{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03930091046346708, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02738253191197328, 'mean_word_length': 5.481097108969607, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 7, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Role of Charismatic Leader in School Culture

Article History: Purpose: This study aims to investigate the level at which the charismatic leadership style of school principals perceived by teachers predicts the school culture. Research Method: The correlational model, a quantitative research model, was conducted. In this study, 490 teachers participated in Uskudar, Istanbul. The School Culture Scale (Terzi, 2005) and the Charismatic Leadership Scale (Conger & Kanungo, 1994) were used to measure the teacher’s perception of the charismatic leadership and school culture. Received: 17 Jul. 2019 Received in revised form: 01 Oct. 2019 Accepted: 10 Mar. 2020 DOI: 10.14689/ejer.2020.86.5


Introduction
The most distinguishing characteristic of successful and effective organizations is their culture. Thus, today's complexities and uncertainties have increased the importance of culture for organizations. Organizations, by developing a clear and plain organization culture that is accepted by employees, adapt to the uncertainties, changes and competition environment and improve their competitiveness (Cameron & Quinn, 2017), and gain advantages by positively influencing the organizational performance, the motivation of the members and the change (Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2000;Deal & Kennedy, 1982;Ouchi, 1981;Schein, 1988Schein, , 1990Schein, , 2004Schein, , 2009). Thus, the considerable importance of culture for the organization's life has been acknowledged. Due to such characteristics of culture, it is an important necessity for the effectiveness of an organization to identify the factors that constitute and influence the organizational culture (Anthony, 1994).
Culture is an abstract concept that is difficult to define (Dimmock & Walker, 2005;Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohavy, & Sanders, 1990). Culture is a complement of norms, values, beliefs, traditions and rituals (Peterson & Deal, 1998) created and shared (Hofstede et al., 1990), learned and transferred (Sisman, 2014) by the members of a certain social group or society that distinguish people in a certain group from those in another group (Keyton, 2005;Riutort, 2017), and provide unity of sentiments and thoughts (Hancerlioglu, 2018). Schein (2004, p. 17), on the other hand, defines culture as follows: A pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 17).
Schein's definition focuses on the ways new members of an organization learn the culture, assumptions upheld deeply, because any organization can have multiple cultures (Keyton, 2005). In short, culture means "the historical transfer of the patterns of sense" (Terzi, 2005, p. 424). These patterns of sense are expressed in beliefs. Organizational culture, on the other hand, is the sum of common senses that arise from the interactions among, and are shared by, the members of an organization (beliefs, sentiments, behaviors and symbols, norms, values, philosophies, perspectives, beliefs, attitudes, myths or ceremonies), interconnect the sub-systems of the organization, create an identity for the organization, and distinguish the organization from other organizations (Hoy & Miskel, 2012;Keyton, 2005;Lunenberg & Ornstein, 2013;Robbins & Judge, 2013;Turner & Crang, 1996). Each organization has a culture, and the cultural differences of organizations manifest themselves as various symbols, heroes, rituals, and values. Symbols are words, gestures, images, or objects that have a certain meaning recognized by those who share the culture. Heroes are people with invaluable qualities that act as a role model in culture. Rituals are collective activities considered socially necessary to achieve the desired objectives. Values are the inclination to prefer certain situations more than others (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010;Schein, 2004). Schein (2004) and Hofstede et al. (1990) state that there is no consensus among the research on the definition of organizational culture, but that they agree on the characteristics of it. Organizational culture is the language, terminology, rituals and ceremonies used by the members of an organization in their interactions, the principles (observed behaviors), acceptable standard behaviors (norms), shared values (dominant values), principles for how the organization will treat its employees (philosophy of life), the "ropes" that ensure the harmony within the organization and enable new members to hold on within the organization (rules), and the overall atmosphere controlling the organization (sentiments) (Schein, 2004). Culture is holistic, has a historical background, is related to anthropological concepts, is constructed socially, and is hard to change (Hofstede et al., 1990). According to Lunenberg and Ornstein (2013), these characteristics cannot represent organizational culture alone. However, taken as a whole, they mean the organization's culture (Schein, 2004).
