The Effect of Pressure Groups and the Moral Intensity on School Administrators’ Unethical Behavior: An Evaluation According to Teachers' Opinions

: In this study, it was aimed to determine the effect of pressure groups and moral intensity on school administrators' unethical behaviors according to teachers' opinions. The study group of the research, which is causal comparative research, consists of 313 teachers. The research data have been collected by adapting the Openness to Violation of Ethical Decision (OVED) scale. In the research, descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA with repeated measures and two-way ANOVA for factorial design have been applied. In the research, it has been found out that the school administrators’ possibility of behaving unethically varies according to the moral intensity and pressure groups. As the moral intensity decreases, it can be stated that the school administrators’ possibility of behaving unethically increases when the demand comes from bureaucratic and political pressure groups. The school administrators’ possibility of performing an unethical act with both low and high moral intensity shows a meaningful difference according to the pressure group and the level of relationship between the teacher and the administrator. School administrators’ possibility of performing an unethical act with high moral intensity shows a meaningful difference according to teacher’s gender. At the end of the study, some suggestions have been made by considering the limitations and results of the research.


Introduction
Unethical behaviours refer to behaviours that are unacceptable by society and are considered illegal and immoral that cause harm to others by ignoring laws, policies, regulations and organizational norms related to the sustainability of society (Brass, Butterfield & Skaggs, 1998).Given that individuals act in line with the decisions they have made (Mustamil & Quaddus, 2009), it can be said that exhibition of ethical or unethical behaviours depends on ethical decision making, as stated by Sinha and Mishra (2011).
The decision to find an issue ethical or unethical depends on the individual's personal, social, legal, organizational and professional environment, as well as many situational and individual characteristics, such as individual qualities and values, and the interaction between these characteristics (Bommer, Gratto, Gravander & Tuttle, 1987).According to some researchers, the relative importance of these individual and situational factors may vary depending on the subject.Sensitivity to the ethical problem may differ from subject to subject (Jones, 1991).For example, when the problem is the theft of a roll of photocopy paper from the Measurement, Selection and Placement Centre of the country or the theft of exam questions, individuals give different reactions to these two events although both of them are unethical because the features of the subject are important in making ethical decisions.Jones (1991) explained this situation with the concept of "moral intensity".According to the author, the moral intensity level of every subject is not the same.Features of the subject can lead to an increase or a decrease in moral intensity.Moral intensity was dimensioned by Jones (1991) as

