Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

The Role of Behavioral Complexity and Intuitive Decision-Making in Effective / Etkili Liderlikte Davranışsal Karmaşıklık ve Sezgisel Karar Vermenin Rolü

Year 2025, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, 139 - 154, 19.12.2025

Okan Sarıgöz

Abstract

Behavioral complexity involves adaptability and flexibility, while intuitive decision-making relies on instinct, experience, and intuition. These competencies enable school leaders to effectively manage themselves and others, fulfilling both managerial and leadership roles. This study employed a relational screening model as part of a quantitative research approach to explore the interplay between behavioral complexity and intuitive decision-making. The aim of this research is to examine the relationship between school leaders' behavioral complexity repertoire and their intuitive decision-making competence. The research data were collected during the 2024–2025 academic year from a total of 498 principals and vice principals serving as administrators in public schools in Hatay Province. For the purposes of the study, 42 forms that were incomplete or incorrectly filled out were excluded from the evaluation, and analyses were conducted using the remaining 456 valid forms. Findings indicate that the relationship between the intuitive decision-making competence and behavioral complexity of school leaders. The analysis revealed that there was a noteworthy positive relationship between intuitive decision-making skill levels and behavioral complexity and its sub-dimensions. In simpler terms, the study found that as school leaders’ behavioral complexity levels increase, their intuitive decision-making competence also increases. This relationship highlights the value of developing comprehensive leadership competencies that allow administrators to respond proactively to complex organizational demands and rapidly changing school conditions. Also school leaders play a crucial role in managing the multifaceted nature of school environments by leveraging their behavioral complexity skills. The results underscore the importance of these competencies in navigating the challenges of modern educational leadership.

Keywords

Behavioural complexity Decision-making strategies Educational management School leadership