According to Ouchi (1981), organizations have a culture just as nations and people have their own (Hofstede et al., 1990). Since culture consists of unwritten rules (Hofstede et al., 2010), it serves to enable new members to adapt to the organization, the organization to adapt to the internal and external environment, compete and gain control of the environment. An organization culture emerges from the complex and constant interaction network among the members of the organization (Keyton, 2005) and emphasizes what is valuable for the members and how they must think, feel and behave (Turner & Crange, 1996). According to Schein (2004), culture is the shared learning that contains the behavioral, sentimental and cognitive elements of a certain group. These shared learning are named as culture and turn into certain patterns over time. A review of the organizational culture literature shows that different models of organizational culture are presented. For example, Cameron and Quinn (2017) classified organizational culture as a hierarchy (control) culture, market (competition) culture, clan (cooperation) culture, and adhocracy (creative) culture, while Wallach (1983) classified it as bureaucratic culture, innovative culture and supportive culture. Handy (1995) used the ancient Greek gods to symbolize the management cultures or philosophies. According to Handy, there are four types of management culture or philosophy in organizations. These are club-power (Zeus), role (Apollo), mission (Athena) and individual-existentialist (Dionysus) cultures. Denison and Mishra (1995) analyzed organizational culture on two main axes. The first main axis is an organization's ability to adapt to external factors and achieve internal integration. The second main axis is change, flexibility, stability and direction capacities. Although researchers agree that organizations have different cultural structures and that an organization has multiple cultures, they presented different organizational models while explaining the organizational culture. The main reason for this difference may be the different perspectives of the researchers of the organizational culture or the different areas of service they analyzed in the organizations.
Organizational culture is one of the most fundamental characteristics of organizations and may lead to positive organizational results (Peterson & Deal, 2002). Organizational culture creates and shapes a managerial competence with values and norms to improve organizational performance. Managerial competence subsumes elements, such as knowledge and skills, for leaders to perform their roles and duties in the best way (Hofstede et al., 1990). Leaders are considered a critical variable in determining organizations' success or failure (Schein, 2004). For, today is regarded as a very complex time, which expects many things from leaders (Bennis, 2016). Leadership is not only about visions, transformations and transactions (Antonakis & House, 2013). According to Conger (1989), leadership is the art of empowering others. Considering the complex nature of leadership, there is no, and may never be, a specific and widely recognized definition of it (Antonakis, Cianciolo, & Sternberg, 2004). In this respect, the question to answer is, "What qualities must effective leaders have?". McEwan (2018) established that effective leaders were communication experts, a trainer, had a vision, were a facilitator, change experts, motivator, productive, a character architect, encouraging and had the qualities of a cultural architect. Leaders also enable the achievement of organizational harmony (Antonakis, 2006). Thus, the qualities of the leaders working at the organization's senior management reflect the organizational culture. Particularly, the approach of senior managers with leadership characteristics at organizations to the general and work life, their values, attitudes, and behaviors identify with the organization and turn into organizational values and principles over time (Baytok, 2006). Leaders influence the culture, just as the cultural influences leaders. In other words, an organizational culture largely flourishes from leaders, and organizational culture can also influence the development of leaders. Cultures of effective organizations are created by their leaders, and leaders build a culture that supports the vision (Bass & Avolio, 1993). If the ideas suggested by leaders work and continue to work, assumptions that once belonged to the leader slowly turn into shared assumptions (Schein, 2004). Leaders act carefully because they believe that their organizational culture is unique and could be an effective tool to attract quality employees and distinguish their organization from the competition (Keyton, 2005). Culture is the result of a complex group learning process influenced by the leader's behaviors. In this sense, leadership and culture are conceptually intertwined (Schein, 2004).
Values, thoughts and behaviors that form the essence of leadership are social and interactive processes, and as a result, influenced culturally (Dimmock & Walker, 2005). Leadership is the source of the beliefs and values that enable one to move while dealing with a group's internal and external problems at the beginning. It is difficult to imagine that social processes, including the organizational culture, would occur without the efforts of leaders (Trice & Beyer, 1991). According to Schein (1985), leadership is critically important for creating and managing the culture and the essence of leadership. Therefore, leaders should read the culture very well, evaluate it, empower or transform it (Peterson & Deal, 2002).
