 

- .._A n ‘4‘. - M 4 h. ‘1...’ “- _

 

STRUCTURAL EFFECTS: PREVAILING
ORIENTATIONS OF TEACHERS TOWARD
TEACHER STRIKES, COLLECTIVE
NEGOTIATIONS, AND PRINCIPAL’S
AUTHORITY AND PRINCIPALS’
ORIENTATIONS TOWARD BUREAUCRATIC
SUPERVISION

Thesis for the Degree of 'M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
LARRY DEAN THOMPSON
1969

THESIS

 
     

 

 

  

. , I . ‘ I, ,,
LIBRARY

Michigan State -
Univerzity

  
       

 
 

BINDING BY
IIIIAII & SONS'
BOOK BRIBERY INC.

l IRRIRV IINDE RS

; IE§~= g‘ a a?!

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

STRUCTURAL EFFECTS: PREVAILING ORIENTATIONS OF
TEACHERS TOWARD TEACHER STRIKES, COLLECTIVE
NEGOTIATIONS, AND PRINCIPAL"S AUTHORITY
AND PRINCIPALS' ORIENTATIONS TOWARD
BUREAUCRATIC SUPERVISION

by

Larry Dean Thompson

The primary purpose of this study was that of ex-
amining a method of ascertaining the possible group deter-
mination of leadership behavior in work groups located within
organizational settings. Because professional groups were
likely to emphasize collegial values and resist bureaucratic
supervision, the relationship between professionals and
bureaucratic supervisors offered an excellent Opportunity to
study the possible group determination of leadership behavior.

The setting of this study was the school. Five large
Michigan school districts of approximately equal size were
examined in this study. These districts were Dearborn, Flint,
Grand Rapids, Lansing and Saginaw. Fifty-three public schools
(Grades K-12) were selected on the basis of a stratified,
random sample of each district. Self-administered question-
naires were given both to the teachers in the schools and

school principals.

 

Larry Dean Thompson

Blau's technique for isolating structural effects
was modified as to isolate a structural effect upon a single
member of a group, the formal leader. Three measures of
social values in the schools--the prevailing value orienta-
tion of the teachers toward the principal's authority, col-
lective negotiations, and teacher strikes-—were expected to
exert external influences concerning the principals' re-
sponses to questions of supervisory or leadership practice,
independent of the principals' individual value orientations.

The results of the study have indicated that no
substantive relationship can definitely be established between
the principal's responses to questions of supervisory prac-
tice and the prevailing value orientation of the teachers in
a school on any of the three social value variables studied.

However, although there was no consistent pattern
of relationships, the expected results of direct structural
effects of social values were observed in several cases.
Thus, it is believed that this study has demonstrated the
viability of utilizing modifications of Blau's technique for
isolating structural effects as a method for studying group

determination of leadership behavior.

 

STRUCTURAL EFFECTS: PREVAILING ORIENTATIONS OF
TEACHERS TOWARD TEACHER STRIKES, COLLECTIVE
NEGOTIATIONS, AND PRINCIPAL'S AUTHORITY
AND PRINCIPALS' ORIENTATIONS TOWARD

BUREAUCRATIC SUPERVISION

BY

Larry Dean Thompson

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1969

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Philip M. Marcus for his
patience, encouragement and advice throughout the preparation
and writing of this project.

I would also like to thank Dr. Peter K. Manning and
Mr. Vincent Salvo for their continued aid and thoughtful
advice.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to
Miss Brenda Taggart. Miss Taggart's help and encouragement
have been invaluable to me throughout the preparation of

this project.

ii

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0 iv
INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1
THEORY AND LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Human Relations School . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Influence Of Group 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 9
Blau's Technique for Isolating Structural
Effects 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 12
SETTING OF STUDY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 15
HYPOTHESES AND STUDY DESIGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A Modification of Blau's Technique . . . . . . . . 19
Dependent Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Independent Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
conSiderations O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 26
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Principal's Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Collective Negotiations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Teacher Strikes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Overview of Relationships. . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
CONCLUSIONS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 50
BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 53
APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 55

iii

 

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Performance Scores by Rate and Frequency of
Discussion (Blau's Hypothetical Data). . . . . . 13

Relationship Between Attitude Toward Union '
and Supervisory Style (Hypothetical Data). . . . 20