The Effect of Pressure Groups and the Moral Intensity on School Administrators' Unethical Behavior: An Evaluation According to Teachers' Opinions
Emine ÖNDER & Ekber TOMUL Education Faculty, Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Turkey Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6912-0383Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1554-3131 "immediacy" (The social, cultural or biological proximity of the decision-maker to the individuals who are to be affected by the result of unethical behaviour) "the magnitude of consequences", "social consensus", "temporal immediacy" (The temporal proximity between unethical behaviour and its consequences), "probability of effect" and "concentration of effect".Jones (1991) considered legality within the dimension of social consensus, not as a separate dimension, as a situation prohibited by law may achieve broad social consensus.However, according to Bommer et al. (1987), socially accepted norms may not always be legal.For this reason, legality should be considered as a separate dimension.In the current study, as suggested by Bommer et al. (1987), legality is taken as a separate dimension.
Pressure groups can also be effective in individuals' decision to find an issue ethical or unethical.
According to Crane and Matten (2004), pressure groups are organizations that are "neither state nor commercial" but "involved in the promotion of specific interests and goals".Spar and La Mure (2003) define these groups as non-profit communities that are primarily organized around a certain common idea, belief or principle.These include special interest groups, activist groups, social movement organizations, charities, religious groups, protest groups and other non-profit organizations.Such groups begin to play an important role in the political system by organizing individuals into groups and then linking them to the political system (Spar & La Mure, 2003).Pressure groups seek to protect or advance their collective interests, and have the government and other state apparatus make decisions in their favour by putting pressure on them (Matthews, 1997;Spar & La Mure, 2003).According to Fassin (2009), although there are ethical values that pressure groups defend, 2014).According to some research, this appointment process is a threat to school administrators, and makes them anxious about being dismissed from their administrative post (Arabacı, Şanlı & Altun, 2015).In addition, the selection and appointment criteria of educational administrators in Turkey very often change (Aslanargun, 2011;Taş & Önder, 2010).For example, a total of 14 changes were made on this subject between 1990 and 2018.Problems related to appointment were shown as the reason for these changes.However, according to some researchers, the main reason for these changes is to solve the problem of selecting and appointing directors and this problem is not explicitly defined by those who make the changes but exists in their minds (Karip, 2018).
Moreoveer, more than two-thirds of the school administrators currently in office in Turkey are claimed to be the members of the same union.It is argued that the election of school principal is politicized and political appointments are made (www.meb.net.tr).It is also maintained that the education in Turkey has become a major battleground of religious and political groups, the efforts of these pressure groups to affect the structure and management The European Educational Researcher | 175 of the education system are getting increasingly intensified (Erdem, 2015).The dominance of religious groups in the development of education policies in Turkey is underlined (Balyer & Tabancalı, 2019).
According to Meynaud (1962), employees whose offices and appointments are firmly attached to the top management cannot resist the pressure exerted by pressure groups (as cited in Kuzu, 1985).They obey the wishes of pressure groups to keep their post.Thus, this approach to the assignment of school administrators in Turkey may leave them vulnerable to pressure groups, and as a result, school administrators can be tended to fulfil the unethical demands of pressure groups.Indeed, when the existing research is examined, it is seen that pressure groups in Turkey have directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly imposed pressure on school administrators for them to make decisions in the direction they want (Özcan, 2014;Urun & Gökçe, 2015).It is understood that there is pressure on school administrators through bureaucrats, politicians, trade unions or influential people to force them to allow unsuccessful students to pass their class, to give high marks to students, to accept past medical reports of students, to delete their absences or to change their classes.It has been determined that pressure groups make unethical demands from school administrators such as not cutting the additional tuition fees of teachers for the classes they have not taught, not opening an investigation against some teachers when necessary, accepting students from outside the registration area and recruiting members to the union (Urun & Gökçe, 2015).It has been determined that school administrators are under pressure from the senior management on issues such as hiring probationary teachers, teachers' schedule, deleting students' absences and changing their classes (Tekel & Karadağ, 2017).It has been determined that school administrators rejected some of these demands and fulfilled some of them even though they were not comfortable in their conscience (Tekel & Karadağ, 2017;Urun & Gökçe, 2015) and that they exhibited behaviours not complying with professional ethics (Argon, Çelik-Yılmaz & İsmetoğlu, 2017).
These findings give rise to this question.What determines whether a school principle reject or admit unethical demands of pressure groups?What determines this can be i) the power of pressure groups on the school principle, ii) the moral intensity of the unethical situation?When the studies conducted on this subject in Turkey are reviewed, it is seen that there is a gap, and that there is no study to offer answers to these questions.

Aim and importance of the study
In this study, it was aimed to determine the effect of pressure groups and moral intensity on school administrators' unethical behaviors according to teachers' opinions.Given that educational organizations directly affect individual and social life, it can be stated that the issue of ethics is important for schools and that educational institutions should be ethically reliable (Erdem, 2015).In addition, pressure groups sometimes prioritize their own interests over the goals of the education system, which can lead to deviations from the basic goals of education.In this case, it is important to know the role of pressure groups in school principals resorting to an unethical behaviour.It is important to answer questions such as "What unethical demands of which pressure groups do school administrators tend to obey more?What is the role of moral intensity in such behaviours?Therefore the current study is believed to bring a new perspective to the questioning of school principles' unethical behaviours, to raise awareness and to offer guidance to future research.The current study is believed to be important.
In line with purpose of the study, the following questions were tried to be answered.According to the teachers' views: 1) What are the levels performing of school administrators an unethical behavior with different moral intensity according to pressure groups?
2) Do performing of school administrators an unethical behavior under the same moral intensity differ according to pressure groups?
3) Do performing of school administrators an unethical behavior under the same moral intensity according to pressure groups differ depending on some variables?