Leading the change of culture means unlocking the key to the mysteries of organizations (Fullan, 2007). However, "Does culture determine the leadership behaviors or do leadership behaviors change the culture?" is not an important question to answer. Schein (2004) answers this question as leaders are considered the creators, transformers and managers of organizational culture. Culture and leadership are the two sides of the medallion because leaders while creating groups and organizations, create a culture as well. Once the culture was created in the organization, it determines the leadership criteria and who can be the leader or not (Schein, 2004). Although culture has different impacts on the emergence of different leader types and their performance, an important aspect of organizational culture allows us to draw some general conclusions about the emergence of leaders and their performance (Mumford, Hunter, Friedrich & Caughron, 2009). At the organizational level, a strong organizational culture encourages the emergence of leaders and their performance and prevents the emergence and performance of leaders who advocate culturally inconsistent visions (Mumford et al., 2009). The research conducted by Schein (2004) on culture showed that the culture of a new culture was influenced by the organization's leader. On the other hand, leaders that entered organizations that had an established culture did not influence the culture equally. The latter shows that an established culture began to define leadership. In this sense, a charismatic leader can be considered a key to cultural change if he/she emerges under appropriate circumstances (Bell, 2013). A charismatic leader, followers and organization culture interact with each other (Arsenault, 1999). While charismatic leaders allow their followers to act freely on the reasons for achieving the goals, they influence and control through goals (Mumford et al., 2009). While charismatic leaders try to create an internal unity with organizational values to create an organizational culture, they create an external harmony with the vision (Eren, Alpkan, & Ergun, 2003), playing an active role in the creation of a culture.
The concept of charisma historically derived from an old Greek word ) meaning "gift" (House, 1976, and was frequently used in political and religious domains (Choi, 2006). Although the concept was first used by Aristotle, the concept of charismatic leadership was first used by Weber (1947). The word charisma was first regarded as a special talent that gives some people the potential of doing extraordinary things (Northouse, 2014). Gifts that enable Lord to show extraordinary qualities, such as prophecy and healing, were considered (charisma) by the Church of Christianity Conger, Kanungo, Menon, & Mathur, 1997). However, Weber used the concept of charisma as an umbrella term for social change and innovation in essence (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). It also spread across different fields, such as sociology, organizational research, and anthropology (Sy, Horton, & Riggio, 2018), to define leaders (House, 1976). Charisma is a quality that is "felt" and later attributed by followers to a leader. This makes charisma rare but is easily observed if it exists (Bell, 2013). Charisma provides a vision and a feeling of mission (Bass, 1990), is a values-based, symbolic, and emotion-laden leader signaling (Antonakis, Bastardoz, Jacquart, & Shamir, 2016). Charisma can be "verified" only by the perception of followers. Therefore, the very powerful influence of charisma on followers and its theoretical nature must be considered (Antonakis, Fenley, & Liechti, 2011).
Weber defined the powers of authority in society and developed three ideal typologies. These are the charismatic authority, the traditional authority, and rationallegal authority Conger et al., 1997). According to Weber, legal authority is based on the belief that those ascended to the position of dominance are entitled to give orders; traditional authority is based on the established belief that traditions are sacred and that those who exercise power based on these traditions are legitimate; and charismatic authority is based on the sanctity, heroism or exemplary qualities of an individual. In other words, Weber argues that charismatic authority derives its legitimacy, not from traditions or laws, but the belief in the leader's exemplary quality . Trice and Beyer (1986) and Weber (1947) summarized its theory in five items. (1) An extraordinarily talented person, (2) a circumstance of social crisis or desperation, (3) a series of ideas offering a radical solution for the crisis, (4) a series of followers who attract the exceptional person to themselves and believe that the exceptional person is directly connected to the transcendental powers and (5) the verification of the extraordinary gifts and transcendence of that person with repeated achievements. According to Weber, charisma is a rarely seen phenomenon, and therefore, followers perceive the leader as someone with extraordinary qualities (Beyer, 1999;House, 1976). There are, however, researchers who argue that charisma may be a more common phenomenon (Beyer, 1999).
A charismatic leader is generally considered related to social change and renewal. Charismatic authority in Weber's theory typically emerges during crisis times that break both traditions and rational rule (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). In this sense, charismatic leadership develops in three stages: The first stage is examining and defining the opportunities and threats related to the environment as well as employee needs and demands. The second stage is developing and spreading a vision. The third stage is implementing the vision that exhibits a personal risk and uncommon behavior (Nikoloski, 2015).