References

  • Ahmad, M., & Dilshad, M. (2016). Leadership styles of public schools’ heads in Punjab: A teacher’s perspective. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 36(2), 907-916.
  • Alaybek, B., Dalal, R. S., & Dade, B. (2023). Individual differences in judgment and decision-making: Novel predictors of counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 38(5), 1043-1059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09843-x
  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press.
  • Amna, S., Farmayash, M. Z., & Shah, S. S. A. (2023). Leadership style in decision making among primary school heads: Intuitive and rationale decision-making style. Pakistan Journal of Law, Analysis and Wisdom, 2(2), 611-622. https://doi.org/10.1234/pjlaw.v2i02.93
  • Anderson, P. (1999) Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216-232.
  • Augustine-Shaw, D., & Hachiya, R. (2017). Strengthening decision-making skills of new school leaders through mentoring and service. Servant leadership: Theory and Practice, 4(1), 3.
  • Autry, J. A. (2001). The servant leader: How to build a creative team, develop great morale, and improve bottom-line performance. Roseville: Prima Publishing.
  • Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
  • Bullis, R. C. (1992). The impact of leader behavioral complexity on organizational performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.
  • Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 207-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.02.001
  • Chiang, Y. H., Hsu, C. C., & Shih, H. A. (2015). Experienced high performance work system, extroversion personality, and creativity performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(2), 531-549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-014-9403-y
  • Cole, G. A. (2003). Management: Theory and practice. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
  • Da’as, R. A., Ganon-Shilon, S., Schechter, C., and Qadach, M. (2021). Implicit leadership theory: Principals’ sense-making and cognitive complexity. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(3), 726-740. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2020-0086
  • Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.23463682
  • Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524–540. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.5.524
  • Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGrawHill.
  • Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451-482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346
  • Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership: Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence. Harvard Business Review Press.
  • Grobman, G.M. (2005). Complexity theory: A new way to look at organizational change. Public Administration Quarterly, 29(3-4), 350-382.
  • Gumport, P. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39, 67-91.
  • Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). The Role of Behavioral Complexity in Leadership and Decision Making. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 263-277.
  • Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership complexity and the development of the Leaderplex Model. Journal of Management, 23(3), 375- 409.
  • House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7
  • Kataoka, M., & Shimomura, Y. (2019). The Relationship Between Intuitive Decision Making and Behavioral Complexity in Leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 250-265.
  • Kowalski, T. J. (2013). The school superintendent: Theory, practice and cases. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544308487
  • Lambert, S. (2011). Sustainable leadership and the implication for the general further education college sector. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 35(1), 131- 148. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2010.540319
  • Landis, E. A., Hill, D., & Harvey, M. R. (2014). A synthesis of leadership theories and styles. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15(2), 97–100.
  • Lawrence, K. A., Lenk, P., & Quinn, R. E. (2009). Behavioral complexity in leadership: The psychometric properties of a new instrument to measure behavioral repertoire. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.014
  • Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Introduction: Theorizing and studying institutional work. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 1–27). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Liu, W., & Lee, K. (2017). The Role of Creative Leadership in Facilitating Intuitive Decision-Making. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(1), 1-15.
  • Lord, R. G., & Shondrick, S. J. (2011). Leadership and knowledge: Symbolic, connectionist, and embodied perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.002
  • Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2012). Educational administration: Concepts and practices (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
  • Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2010). Leadership: Theory, application, and skill development. (4. Ed.). USA: South-Western Cengage Learning.
  • Maxwell, S.E. (2000). Sample size in multiple regression analysis. Psychological Methods, 5(4), 435-458.
  • Mendes, F.F., Mendes, E. & Salleh, N. (2019). The relationship between personality and decision-making: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 111, 50-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2019.03.010
  • Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning: Reconceiving roles for planning, plans, planners. Free Press.
  • Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00158-3
  • Orlandi, L., & Paul, P. (2020). Analysis or intuition? Reframing the decision-making styles debate in technological settings. Management Decision, 58(1), 129-145. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2017-1030
  • Parsons, S., & Jennings, N. R. (1998). Argumentation and multi-agent decision making. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Interactive and Mixed-Initiative Decision Making, pages 89-91, Stanford, USA.
  • Pashiardis, P., & Brauckmann, S. (2009). Professional development needs of school principals. Commonwealth Education Partnerships, 3, 120-124.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  • Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.
  • Satish, U., & Streufert, S. (1997). The measurement of behavioral complexity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 2117-2121.
  • Sehra, S.K., Brar, Y.S., & Kaur, N. (2012). Multicriteria decision-making approach for selecting effort estimation model. International Journal of Computer Applications, 39(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.5120/4783-6989
  • Simon, H. A. (1997). Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason (Vol. 3). MIT Press.
  • Spicer, D. P., & Sadler‐Smith, E. (2005). An examination of the general decision making style questionnaire in two UK samples. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 137-149. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510579777
  • Toprakçı, E. (2017). Sınıf yönetimi (3. Baskı) Pegem.
  • Toprakci, E., & Akcay Gungor, A. (2016). Educational Policies of the Political Parties in Turkey. Educational Policy Analysis And Strategic Research, 9(1), 5-35.
  • Turner, J. R., & Baker, R. M. (2019). Complexity theory: An overview with potential applications for the social sciences. Systems, 7(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7010004
  • Uguroglu, O., & Celik, Y. (2009). Strategic leadership and characteristics in organizations. Hacettepe Journal of Health Administration, 12(2), 121–156.
  • Wang, Y. (2021). Cross-level influence of empowering leadership on constructive deviance: the different roles of organization-based self-esteem and Traditionality. Front. Psychol. 12, 185–227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.810107
  • Waters, J., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
  • Wren, J.T. (2006). A quest for a grand theory of leadership. G.R. Goethals and G.L.J. Sorenson (Ed.), The Quest for a General Theory of Leadership, In (1–38). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847202932.00008
  • Wu, J.B., Tsui, A.S., & Kinicki, A.J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. The Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 90-106.
  • Yavas, T. (2012). Effects of learned helplessness, burnout and self-efficacy perceptions of secondary education school principals and teachers on organizational learning. Doctoral Thesis. Firat University, Educational Sciences Institute.
  • Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Etkili Liderlikte Davranışsal Karmaşıklık ve Sezgisel Karar Vermenin Rolü / The Role of Behavioral Complexity and Intuitive Decision-Making in Effective

Year 2025, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, 139 - 154, 19.12.2025