Research model
The current study, carried out to determine the effect of pressure groups on school administrators in performing an unethical act in varying moral intensities, is a causal comparative study.In the causal comparative model, there is a naturally occurring outcome in front of the researcher.The researcher tries to determine the possible causes and effects of this outcome.In these studies, there is no constructed design or manipulation as in experimental research.In causal comparative studies, the current situation or event is examined within the current conditions without intervention, and the causes or results of the effects that a variable may have on the other variable are tried to be elicited (Büyüköztürk, Kılıç Çakmak, Akgün, Karadeniz & Demirel, 2012).
In the current study, moral intensity is defined in two different levels as low and high.Repeated measurements were performed in the study.Repeated measurement was performed simultaneously for five different pressure groups (same political opinion, religious, bureaucratic, economic and political) using the same response scale for each participant.Thus, in the study, it was tried to determine the effect of the pressure groups factor on school administrators' unethical behaviours with low and high moral intensity.

Participants
The study group of the research has been created In order to evaluate the readability and comprehensibility of the scale items, a preliminary application was conducted on a group of teachers.In this preliminary application, the majority of the teachers experienced problems in grading.Thus, Önen was contacted and upon his recommendations, the 9point Likert scale was reduced to 7-point Likert scale in order to enhance its face validity.The teachers were asked to give a point ranging from 1 to 7 to indicate the possibility of the school administrator's performing an unethical act for the pressure groups.Higher scores obtained from the scale indicate a higher possibility of performing the unethical behaviour.
In the current study, the partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was preferred to evaluate the measurement model of the scale.Smart PLS 3.2.8 was used to conduct the PLS-SEM analysis.
As a result of the analysis, at both high and low intensity, Cronbach α coefficients of all the factors were found to be higher than .96.As the indicator variability is more important in the analysis of the partial least squares structural equation modelling (Henseler, Ringle & Sinkovics, 2009), composite reliability values were checked and these values were found to be higher than .97for all the dimensions.
According to Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), this value's being higher than .70 is enough for internal consistency.Moreover, the loading values of all the scale items were found to be higher than .80.
According to Hulland (1999), factor loading of scale items should be higher than .50.Mean variance values were checked for the convergent validity considered to be an indicator that the factors are represented by the relevant items and these values were found to be higher than .87 for all the factors.A mean variance value higher than .50 is considered to be enough for the convergent validity (Henseler, Ringle & Sinkovics, 2009).The disriminant validity of the scale was performing an unethical act that is demanded by pressure groups varies significantly depending on several variables.If the averages of the data that have been obtained from the same resource are to be compared (Can, 2014), if the same person is being evaluated in the context of answers given to two different questions, if it is aimed to find out if the views have changed according to variables, the variance analysis for repeated measures can be used according to Pallant (2015).If both different groups and the same groups need to be evaluated, two-way ANOVA for factorial design is used (Can, 2014).This analysis makes it possible to gather the between-groups and within-groups variables together in the same analysis (Pallant, 2015).Here, while the groups constitute one of the directions, the measurements constitute the other (Can, 2014).
It depends on the data set to meet certain assumptions in order to get reliable results from these analyses.The first of these assumptions is the normal distribution.and thus in the current research, the data satisfy the normality assumption (Pallant, 2015).
The European Educational Researcher | 179 In addition, variances need to be homogenous in parametric analyses.This condition is checked through Levene Test and when the significance level of this test is higher than .05,variances are assumed to be homogenous.In the current research, the significance level of Levene Test (Equality of Error Variances) was found to be varying between .223 and .823 in low moral intensity, while it was found to be varying between .374 and .878 in high moral intensity.
Therefore, it is possible to say that the data set satisfies this assumption (Pallant, 2015).
In repeated measures, the assumption of sphericity needs to be satisfied.In order to test this assumption, Mouchly's Test is used.If the significance level of this test is higher than .05,then it means that the assumption has been satisfied.In the current research, this condition could not be met (p<.05).According to the literature, this condition can be rarely fulfilled in social sciences (Can, 2014).Besides, according to Pallant (2015), in multivariate statistics, the assumption of sphericity might be ignored or ways of compensating for it can be used.One of the ways of compensating for this is making a correction depending on the degree of getting distant from the condition of sphericity.