Weber, being the first person to explain that a charismatic leader influences his/her followers (Antonakis, 2012), argued that charismatic leadership was very important for both continuity and change (Trice & Beyer, 1991). In this respect, the belief that charismatic leadership is the most suitable type of leadership that can achieve largescale organizational changes has made it a subject of research on an organizational level (Conger et al., 1997). House (1977), being the first person to offer a theoretical framework to explain the behaviors of charismatic leaders, focused on the psychological influence of charismatic leaders on their followers (Antonakis, 2012). Since Weber (1947) and House (1977) introduced the charismatic leadership, many theoretical and empirical studies have sprung on the subject (e.g. Antonakis, 2006Antonakis, , 2012Antonakis & Atwater, 2002;Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003;Antonakis et al., 2016;Antonakis et al., 2004;Antonakis et al., 2011;Banks, Engemann, Williams, Gooty, McCauley, & Medaugh, 2017;Bryman, 1992;Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988, 1994Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000;Conger et al., 1997;House, 1976;Mhatre & Riggio, 2014;Shamir, 1999;Yukl, 1999). These studies and theories suggest that charismatic leadership is an indispensable to and vital for organizational life. In other words, today's competition, uncertainty, and change influence an organization's life and structures. In such an environment, the need for charismatic leaders increases to sustain organizational harmony, members, and culture (Shamir, 1999).
According to Conger and Kanungo (1987), leadership is an attribution to a person identified at the organization. Attributions to the leader may not be available equally across all leaders (Gul & Col, 2003). Therefore, which qualities of leaders will be considered charismatic by the members of an organization vary. According to Shamir (1999), a charismatic leader is a combination of "an inspiring vision, mitigating concerns, providing a sense, a feeling of control, a strong trust relationship between leader and member." Conger and Kanungo (1987, 1994, 1998 listed the qualities of a charismatic leader as "setting a vision, environmental sensitivity, exhibiting extraordinary behaviors, taking personal risk, sensitivity to member needs and not maintaining the status quo," Charismatic leaders are effective when they are in harmony with the values, ideals, and identities of their followers. Such harmony provides an environment for charismatic leaders to create a higher social identity and to internalize the goals their followers believe (Mhatre & Riggio, 2014). Charismatic leaders are not vision setters but also need other qualities to pioneer the organization. Therefore, they must articulate a vision, show empathy, and empower them to achieve motivation (Choi, 2006). The literature on charismatic leadership attributes three personal qualities to charismatic leaders: Extreme self-confidence, dominance, the need to influence, and a strong belief in the moral integrity of beliefs (House, 1976). Also, the sociological and political science literature gives some clues about the behaviors of charismatic leaders. Being a role model, creating a personal image, articulating objectives, having high expectations and trust in followers, being sensitive to followers' expectations are motivating behaviors (House, 1976).
Followers of charismatic leaders are assumed to be distinguishable by their greater reverence, trust, and satisfaction with their leader and a heightened sense of collective identity, perceived group task performance and feelings of empowerment (Conger et al., 2000). A charismatic leader is defined as an individual who quickly motivates the group in the face of an emergency, and charismatic leadership is the process of the emergence of such leaders and influencing the follower behavior (Grabo, Spisak, & van Vugt, 2017). Charismatic leaders can produce radical social changes (Bacon, 2009), and in this sense, are important for organizational reforms .
Charismatic leaders can formulate inspiring visions and behaviors that foster the impression that they and their mission are extraordinary (Cicero & Pierro, 2007). The observed behavior of charismatic leaders is interpreted by their followers as an expression of their charisma. Charismatic leaders differ from other leaders by their behaviors and actions that foster the impression that they and their mission are extraordinary with an inspirational vision (Conger et al., 2000) and achieve great personal loyalty from their followers (Bryman, 1993). Charismatic leadership can be recognized but is a leadership style that can be perceived as less concretely than other leadership styles (Bell, 2013).