School's Prevailing Value Orientation

Toward Principal's Authority, Principal's

Value Orientation Toward Authority,_and Prin-

cipal's Presonse to Items Concerning Super—

visory Practice. . . . . . . . . .‘. . . . . . . 31

School's Prevailing Value Orientation Toward
Collective Negotiations, Principal's Value
Orientation Toward Collective Negotiations,

and Principal's Response to Items Concerning
Supervisory Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4O

School's Prevailing Value Orientation Toward

Teacher Strikes, Principal's Value Orienta—

tion Toward Teacher Strikes, and Principal's

Response to Items Concerning Supervisory

Practice . . . . . . . . .7. . . . . . . . . . . 43

School's Prevailing Value Orientation Toward

Teacher Strikes, Principal's Value Orienta-

tion Toward Teacher Strikes, and Principal's

Response to Items Concerning Leadership

Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

iv

1‘
u 3

{a YC

 

INTRODUCTION

There has been a great amount of interest within the
social sciences concerning leadership and group behavior.
The interest in this relationship between leadership and
group behavior has largely stemed from what has come to be
referred to as the "Human Relations School" of industrial
sociology, social psychology and psychology. Faunce referred
to this approach, noting the influence of Kurt Lewin, as the
group dynamics point of view.1 However, for purposes of
this study, Human Relations will be the term used. The
Human Relations school pointed out the importance of leader-
ship for setting and enforcing group norms and the difference
between formal and informal leadership.2 Research conducted
by Likert and his associates at the University of Michigan's
Survey Research Center has further advanced the Human Rela—
tions approach. Likert has stated that supervisory attitudes
and behavior are major "causal influences" in the determina-

tion of group behavior. Simply stated, in the Human Relations

 

1William A. Faunce, Readings in Industrial Sociology,
New York, Appleton, Century, Crofts, 1967, p. 286.

2Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, PrentiCe-Hall, Inc., 1966, p. 36.

 

 

approach, leadership or supervisory style was taken to be
the independent variable while group behavior or group cli-
mate was taken to be the dependent variable.

However, social psychologists have noted that leader
behavior was subject to group determination. The social
psychologist, Gibb, reported that the expectations of fol-
lowers, the nature of the tasks, and the institutionalization
of the group were all factors that contributedto group deter-
mination of leadership behavior. Most of the studies that
demonstrate group determination of leadership behavior were
conducted, using the language of Homans, in small, autonomous
experimental groups. This can be.contrasted with the fact
that a great deal, if not most, of the Human Relations studies
were conducted within an organizational setting.

Yet, concerning work groups located within organiza-
tional settings, the question can be raised, "What is the
association between leadership behavior and possible group
influence?"

Do the relationships noted in small, experimental
groups concerning group determination of leadership behavior
suddenly vanish in a more diffuse setting? What was clearly
needed in this area was a method to study the possible group
determination of leadership behavior in work groups located
within organizational settings.

Because professional groups were likely to emphasize

collegial values and resist bureaucratic supervision, the

re]

 

 

3
relationship between professionals and bureaucratic super-
visors offered an excellent opportunity to study the possible

group determination of leadership behavior.

 

THEORY AND LITERATURE

The Human Relations School

 

The Human Relations school pointed out the importance
of leadership for setting and enforcing group norms and the
difference between informal and formal leadership. This was
especially demonstrated on the important Bank Wiring Room
Study. However, it was noted in the Bank Wiring Room Study

that the supervisor was under great pressure to conform to

 

the norms of the groups of Which he was supposed to be” in

 

charge.3 Later Human Relations studies showed that a fore-
man or a person in a supervisory position was more likely to
be accepted if he exercised what had become known as the
Human Relations style of leadership. In recent years,_Amer-
ican business and management personnel devoted a great amount
of time and money to training programs emphasizing the Human
Relations style of leadership. The assumption underlying all
of this work was that the nature of human relations in the
plant or any setting was primarily determined by the Human

Relations skills of the peOple in the leadership position.4

 

31bid., p. 36.

4William F. Whyte, "Human Relations—-A Progress
Report,“ in Etzioni (ed.), Complex Organizations, New York,
Holt, Reinhart and Winston, Inc., 1961, p. 100.

 

In the tradition of the.Human Relations school, one
of the earliest and most important studies demonstrating the
influence of leadership upon a group's behavior was conducted
by Lippit and White.5 Lippit and White assigned three types
of leaders--authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire--
to direct children in arts and craft work in four different
clubs. It was found that the groups reacted differently to
the three types of leadership.