Regarding the First Research Question
In this section, school administrators' moral intensity level (low-high) and dimensions (possible magnitude of consequences, social acceptance, proximity, legality), the possibility of performing a different unethical act due to pressure groups are examined according to the teachers' views.The findings are given in Table 1 and Figure 1.
When Table 1 is examined, regardless of the moral intensity level and dimension, it is observed that it is more possible for school administrators to perform an unethical behaviour when the demand comes from bureaucratic (between  ̅ =2.50 to  ̅ =3.29) and political (between  ̅ =2.60 to  ̅ =3.33) pressure groups.School administrators' possibility of performing unethical behaviors is higher when the moral intensity is low and lower when the moral intensity is high in all dimensions.In this context, the difference is the least in the proximity dimension and the most in the legality dimension.In this case, it can be said that, except dimension of proximity, in all the dimensions, the higher the moral intensity is, the less school administrators tend to perform an unethical behavior on demand of pressure groups.Moreover, it is possible to say that when school administrators face a situation that they do not perceive as unethical, they are more concessive to pressure groups with bureaucratic and political power.These findings of the study can be seen more clearly in Figure 1.

Results Regarding the Third Research Question
In this section of the research, it was investigated whether the possibility of the school administrator's performing an unethical act at the same moral intensity varies significantly depending on some variables and the results are presented in Table 3.

Two-Way ANOVA for Factorial Design Analysis Results
Low

Question
In the research that aims to determine the effect of pressure groups and moral intensity in school administrators' tendency to perform an unethical behavior that they do not actually find ethical according to teachers' views.Except the proximity dimension, as the moral intensity increases, the level of school administrators' perceiving an issue as an ethical problem also increases and the tendency to perform an unethical behavior decreases.When the literature is reviewed, it is obvious that the moral intensity is determinant in individuals' perception of an issue as ethical or unethical (Jones, 1991;Tuana, 2007).In every stage of the ethical decision-making process, moral intensity has an important impact (Mencl & May, 2009;Paolillo & Vitell, 2002).It is defended that, in any issue that an individual faces with, as the intensity he/she feels increases, the level of that situation being perceived as an ethical problem will increase (Jones, 1991;Robin, Reidenbach & Forrest,1996) and the tendency to resist against the behavior will increase.However, in low-intensity situations, individuals are more likely to take unethical decisions (Jones, 1991).The moral intensity effects awareness and the unethical situations as high moral intensity draws the attention of the decision-maker more easily (Sağanak, 2012).In this respect, the fact that the possibility of school administrators' making ethical or unethical decisions differs according to moral intensity of an expected situation.Therefore, it is possible to say that this result is consistent with the literature.
In the current study, in the dimension of proximity, the possibility of performing an unethical behavior does not vary significantly depending on moral intensity.It is possible to say that the fulfillment level of an unethical demand from pressure groups by a school administrator shows similarity no matter the social, cultural, psychological or physical proximity of the person who is affected.Singhapakdi, Vitell and Kraft (1996) in their research, has reached a similar result; the moral intensity dimensions, except proximity, are significantly effective on an ethical behaviour.In addition to that, in the literature, it is claimed that the difference in the administrators' perception of moral intensity can be related to culture (Karande, Shankarmahesh, Rao & Rahsid, 2000), and national culture is effective in ethical decision making.In this case, the fact that the dimension of proximity does not cause any difference in unethical behaviours of school administrators can be defined by the cultural-based consequential model in the ethical decision making of Robertson and Fadil (1999) groups.When the literature is examined, it is understood that the reaction of the person who is exposed to pressure can vary depending on the power of the pressure group (Yücekök, 1987).It is seen that bureaucratic power centres play a key role in both the school administrators' falling into ethical dilemmas and their decision-making in these dilemmas (Tekel & Karadağ, 2017).When subjected to the pressures of bureaucrats, politicians and political groups, the reactions of school administrators are shaped according to the answers to such questions as "who makes rules, policies or laws?, Who is the power?(Caldwell, Shapiro & Gross, 2007;Shapiro & Hassinger, 2007).It is stated that the administrators usually make decisions that do not contradict with their executives, they choose the way that they will not need to oppose their superiors (Kirby, Paradise & Protti, 1992).They put their inner conscience aside and make decisions that will help them to continue their administrator status (Ergun, 2004).In this case, is it possible to say that this result of the research is consistent with the literature?subordinates is more qualified and close, the relationship of the administrator with the others might be poorer and less qualified (Liden, Wayne & Stilwell, 1993).The quality of the relationship between the administrator and subordinates can cause the employee to have positive feelings towards the administrator (Poon, 2006) and may affect the attitudes and behaviours of both parties towards each other (Ilies, Nahrgand & Morgeson, 2007).In this respect, it is not surprising that teachers who define their relationship with the school administrator as above middle in the current study think that school administrators are less likely to commit an unethical act with high and low moral intensity for the wish and happiness of the pressure groups.