Charismatic leaders are considered the leading agents of change in organizational change (Beyer, 1999;Conger & Kanungo, 1998;Fiol, Harris, & House, 1999;House, 1977;Ladkin, 2006;Seyranian & Bligh, 2008;Shamir & Howell, 1999;Waldman & Javidan, 2002;Yukl, 1999). For example, an organizational change may lead to concerns, or challenge the interests of influential groups, and therefore, may lead to a crisis for charismatic leaders. This crisis is perceived as a threat to the common interests and identity of the group (Levay, 2010), and creates a favorable atmosphere for charismatic leadership to emerge. The group members react as part of the situational context and ensure the attribution of charisma to the leader. What is suggested here is that charisma attribution by followers is intertwined with both the behaviors and contextual conditions of the leader (Bell, 2013).
According to House (1992), the personal qualities of charismatic leaders that have a specific charismatic influence on their followers encompass being dominant and having strong desires, self-confidence, and sound moral values to influence others. Again, charismatic leaders are strong role models, appear competent, articulate objectives, communicate high expectations, give confidence, and exhibit behaviors that arouse motives (Norhouse, 2014). Charismatic leaders use effective communication, formulate a vision, give confidence, have the expertise, are sensitive to situational context (Bell, 2013), use images and are persuasive in communicating the vision. This way, they create an intense emotional connection with their followers (Antonakis, 2012). Charismatic leaders, as individuals who completely adhere to their vision and action style, firmly believe in the rightfulness of their mission and final success and are able to communicate this to their followers (Fiedler, 1996), do not maintain the status quo (Banks et al., 2017) and can create the needed change. Charismatic leaders put their own interests aside and are, therefore, highly revered by their dedicated followers (Antonakis, 2012). A charismatic leader is assumed to influence introducing a radical change with beliefs and values different than the established order (House, 1976). (i) Order, (ii) complexity, (iii) professionalism, (iv) politics and (v) culture are noticeable in the emergence of charismatic leaders and the shaping of their performance (Mumford et al., 2009).
Charismatic leaders more usually emerge during the transitional and crisis times of organizations (Mumford et al., 2009;Zel, 2011). Followers idealize these leaders who become role model for them, provide them with a vision and goal, look strong and self-confident and pay attention to the moral and ethical implications of their decisions (Antonakis, 2012). A charismatic leader, on the other hand, links his/her followers with the organizational identity (Northouse, 2014) and influence their motivation and performance (Antonakis, 2012;House, 1976). Charismatic leaders may or may not influence the organization's achievement of its goals, but their followers are blind, obedient, and loyal (Fiedler, 1996). In other words, followers appear to obey, be loyal, and committed to the leader without question (House, 1976).
Given that organizations have different cultural structures, this results in them exhibiting different behaviors and different reactions to organizational change (Gizir, 2008). Here, to understand the structure of an organization, the organization, and its employees must be dealt with and examined from a cultural perspective (Schein, 2004). If it is understood how the culture emerged, who is influential, how it developed and changed, then the culture, which is an abstraction, can be better understood in mind. The present study was designed to identify the connection between charismatic leadership and organizational culture based on Schein's (1990Schein's ( , 2004 views that highlight the relationship between culture and leader. Specifically, the study aims to identify the relationship between the charismatic leadership behaviors of school principals and the organizational culture and how well the charismatic leadership is a predictor of the organizational culture. Culture shapes how people think, feel, and act at schools, connect the school society together (Peterson & Deal, 1998) and encourages students to learn (Peterson, 2002). The stronger the school culture is, the more satisfactory and motivated teachers will be, and the higher the student academic success will be (Cheng, 1993). While the culture strongly influences the behaviors of the employees of an organization (Schein, 2004), the role of charismatic leadership in school culture has not been researched (Trice & Beyer, 1993). The present study attempts to identify the relationship between the charismatic leadership style of school principals and the school culture based on the perceptions of teachers working at a public primary school, middle school, and high school. Teacher's perception of leadership is usually based on the behaviors of leaders and which models leaders observe daily (Britton, 2018). The net effect of a charismatic leader binds together the students, teachers, and other employees, the followers who fulfill the school objectives (Sergiovanni, 1984). Sergiovanni argues that perfect schools are distinguished from other schools by their cultural characteristics. Teachers, leaders, students and parents are the groups that both influence and are influenced by the school culture (Koni, 2017). The leadership style of a principal develops, encourages, and feeds a positive school culture (Le Clear, 2005).