Indirectly related to the various attempts to apply
Lippit and White's findings to groups in industrial and other
organizational settings to improve the effectiveness of for-
mal leadership was the study by Coch and French.6 Coch and
French demonstrated that democratic-type.1eadership permitted
participation which greatly affected the workers' attitudes
toward changes in their jobs.

Perhaps some of the most important and certainly
representative of Human Relations studies were those done by
the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan's
Institute for Social Research. Under the guidance of Rensis

Likert, the Survey Research Center has had great.influence

 

5Ronald Lippit and Ralph K. White, "An Experimental
Study of Leadership and Group Life," in Maccoby et al (ed.),
Readings in Social PsycholOgY: New York, Henry HoIt and Co.,
1958, p. 233. I

6Lester Coch and John R. P. French, Jr., "Overcoming
Resistance to Change,“ in Maccoby et al (ed.), Readings in
Social Psychology, New York, Henry Holt and Co., 1958, p. 233.

 

 

 

in establishing certain assumptions concerning leadership

and supervisory styles. The reSults of the work conducted

by Likert at the Survey Research Center confirmed what was

suggested by earlier Human Relations research. Likert noted

that many supervisors adhered to the traditional concepts of

management characterized by the Scientific Management school

of thought of Frederick Taylor. However, Likert reported

that supervisors in the high--as Opposed to the low--producing

work groups utilized human relations skills in leadership.7

Likert termed these human relations oriented supervisors as

being "employee-centered." Supervisors adhering to the more

traditional concept of management were termed as "job-centered."8
Likert noted that Katz and his associates found that

general rather than close supervision was associated with

high rather than a low level of productivity.9 High-producing

supervisors were characterized by giving their subordinates

operational freedom to perform the job. Supervisors in

charge of low-producing units tended to spend more time with

their subordinates than did the high-producing supervisors,

and the time was divided into many short periods in which

they gave specific instructions.10

 

7Rensis Likert, New PatternS'of'Management, New York,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961, p. 12.

8

 

‘Ibid., p. 12.
‘9Ibid., p. 14.

loIbid., p. 14.

 

Likert.stated that the pattern of results in these
studies suggested a general principle underlying the behavior

of the effective supervisor. Likert termed it the'principle
ll

 

of supportive relationships:

 

The leadership and other processes of the organization
must be such as to ensure a maximum probability that in
all interactions and all relationships within the organi-
zation each member will, in the light of his background,
values, and expectations,_view the experience as sup-
portive and one which builds and maintains his sense of
personal worth and importance.

Tannenbaum summarized Likert's principle and stated
that it in general implied that (l) the supportive supervisor
was sensitive to the needs and feelings of his subordinates,
(2) he respected and trusted his subordinates, (3) he was
receptive to their ideas and suggestions, (4) he had a sin—

cere interest in the welfare of his men.12

Explicit through—
out the Michigan Survey Research Center's studies-was the
assumption that the effective supervisor emphasized the

human relation function as leadership style. In fact, Likert
stated that the results of his research indicated that “EEEEET
visory attitudes and behavior tend to be major causal influ—
EEEE§°"13

Human Relations research has had great influence in

establishing the importance of leadership and supervisory

 

llIbid., p. 103.

12Arnold S. Tannenbaum, Social Psychology of Work
Organization, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1965, p. 74.

13

 

Likert, p. 12.

 

style on_group behavior. Miller and Form noted that in most
of these research designs productivity was taken as the
dependent variable, supervisory practice as the independent
variable and morale as the intervening variable.14 However,
one can simply state that leadership or supervisory style

was taken to be the independent variable while group behavior
or group climate was taken to be the dependent variable.

The purpose of this study was not to challenge the
results of those many Human Relations studies that.indicated
the importance of leadership practices in affecting changes
in group behavior and climate. Using a different type of
work situation that characterized most Human Relations
studies, we planned to explore a question that had been
raised by social psychologists. The question concerned the
relationship between the leader and the group. Was the
leader the important determinant of group behavior? Or, was
the leader's behavior a result of group influence? In
terms of Human Relations research, were the adjustments and
performance of subordinates the result or the cause of super-
visory practice? What was sought in this study was not a
determination of causal relationships but rather a greater
understanding of the association between group influence and

leadership or supervisory behavior.

 

14Delbert Miller and William H. Form, Industrial
SociOIOgy, New York, Harper and Row, 1964, p. 689.