Okan Sarıgöz

Abstract

Behavioral complexity involves adaptability and flexibility, while intuitive decision-making relies on instinct, experience, and intuition. These competencies enable school leaders to effectively manage themselves and others, fulfilling both managerial and leadership roles. This study employed a relational screening model as part of a quantitative research approach to explore the interplay between behavioral complexity and intuitive decision-making. The aim of this research is to examine the relationship between school leaders' behavioral complexity repertoire and their intuitive decision-making competence. The study aims to explore how leadership styles based on school leaders' behavioral complexity repertoire influence their intuitive decision-making abilities. The research data were collected during the 2024–2025 academic year from a total of 498 principals and vice principals serving as administrators in public schools in Hatay Province. For the purposes of the study, 42 forms that were incomplete or incorrectly filled out were excluded from the evaluation, and analyses were conducted using the remaining 456 valid forms. Findings indicate that the relationship between the intuitive decision-making competence and behavioral complexity of school leaders. The analysis revealed that there was a noteworthy positive relationship between intuitive decision-making skill levels and behavioral complexity and its sub-dimensions. In simpler terms, the study found that as school leaders’ behavioral complexity levels increase, their intuitive decision-making competence also increases. Also school leaders play a crucial role in managing the multifaceted nature of school environments by leveraging their behavioral complexity skills. The results underscore the importance of these competencies in navigating the challenges of modern educational leadership.