Charismatic leaders are a value for the school culture. Charismatic leaders will play an important role in ensuring the change and development of the cultural structure of organizations. Therefore, the present study has emerged to identify the level at which the charismatic leadership styles of school principals influence the school culture since the previous researches were conducted outside the educational institutions of the Ministry of National Education and there is a limited number of studies focusing on these two variables. The present research was conducted to analyze the role charismatic leaders play in the school culture. Identifying the role of a charismatic leader in the school culture may contribute to the practitioners and researchers during the school process. In this sense, the purpose of this research is to determine the influence of the charismatic leadership style of school principals perceived by teachers on managing school culture. For this overall purpose, answers to the following subobjectives were sought: 1. Is there a significant relationship between the charismatic leadership style of school principals perceived by teachers and the school culture? 2. Is the charismatic leadership style of school principals perceived by teachers a predictor of the school culture?

Research Model
Since this research aims to identify the relationship between the charismatic leadership style of school principals perceived by teachers and the school culture and whether charismatic leadership style is a predictor of the school culture, a quantitative research model, correlational survey model, was used. The correlational model is a research model used to determine whether two variables are related or whether a variable is a predictor of another variable (Creswell, 2012;Isaac & Michael, 1995). Prediction is used to predict the variables that are likely to affect or predict future behavior (Hart, Bergstrom, Chapa, Chowdhury, & Dion, 2012;Mishra & Silakari, 2012).

Research Sample
The research population consists of teachers working at public schools in Uskudar, Istanbul, during the 2018-2019 academic year. The sample was selected using a stratified sampling method. While using this method, the schools were first partitioned into primary schools, middle schools, and high schools, followed by a simple random sampling to select five schools from each school type. The stratified sampling method is the method that allows the sub-populations of a population to be represented satisfactorily within a sample. Four hundred ninety teachers in total from the schools selected using the stratified sampling method volunteered to participate in this study. 294 (60%) of the 490 participant teachers are female while 196 (40%) thereof is male. 147 (30%) of the teachers work at primary schools, 180 (39.7%) thereof at middle schools, and 163 (33.3%) thereof at high schools. The length of service of 63 teachers (12.9%) is 5 years or less, that of 92 teachers (18.8%) is 6-10 years, that of 106 teachers (21.6%) is 11-15 years, that of 125 teachers (%25.5) is 16-20 years, and that of 104 teachers (21.2%) is 21 years or above. 422 (86.1%) of the participant teachers have an undergraduate degree while 68 (13.9%) thereof have a graduate degree.

Research Instruments
Two different scales were used in this research. The School Culture Scale (SCS) with 29 items and four sub-dimensions developed by Terzi (2005) was used to determine the teacher's perception of school culture. The School Culture Scale consists of four sub-dimensions, including support culture, success culture, bureaucratic culture, and mission culture. The support culture expresses the commitment in bilateral relationships, honest and open communication and cooperation based on trust, and supports the members of the organization that perform their jobs successfully and fulfill the goals in the success culture. While standards and rules are paid attention in the bureaucratic culture, in the mission culture, on the other hand, organizational goals, rather than individual goals, are paid attention rather than individual goals. In this study, confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the construct validity of the scale, and it was found that the scale had acceptable fit values according to chi-square and fit indexes [  (Cokluk, Sekercioglu, & Buyukozturk, 2018;Hu & Bentler, 1999;Kline, 2016;Ozdamar, 2017;Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müler, 2003;Schumacker & Lomax, 2010;Tabachnick & Fidell, 2015). The Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient of the School Culture Scale in the research was calculated as 0.904.