Discussions
In addition to that, in the current research, the perception of teachers on the level of school administrators' possibility of exhibiting an unethical behavior with high moral intensity varies significantly depending on gender.It has been detected that females think that administrators behave more ethically against the demands that come from bureaucratic, economic and political groups with high moral intensity when compared to the males.In the literature, there are contradictory results about the effect of gender on the ethical behavior (Cohen., Pant & Sharp 2001;Önen, 2014;Street & Street, 2006;Sweeney, Arnold & Pierce, 2010).The fact that females think that school administrators behave more ethically against issues with high moral intensity may be because of the effect of social gender inequality.Gender, which is considered as a social status in societies, assign meanings and roles to the male and the female and may differentiate their attitudes and acts (Önder & Taş, 2014).Therefore, social roles that are attributed to females like internalizing and accepting the existing situation, being more contended (Social Gender Equality Development in Education Project [SGEDEP], 2016), being collectivist and closer to relationship values and roles that are attributed to males like being independent, masculine, confident Önder & Taş, 2014) might force females to approach the unethical issue more positively.In addition to that, the fact that most of the education administrators are males in Turkey might also have affected the findings.
Because, according to social norms, male teachers can be closer friends with the same-sex and spend more time with them in and out of the school.This process might have enabled them to observe the reactions of school administrators against unethical issues.

