and define him/herself by his/her non-identification (Hakak, 2015; Kreiner and Ashforth, 2004). Some of our ex-principals demonstrated a similar state and they tried to avoid the situation by staying away from the school environment through taking sick reports or taking time off from work.

Conclusion and implications

The present study offers the analysis of a unique case in which a large number of school principals returned to teaching and experienced sudden loss of status. Despite being a small-scale study, we believe that the intensity of this particular case in Turkey, with its size and manner, revealed deep and very relevant information about these principals. In that respect, we hope the study contributes to the education literature, especially in an environment where school principals’ selection and allocation are centrally governed. Our study revealed that the role transition after an abrupt status degradation, which is unpredictable, involuntary, socially and personally undesirable despite being a collective change, is highly difficult and distressing. As a result, role transition seems to become more troublesome and takes a longer time with significant negative influences on the status changers’ identification with the new role and their identity remaking.

When the policies are abrupt and conflict seriously with the expectations and perceptions of the policy target and environment, detrimental consequences could be expected in regard to the macro role transition process as indicated by our findings. In our case, the traditional understanding of the school and the broader society that school management is a higher status offering extra power and privileges seemed to prevail over policy makers’ new interpretation of school principalship as a temporary duty rather than a permanent post. Thus, the role transition was viewed as socially and personally undesirable; as something that should be individually justified or something to be ashamed of. This supported Ashforth’s (2001: 123) claim that “negative social response may retard or derail the exit process.” Therefore, it seems significant that policy makers should regard the possible influences of the new policy in light of the existing beliefs and viewpoints of the targeted environment, and show utmost care to justify the policy rationale so that it could be clearly comprehended and espoused by its targets.

Our findings also supported that macro role transition takes time since the ex-role and the new role require different skills and knowledge, and as the magnitude between the roles becomes higher, the process could be more painful and troublesome (Ashforth, 2001). In addition, we also found that in the absence of academic or psychological support as well as a formal induction process that could provide the necessary rite of passage between roles, the transition could become harder, even impossible at some cases (Ashforth et al., 2000; Ashforth, 2001, 2012). Therefore, policy reforms that would require macro role transition must be supported through rites of separation (e.g. a formal acknowledgement of the role exit and a publicly clear justification), rites of transition (e.g. orientation and training), and rites of incorporation (e.g. providing psychological engagement with the new role) (Ashforth et. al., 2000) as these rites could provide the psychological, social and organizational resources necessary to cope with the change process (Ashforth, 2001). Policy makers should take into account that “the process of becoming an ex involves tension between one’s past, present and future.…To be an ex is different from never having been a member of a particular group or role set” (cited in Ashforth, 2001: 131; Ebaugh, 1988: 149), and consider including the necessary steps that could provide situational primes to support healthy socialization into the new social domain in policies pertaining to macro role transition. Providing these role changers with more institutionalized, structured socialization opportunities (collective, formal, sequential, fixed and serial) could be more helpful in comparison to individualized, unstructured socialization (individual, informal, random, variable, and disjunctive) as highlighted by Ashforth (2012). In our case, an investiture socialization tactic that affirms and tries to adapt the role changer’s capabilities and knowledge to enhance the new role could yield better results compared to a divestiture socialization tactic that attempts to diminish the role changer’s ex-role identity (Van Maanen, 1978). As new school principals were assigned from among teachers without management experience and training, ex-principals could be involved in a mentorship program, which could support the socialization and adaptation of both groups into their new roles and social domains.

Finally, the policy change in our case was abrupt and unplanned. However, principal succession in schools “is a disruptive event because it changes the lines of communication, realigns relationships of power, affects decision-making, and generally disturbs the equilibrium of normal activities” (Miskel and Cosgrove, 1985: 88). If this change process is not well planned, it can diminish a school’s performance and its future potential (Lee, 2015). Therefore, making the role transition a positive experience for the status changers is crucial and this process must be promoted through the support of the stakeholders regarding a healthy principal succession at schools. The present study demonstrated significant findings that could support this perspective. However, future studies that especially focus on the school level outcomes of the downward status move and macro role transition could contribute from another perspective.

As the findings of the present study indicated, macro role transition that is socially and personally undesired leads to serious psychological distress, and it could be assumed that the families of the principals in transition would not be immune to these challenges. In the present study, the stance of family was disregarded in order to keep the scope of the study narrow. However, a new study with a focus on the family perspective could contribute to our understanding about the psychological processes accompanying the role transition and status degradation.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Alvesson

Ashcraft

Thomas

(2008) Identity matters: Reflections on the construction of identity scholarship in organization studies. Organization 15(1): 5–28.

Ashforth

(2001) Role Transitions in Organizational Life: An Identity-Based Perspective. New York: Routledge.

Ashforth

(2012) The role of time in socialization dynamics. In: Wanberg

(ed) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Socialization. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 161–186.

Ashforth

Harrison

Corley

(2008) Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management 34: 325–374.

Ashforth

Kreiner

Fugate

(2000) All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review 25: 472–491.

Ashforth

Mael

(1989) Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review 14: 20–39.

Aslan

Karip

(2014) Improving the leadership standards of the principals. Educational Administration in Theory and Practice 20(3): 255–279.

Aslanargun

(2011) School administration and appointment regulations in Turkey. e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy (NWSA) 6(4): 2646–2659.

Ayral

(2016) Türkiye’de eğitim yöneticiliği ve maarif müfettişleri: Seçme, atama ve yetiştirme. In: Aypay

(ed) Okul Müdürü Yetiştirmede 2015: Sorunlar ve Gelecek. Ankara: Pegem Akademi, pp. 113–144.

10.