To identify the teacher's perception of charismatic leadership, the Charismatic Leadership Scale (CLS) with 24 items and six sub-dimensions (articulating a vision, sensitivity to the environment, exhibiting unconventional behaviors, taking personal risk, sensitivity to member needs, not maintaining the status quo) developed by  was used. The scale was adapted by Gül (2003) to Turkish. While adapting the scale, four items were excluded because they disrupted the factor load and distribution. In the study, confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the construct validity of the scale, and it was found that the scale had good fit values according to chi-square and fit indexes [x 2 /df=423.294/153=2.767; RMR=.066; SRMR=.0574; GFI=.921; AGFI=.891; IFI=.968; NFI=.951; TLI=.961; CFI=.968; RMSEA=.060] (Cokluk et al., 2018;Hu & Bentler, 1999;Kline, 2016;Ozdamar, 2017;Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003;Schumacker & Lomax, 2010;Tabachnick & Fidell, 2015). The Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient of the Charismatic Leadership Scale in the research was calculated as 0.948.

Data Analysis
The data obtained were analyzed using SPSS program. For the normality assumption, kurtosis and skewness values were calculated before analyzing the data. According to Morgan, Leech, Gloeckner and Barrett (2004), for the data to show normal distribution, the skewness and kurtosis values must be between -1 and +1. The kurtosis and skewness values of the scales are given in Table 1. Data were analyzed by correlation and regression analyses. The correlation and regression statistical data analysis techniques were applied to investigate the relations between the variables. When Table 1 is examined, it is seen that the kurtosis and skewness values of the data are between -1 and +1. According to this criterion, it was decided that the data had a normal distribution. Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between charismatic leadership and school culture. Simple regression analysis was performed to determine whether the charismatic leadership style predicts school culture.

Results
The relationship between charismatic leadership and the school culture subdimensions are presented in Table 2 below. According to the correlation analysis in Table 2, there is a low-level relationship between charismatic leadership and bureaucratic culture; medium-level, positive and significant relationship between charismatic leadership, and mission culture support culture and success culture (p<.01). While the most significant relationship is between charismatic leadership and success culture (r=0.603; p<.01), the least significant relationship is between charismatic leadership and bureaucratic culture (r=0.235; p<.01).
The results of the simple regression analysis performed to determine whether or not the charismatic leadership style of school principals perceived by teachers is a predictor of the school culture are presented in Table 3. When Table 3 is examined, charismatic leadership is a significant predictor of (respectively from the most significant to the least significant) the success culture (R=.603, R²=.364, F=279.26, p<.000), support culture (R=.593, R²=.351, F=264.07, p<.000), mission culture (R=.543, R²=.295, F=204.52, p<.000) and bureaucratic culture (R=.5235, R²=.055, F=28.42, p<.000). However, although the charismatic leadership style significantly predicts the bureaucratic school culture, the prediction level is very low. According to the regression analysis, the regression equation (mathematical model) on the prediction by the charismatic leadership style of school principals of mission support, success, and bureaucratic school cultures are presented below. The charismatic leadership style of school principals perceived by teachers explains 29% of the total variance in mission culture, 35% of the total variance in support culture, 36% of the total variance in success culture and 5% of the total variance in bureaucratic culture. However, although the total variance in bureaucratic culture is significant, it is not considerable. The B coefficient shows that there is a positive relationship between the charismatic leadership style and school cultures. The standardized regression coefficient (β) shows how much change a one-unit change in the predictor variable charismatic leadership style will lead to in the dependent variable school culture. For example, a 0.453 increase in the charismatic leadership style leads to a 0.543 positive change in the mission culture. In other words, the charismatic leadership style of school principals positively and significantly influences the mission culture, support culture, and success culture.

Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations
Education is a social process and aims to provide individuals with and improve certain behaviors (Lewin, 1948). Schools have an obligation to fulfill this aim as targeted and in a prescribed quality. Therefore, effective management and effective leadership at schools are essential (Bush, 2018). When the leadership models and styles are examined, although there are different alternative approaches, none of them alone guarantees the effective management and leadership of schools. Although each leadership model or style has virtues and limitations, it must be remembered that it may vary based on the school's environment, employees, administrators, and situational circumstances. According to Bush (2018), since these leadership models enlighten some aspects of the school while keeping some in the dark, some negative consequences may occur to the detriment of both the leader and the organization (Conger, 1990). This is exactly why the school cultures should first be analyzed to investigate the school characteristics. The present research was designed to seek answers to the question, "Who shapes school culture?" (Peterson & Deal, 1998). According to Turner and Crang (1996), the better a school's culture is understood and harmonious, the better it can act in harmony with the ideals it desires to achieve and goals it desires to pursue. Leadership behaviors that support a culture encouraging the student learning to characterize an effective school (Gawerecki, 2004). School principals can shape the changes in school culture by improving their leadership knowledge, skills, and behaviors (Hallinger, 2003). This view is considered valuable as school leaders strive to create an effective school (Gruenert & Valentine, 1998). It is the duty of school leaders to define, shape, and maintain a strong, positive, and student-focused culture. Without such supportive cultures, reforms would be lost, and student learning would not be achieved as targeted (Peterson & Deal, 1998). Gawerecki (2004), in his research, revealed the importance of school leaders for developing a strong and cooperative culture that encouraged an effective learning program and curriculum and stated that such culture affected students' academic success.