Conclusion and Limitations
In conclusion, in this research, it has been found that Moreover, in the current study, moral intensity is limited to "the magnitude of consequences", "social consensus," "immediacy" and "legality" dimensions and the pressure groups are limited to the same political opinion, religious, bureaucratic, economic and political power groups.While the results of the research are being evaluated, some limitations of the research should be considered.
Considering the limitations and results of the research, some suggestions have been developed: The European Educational Researcher | 187 1) Although, the aim of the current study is not to generalize, to reach more general results, similar kind of research in which different models are used in more normal circumstances needs to be carried out with different samples in the future.
2) The fact that bureaucratic and political pressure groups are more determinative in school administrators' making unethical decisions might result from the current administrator assignment approach.In this regard, by detecting the competencies of administrators, administrators who have the qualities and abilities needed in today's world should be assigned according to qualification procedures to be able to decrease the effect of pressure groups on school administrators.
3) Ethical decision making is a very hard behavior that needs effort and it can be affected by many elements like beliefs, values of administrators.However, in education administration, when the qualifications will be taken into account, the technical qualifications are usually of top priority.The humanitarian and moral features are being ignored during assignments (Hodgkinson, 2004).This may increase the probability of school administrators' possibility of performing unethical behaviours.Therefore, measures can be taken in order to assign administrators with humanitarian and moral qualifications, besides technical qualifications.
when they gain power, some of their behavioural patterns may not always reflect the ethical values they defend.The authority of appointing school administrators in Turkey is in the Ministry of National Education.School administrators are selected from among the teachers in the Ministry staff and assigned for four years.School directors who have completed a fouryear term in their educational institution can be assigned to the same or different educational institutions for another four years.Similarly, the assignment period of school administrators may be extended later (Ministry of Nationl Education [MNE], through random sampling method.Teachers working in public schools in the city of Burdur during the 2017-2018 academic year and accepting to participate on a volunteer basis have been included in the research.In this way, a total of 327 teachers have been reached.However, because of missing data and scales that are filled incorrectly, the analyses of the research have been made on data collected from 313 teachers.Of the participating teachers, 51.9% (n:163) are females and 46.5% (n:146) are males and 1.6% (n:5) of the teachers did not indicate their gender.Of the participating teachers 22.6% (n:71) work in primary schools, 32.8% (n:103) of them work in middle schools and 44.3% (n:139) of them work in high schools.The average working period of the teachers in those schools is 6.3 years and the average working period with the same administrator is 3.11 years.InstrumentsThe data of the current study were collected by adapting the Openness to Violation of Ethical Decisions (OVED) scale developed byÖnen and Kondakçı (2017).Önen and Kondakçı (2017) stated that the scale can be administered to different stakeholders in research to be conducted in educational institutions.The OVED scale consists of the person negatively affected" and "legality".In each dimension, there is one item corresponding to low moral intensity and one item corresponding to high moral intensity.Thus, four of the items in the scale comprised of a total of 8 items correspond to high moral intensity and the other four items to low moral intensity.The scale is a 9-point Likert scale.In the original scale developed by Önen and Kondakçı, the Cronbach α coefficients were found to be higher than .88 and the composite reliability values were found to be higher than .90for all the factors.The convergent validity of the scale was checked with the explained mean variance values and this value was found to be higher than .50for all the factors.Cross-loading values were analyzed for the discriminant validity and none of the correlation squares was found to be higher than the mean variance value of any construct.Moreover, none of the crossloading values of the items was found to be higher than the factor loading it has in the related factor.Önen and Kondakçı stated that the scale has the adequate discriminant validity.The scale items are kept as they are in the original scale; only stakeholders were replaced by pressure groups.The scale items in the dimension of "magnitude of possible consequences" are given below as examples to the scale items."When an unethical behaviour is likely to cause a serious harm to a person or group, what is the extent to which your school administrator can fulfil the request of the following person/ group?" (High moral intensity) "When an unethical behaviour is likely to cause an unimportant/minor harm to a person or group, what is the extent to which your school administrator can fulfil the request of the following person/ group?(Low moral intensity) checked by looking at the cross-loading values and by comparing the explained mean variance values of the factors with the correlation squares with the other factors.As the explained mean variance values are higher than the correlation squares with the other factors(Fornell & Lacker, 1981)  and the loading values of the items in the other factors are smaller than their loading values in their own factor(Hair, Ringle & Sarstedt, 2011), the scale can be claimed to have the discriminant validity.Data analysisOn demand of pressure groups, school administrators' possibility of performing an unethical behavior in varying moral intensity was examined through arithmetic mean ( ̅ ) and standard deviation (sd) values.One-way ANOVA with repeated measures was conducted to determine whether the possibility of school administrators' committing an unethical behavior in relation to a subject having low/high moral intensity varies depending on pressure groups.Twoway ANOVA for factorial design was applied to find out whether the possibility of school administrators' . According to Robertson and