Balyer

Gündüz

(2011) Değişik ülkelerde okul müdürlerinin yetiştirilmesi: Türk eğitim sistemi için bir model önerisi. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi 4(2): 182–197.

11.

Beech

(2011) Liminality and the practices of identity reconstruction. Human Relations 64(2): 285–302.

12.

Biddle

(1986) Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology 12(1): 67–92.

13.

Biddle

(2013) Role Theory: Expectations, Identities, and Behaviors. New York: Academic Press.

14.

Browne-Ferrigno

(2003) Becoming a principal: Role conception, initial socialization, role-identity transformation, purposeful engagement. Educational Administration Quarterly 39(4): 468–503.

15.

Bursalıoğlu

(2002) Okul Yönetiminde Yeni Yapı ve Davranış. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

16.

Byrnes

Taylor

(2015) Voluntary transition of the CEO: Owner CEOs’ sense of self before, during and after transition. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1633.

17.

Coburn

(2005) Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy 19(3): 476–509.

18.

Conroy

O’Leary-Kelly

(2014) Letting go and moving on: Work-related identity loss and recovery. Academic Management Review 39: 67–87.

19.

Corley

Gioia

(2004) Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly 49: 173–208.

20.

Crow

Glascock

(1995) Socialization to a new conception of the principalship. Journal of Educational Administration 33(1): 22–43.

21.

Curry

(2003) Organizational flux and its destabilizing influence on employee identity. Management Decision 41(6): 558–569.

22.

Ebaugh

HRF

(1988) Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

23.

Fiol

(2002) Capitalizing on paradox: The role of language in transforming organizational identities. Organization Science 13: 653–666.

24.

Grissom

Loeb

(2011) Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal 48 (5): 1091–1123.

25.

Gümüşeli

Aİ

(2009) Primary school principals in Turkey: Their working conditions and professional profiles. International Journal of Sciences 4(4): 239–246.

26.

Hakak

(2015) Strategies for the resolution of identity ambiguity following situations of subtractive change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 51(1): 129–144.

27.

Hall

Isabella

(1985) Downward movement and career development. Organizational Dynamics, Summer: 5–23.

28.

Ibarra

Barbulescu

(2010) Identity as narrative: Prevalence, effectiveness, and consequences of narrative identity work in macro work role transitions. Academy of Management Review 35(1): 135–154.

29.

Illeris

(2014) Transformative Learning and Identity. Oxon, UK: Routledge.

30.

Jackson

(1990) Life in Classrooms. University of Chicago Press.

31.

Kauppila

(2014) So, what am I supposed to do? A multilevel examination of role clarity. Journal of Management Studies 51(5): 737–763.

32.

Knottnerus

(1997) Social structural analysis and status generalization: The contributions and potential of expectations states theory. In: Szmatka

Berger

(eds) Status, Network, and Structure. Stanford University Press, pp. 119–136.

33.

Kreiner

Ashforth

(2004) Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25: 1–27.

34.

Lee

(2015) School performance trajectories and the challenges for principal succession. Journal of Educational Administration 53(2): 262–286.

35.

Leithwood

Mascall

Strauss

Sacks

Memon

Yashkina

(2007) Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and Policy in Schools 6(1): 37–67.

36.

Levinson

(1959) Role, personality, and social structure in the organizational setting. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58(2): 170–191.

37.

Loder

Spillane

(2005) Is a principal still a teacher? US women administrators’ accounts of role conflict and role discontinuity. School Leadership & Management 25(3): 263–279.

38.

Matthews

Crow

(2003) Being and Becoming a Principal: Role Conceptions for Contemporary Principals and Assistant Principals. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

39.

Merton

(1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.

40.

Minkler

Biller

(1979) Role shock: A tool for conceptualizing stresses accompanying disruptive role transitions. Human Relations 32: 125–140.

41.

Miskel

Cosgrove

(1985) Leader succession in school setting. Review of Educational Research 55(1): 87–105.

42.

(1968) Demotion. In: Glaser

(ed) Organizational Careers: A Sourcebook for Theory. Chicago: Aldine, pp. 287–294.

43.

Nicholson

(1984) A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly 29(2): 172–191.

44.

Nicholson

West

(1989) Transitions, work histories, and careers. In: Arthur

Hall

Lawrence

(eds) Handbook of Career Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 181–202.

45.

Patton

(1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park: SAGE.

46.

Robinson

(2008) Forging the links between distributed leadership and educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration 46(2): 241–256.

47.

Sargent

(2003) Effects of a downward status transition on perceptions of career success, role performance and job identification. Australian Journal of Psychology 55(2): 114–120.

48.

Sigford

(1998) “Who Said School Administration Would be Fun?” Coping with a New Emotional and Social Reality. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

49.

Simpson

Carroll

(2008) Re-viewing “role” in processes of identity construction. Organization 15(1): 29–50.

50.

Stake

(1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

51.

Strong

Barrett

Bloom

(2002) Supporting the new principal: case studies of intensive principal induction. In: Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 2002.

52.

Stryker

Burke

(2000) The past, present and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 63: 284–297.

53.

Tonbul

Sağıroğlu

(2012) Okul müdürlerinin zorunlu yer değiştirme uygulamasina ilişkin bir araştirma. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice 18(2): 313–339.

54.

Van Maanen

(1978) People processing: Strategies of organizational socialization. Organizational Dynamics 7(1): 19–36.

55.

Watson

(2008) Managing identity: Identity work, personal predicaments and structural circumstances. Organization 15(1): 121–143.

56.

Wittman

(2018) Now bygone or lingering on? Deidentification and identity stability responses to role change. Academy of Management Review. Epub ahead of print 23 March 2018. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2015.0090.

57.

Yin

(2014) Case Study Research Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.