Generally, leadership qualities of school principals influence the school culture (Le Clear, 2005;Schein, 2004;Sergiovanni & Corbally, 1984). In this respect, it is assumed that a charismatic leader influences introducing a radical change with beliefs and values different than the established order (House, 1976) and that school principal, as a charismatic leader, can build a culture-specific to the school (Sergiovanni, 1984). The results of the analyses performed in line with the purpose of the research show that there is a significant and low-level relationship between charismatic leadership and bureaucratic school culture and that there is a significant, positive and mediumlevel relationship between charismatic leadership and success, support and mission cultures. School principals must possess and exhibit charismatic leadership qualities in practice to shape the success, support, and mission cultures. Also, according to the teacher's perceptions, charismatic leadership qualities of school principals are an important and significant predictor of the school, mission, and support cultures except for the bureaucratic school culture. In other words, it has been empirically proved that charismatic leadership qualities of school principals play an important role in shaping the success, mission, and support school cultures. In the literature, Aykanat (2010), Gul and Aykanat (2012) found that charismatic leadership behaviors influenced creating an organizational culture at public organizations. Particularly, there is a stronger relationship between the quality of being sensitive to the environment of the charismatic leaders and the organizational culture, and the charismatic leadership qualities can significantly explain the organizational culture. The charismatic leadership behaviors have been found to influence creating an organizational culture (Sandybayev & Yilmaz, 2015). Again, another research found that there was a relationship between the school culture and the charismatic leadership style of the school principals and that the charismatic leadership style exhibited by the school principals was a predictor of the organizational culture (Cheng, 1993). These findings support the literature on charismatic leadership and culture and are consistent with the other research findings.
When we approach the shaping of the organization culture in the context of school, school leaders play an important role in shaping and implementing a school culture (Britton, 2018) and are a key to shaping the school culture. School leaders, while shaping the culture, first read the culture. Second, they identify the disruptive and constructive aspects of the culture. Lastly, they work to strengthen the positive cultural elements and change the negative and non-functional ones (Peterson & Deal, 1998). The school culture is an invisible power that mobilizes all of the individuals at the school in line with the same goals and is behind all of the actions at the school. The school culture regulates what is important for the school society and how the members must think, feel, and behave (Turner & Crang, 1996). Koni (2017) and Turner and Crang (1996) state that changing a school culture requires patience, flexibility, and adaptability. Therefore, school leaders, while shaping the school culture, must honor employees who serve the students and the school objective and recognize the achievements of the personnel, students and school society (Peterson & Deal, 1998).
The present study does not explain the casual relationship since it is a crosssectional study. Therefore, it cannot be deduced from this study that "the reason for school culture is the charismatic leader." The findings support the importance and necessity of the charismatic leader and the school culture for discussions on the school development and school effectiveness. In this context, teachers mostly regard school administrators who articulate a vision, are sensitive to the environmental situations, opposing the status quo and bureaucratic structure, take risks and respond to the member needs as a charismatic leader and think that they positively contribute to creating/managing the school culture. When the results are evaluated together, it can be suggested that charismatic leaders who know, understand and influence the school culture can be successful. School principals must understand that they have significant potential and role in creating, communicating, and changing the school culture. The charismatic leadership role of school principals in shaping the school culture must be emphasized. School principals must spend considerable time, energy, and resources to change and manage the culture. Studies show that a leader on every level can be trained charisma (Bass, 1990). Leadership, also including charisma, can be developed (Fiedler, 1972;Antonakis et al., 2011). As a result, school principals can be offered training in charismatic leadership and school culture.