Fadil, besides moral intensity, cultural value differences of individuals can have important effect on ethical decision-making.At this point, the researchers who have drawn on Hofstede's behavior division of individualism/collectivism have been defending what is right for individualistic people is actions that increase individual gains and decrease losses.These individuals prefer to do what is right for them rather than doing the right thing.Their finding a behavior ethical or not changes according to what benefits the results provide for them(Teale, Dispenza, Flynn & Currie, 2003).In this case, these people follow the ethical egoism theory while making decisions, and take action with the attitude of "I do not recognize even my father".Therefore, according to teachers' views, that school administrators ignore the relationship they have with the person who will be affected in the proximity dimension and in low and high moral intensity, their attitude with the same point of view might be a reflection of ethical egoism and individualistic behavior.In the current research, it has been found that the effect of moral intensity varies significantly according to the dimensions of the decision-making model.The difference between the high and low moral intensity increases from the dimension of proximity towards the dimensions of possible magnitude of consequences, social acceptance and legality.The biggest difference between low and high moral intensity is in the dimension of legality.It is a big risk to commit a behavior that is illegal for others and it can be very costly for the worker.Therefore, it is not surprising that in illegal issues, the commitment of unethical behaviours decreases.Jones (1991) also emphasizes this point.Although Jones has discussed legality in social acceptance and has not discussed it as a different dimension, he has emphasized that the strongest social acceptance can be provided by laws.A situation that is banned by laws provides wide social acceptance.He has stated that strong social acceptance decreases the uncertainty in the ethical issue and increases moral intensity; therefore, it increases the tendency to ethical behaviour.Thus, individuals do not approach to all the ethical issues with the same sensitivity, the ethical sensitivity of people can change according to social acceptance and laws and in human beings' tendency to ethical behaviour, legal restrictions are effective.Discussions Regarding the Second Research Question Another result of the research is that the possibility of school administrators' performing an unethical act with either low or high moral intensity varies significantly according to pressure groups.The difference is between the political and bureaucratic pressure groups and religious groups, same political opinion and economic pressure groups.Political and bureaucratic pressure groups have more impact on administrators' tendency to commit unethical behaviours of both moral intensities.In other words, whether the moral intensity is low or high, the behaviours of school administrators change according to the pressure group when they face with unethical demands.In such cases, school administrators make more concessions to groups with political and bureaucratic power.The approach towards the appointment of school administrators in Turkey may have increased the effect of bureaucratic and political pressure groups on school administrators and this might have made it difficult for school administrators to say "No" to the unethical demands of these pressure The European Educational Researcher | 185 Regarding the Third ResearchQuestionAnother result of the study is that the perception concerning school administrators' possibility of performaing an unethical act with low and high moral intensity varies significantly according to the weak or strong administrator-teacher relationship.The teacher who defines their relationship as poor, has a more negative judgment on school administrators' performing unethical acts with low and high moral intensity.According to the leader-member exchange theory, it is not possible to speak about a homogenous relationship between the workers and the administrators(Schriesheim, Castro & Cogliser, 1999).The worker and administrator relationship may develop in formal or informal ways and it may change according to limitations of resource and time.Instead of establishing the same kind of relationships with all the workers, the administrator may establish different types of relationships with several subordinates and share different things with them.While the relationship between the administrator and some pressure groups and moral intensity are determinative in school administrators' possibility of perfoming a behavior that they do not find ethical.The possibility of school administrators' commiting an unethical act increases when the moral intensity is low and the demand comes from bureaucratic and political pressure groups.The teacher who defines their relationship as poor, has a more negative judgment on school administrators' performing unethical acts with low and high moral intensity.The female teachers think that administrators behave more ethically against the demands that come from bureaucratic, economic and political groups with high moral intensity when compared to the males.The results of the research are important for estimating the potential unethical behaviours that school administrators might perform, for preventing or controlling the effect of pressure groups on school administrators.This study has some limitations.The first limitation of the research is that the level of school administrators' performing an unethical behavior has been determined based on the perceptions of teachers who work in public school in the city of Burdur.The results obtained may not represent other school administrators.The second limitation is that the research data have been collected while the state of emergency was continuing following the FETÖ coup attempt.The third limitation of the research is the feature of the research subject.The second and third limitation might have both played a key role in teachers' participating in the research voluntarily and might have formed their perception.Moreover, in the research, the person who performs an unethical behavior (the administrator) and the people who benefit from this behavior (the pressure groups) are different; the data on school administrators' possibility of performing unethical behaviours have been collected from teachers.

Table 1 .
The Possibility of Performing a Different Moral Intensity Unethical Act due to Pressure Groups