Keywords

Davranışsal karmaşıklık Karar verme stratejileri Eğitim yönetimi Okul liderliği

References

  • Ahmad, M., & Dilshad, M. (2016). Leadership styles of public schools’ heads in Punjab: A teacher’s perspective. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 36(2), 907-916.
  • Alaybek, B., Dalal, R. S., & Dade, B. (2023). Individual differences in judgment and decision-making: Novel predictors of counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 38(5), 1043-1059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09843-x
  • Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press.
  • Amna, S., Farmayash, M. Z., & Shah, S. S. A. (2023). Leadership style in decision making among primary school heads: Intuitive and rationale decision-making style. Pakistan Journal of Law, Analysis and Wisdom, 2(2), 611-622. https://doi.org/10.1234/pjlaw.v2i02.93
  • Anderson, P. (1999) Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216-232.
  • Augustine-Shaw, D., & Hachiya, R. (2017). Strengthening decision-making skills of new school leaders through mentoring and service. Servant leadership: Theory and Practice, 4(1), 3.
  • Autry, J. A. (2001). The servant leader: How to build a creative team, develop great morale, and improve bottom-line performance. Roseville: Prima Publishing.
  • Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
  • Bullis, R. C. (1992). The impact of leader behavioral complexity on organizational performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.
  • Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 207-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.02.001
  • Chiang, Y. H., Hsu, C. C., & Shih, H. A. (2015). Experienced high performance work system, extroversion personality, and creativity performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(2), 531-549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-014-9403-y
  • Cole, G. A. (2003). Management: Theory and practice. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
  • Da’as, R. A., Ganon-Shilon, S., Schechter, C., and Qadach, M. (2021). Implicit leadership theory: Principals’ sense-making and cognitive complexity. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(3), 726-740. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2020-0086
  • Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.23463682
  • Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524–540. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.5.524
  • Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGrawHill.
  • Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451-482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346
  • Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership: Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence. Harvard Business Review Press.
  • Grobman, G.M. (2005). Complexity theory: A new way to look at organizational change. Public Administration Quarterly, 29(3-4), 350-382.
  • Gumport, P. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39, 67-91.
  • Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). The Role of Behavioral Complexity in Leadership and Decision Making. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 263-277.
  • Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership complexity and the development of the Leaderplex Model. Journal of Management, 23(3), 375- 409.
  • House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7
  • Kataoka, M., & Shimomura, Y. (2019). The Relationship Between Intuitive Decision Making and Behavioral Complexity in Leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 250-265.
  • Kowalski, T. J. (2013). The school superintendent: Theory, practice and cases. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544308487
  • Lambert, S. (2011). Sustainable leadership and the implication for the general further education college sector. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 35(1), 131- 148. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2010.540319
  • Landis, E. A., Hill, D., & Harvey, M. R. (2014). A synthesis of leadership theories and styles. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15(2), 97–100.
  • Lawrence, K. A., Lenk, P., & Quinn, R. E. (2009). Behavioral complexity in leadership: The psychometric properties of a new instrument to measure behavioral repertoire. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.014
  • Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Introduction: Theorizing and studying institutional work. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 1–27). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Liu, W., & Lee, K. (2017). The Role of Creative Leadership in Facilitating Intuitive Decision-Making. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(1), 1-15.
  • Lord, R. G., & Shondrick, S. J. (2011). Leadership and knowledge: Symbolic, connectionist, and embodied perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.002
  • Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2012). Educational administration: Concepts and practices (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
  • Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2010). Leadership: Theory, application, and skill development. (4. Ed.). USA: South-Western Cengage Learning.
  • Maxwell, S.E. (2000). Sample size in multiple regression analysis. Psychological Methods, 5(4), 435-458.
  • Mendes, F.F., Mendes, E. & Salleh, N. (2019). The relationship between personality and decision-making: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 111, 50-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2019.03.010
  • Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning: Reconceiving roles for planning, plans, planners. Free Press.
  • Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00158-3
  • Orlandi, L., & Paul, P. (2020). Analysis or intuition? Reframing the decision-making styles debate in technological settings. Management Decision, 58(1), 129-145. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2017-1030
  • Parsons, S., & Jennings, N. R. (1998). Argumentation and multi-agent decision making. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Interactive and Mixed-Initiative Decision Making, pages 89-91, Stanford, USA.
  • Pashiardis, P., & Brauckmann, S. (2009). Professional development needs of school principals. Commonwealth Education Partnerships, 3, 120-124.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  • Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.
  • Satish, U., & Streufert, S. (1997). The measurement of behavioral complexity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 2117-2121.
  • Sehra, S.K., Brar, Y.S., & Kaur, N. (2012). Multicriteria decision-making approach for selecting effort estimation model. International Journal of Computer Applications, 39(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.5120/4783-6989
  • Simon, H. A. (1997). Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason (Vol. 3). MIT Press.
  • Spicer, D. P., & Sadler‐Smith, E. (2005). An examination of the general decision making style questionnaire in two UK samples. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 137-149. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510579777
  • Toprakçı, E. (2017). Sınıf yönetimi (3. Baskı) Pegem.
  • Toprakci, E., & Akcay Gungor, A. (2016). Educational Policies of the Political Parties in Turkey. Educational Policy Analysis And Strategic Research, 9(1), 5-35.
  • Turner, J. R., & Baker, R. M. (2019). Complexity theory: An overview with potential applications for the social sciences. Systems, 7(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7010004
  • Uguroglu, O., & Celik, Y. (2009). Strategic leadership and characteristics in organizations. Hacettepe Journal of Health Administration, 12(2), 121–156.
  • Wang, Y. (2021). Cross-level influence of empowering leadership on constructive deviance: the different roles of organization-based self-esteem and Traditionality. Front. Psychol. 12, 185–227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.810107
  • Waters, J., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
  • Wren, J.T. (2006). A quest for a grand theory of leadership. G.R. Goethals and G.L.J. Sorenson (Ed.), The Quest for a General Theory of Leadership, In (1–38). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847202932.00008
  • Wu, J.B., Tsui, A.S., & Kinicki, A.J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. The Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 90-106.
  • Yavas, T. (2012). Effects of learned helplessness, burnout and self-efficacy perceptions of secondary education school principals and teachers on organizational learning. Doctoral Thesis. Firat University, Educational Sciences Institute.
  • Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
There are 56 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Other Fields of Education (Other)
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Okan Sarıgöz 0000-0002-1616-9789

Submission Date August 16, 2025
Acceptance Date December 11, 2025
Publication Date December 19, 2025
Published in Issue Year 2025 Volume: 16 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Sarıgöz, O. (2025). The Role of Behavioral Complexity and Intuitive Decision-Making in Effective / Etkili Liderlikte Davranışsal Karmaşıklık ve Sezgisel Karar Vermenin Rolü. E-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(2), 139-154. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1767072

Creative Commons Lisansı
This journal uses a CC BY-NC-SA license.


[email protected]                http://www.e-ijer.com    Address: Ege University Faculty of Education İzmir/Türkiye