 

 

 

Influence of Group

 

The importance of social values in relation to the
influence the group has upon its members had been noted by
students of social structure. Social values may be defined
as common orientations toward social conduct that prevail in
a sociéty orjgroup.15 Since Durkheim, students of social
structure have been concerned with the question of whether
or not the prevalence of social values in a community or
.group exerted social pressures upon patterns of individual
conduct that were independent of the influences exerted by

individual internalized orientations.16

This was the ques-
tion with which Durkheim was concerned in his classic study,
Suicide. Durkheim demonstrated that anomie in the marital
institutions of society--operationally measured by divorce
rates--was more responsible for high suicide rates than the
individual psychological state of the divorcee. To do this,
Durkheim demonstrated that married as well as divorced
individuals have higher suicide rates in societies where

divorce is more prevalent than those where it was less 50.17

In relation to this Blau has noted:18

 

 

15Peter M. Blau, "Structural Effects," American I
Sociological Review, Volume 25, 1960, p. 179. L/
16

Ibid., p. 179.

l7Ibid., p. 179.

lBIbid., p. 179.

x"

 

10

The structural effects of a social value can be
isolated by showing that the association between its
prevalence in a community or group and certain patterns
of conduct is independent of whether an individual holds
this value or not.

Homans pointed out that in terms of leadership in a

small group, the leader controlled the group, yet he was in a
sense more controlled by it than the other members. It was

a condition of his leadership that the leader's actions and
decisions conform more closely than those of the others to

an abstract group norm.19

Gibb noted that leader behavior was found to be

subject to group determination. The expectations of the
followers, the nature of the task, and the institutionaliza-
tion of the group were all factors in the situation within
which the leader behaved and was influenced.20

Gibb also pointed out the importance of bureaucracy

and leadership. Leadership in a formal organization differed
from leadership in the informal organization. The leader in
the large bureaucratic organization could not be as represen-
tative in his behavior as could the informal leader of a

smaller primarygroup.21 Selznick pointed out various re-

straints and devices the bureaucratic leader had to employ

 

19George C. Homans, The Human Group, New York, Har-

court, Brace and World, Inc., 1950, p. 188.

20Cecil A. Gibb, "Leadership," in Linzey (ed.), Hand-
book of Social PsycholOgy, Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley
Co., 1954, p. 917.

21

 

 

Ibid., p. 921.

ll

22 Selznick termed

toward the maintenance of his position.
the bureaucratic leader as "an agent of the led." Thus, a
leader who got too far away from the interests and attitudes
of members in such a bureaucratic organization could lose his
following or influence.

An experimental study by Merei using groups of chil-
dren demonstrated that the leader did not always determine
organizational goals and performance. The results of Merei's
observations were that the children's groups absorbed the
leader and forced their traditions upon him.23

As the preceding discussion has shown, leadership
behavior had been found to be subject to group determination.
However, like Merei's study, most studies which showed group
determination of leader behavior were conducted using small,
autonomous experimentalgroups.24 Few studies had been con-
ducted within the context of an organization setting. What
was clearly needed in this area was a method to study the

possibility of group determination of leadership behavior in

work groups located within an organizational setting.

 

22Philip Selznick, “The Leader as Agent of Led," in
Dubin (ed.), Human Relations in Administration, New York,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951, p. 289.

23Ferenc Merei, "Group Leadership and Institution-
alization," in Maccoby et al (eds.), Readings in Social
Psychology, New York, Henry Holt and Co., 1958, p. 522.

. 24See,_however, David Mechanic, "Sources of Power of
Lower Participants in Complex Organizations,"'Administrative
Science Quarterly, Volume 7, 1963, p. 349.

 

 

 

 

 

12

Blau's Technique for Isolating
Structural Effects

 

 

Peter M. Blau's technique for isolating structural
effects offered such a method. Blau's technique for iso-
lating structural effects may be summarized as follows:25

1. An empirical measure (this can be termed Z) was
obtained that pertained to a characteristic of individual
group members that had direct or indirect bearing upon their
relations to each other (e.g., group identification, social
values, or rate of communication).

2. The scores from measure Z, which described individ-
uals, were combined into one index for each group, and this
index no longer referred to any characteristic of individ-
uals but to a characteristic of the group, ng. Thus, any
individual could be characterized in terms of his own score
along, variable Z and his group's score, variable 29p.

3. To isolate a structural effect, the relationship
between group attribute (ng) and some dependent variable,
(this can be termed W) was determined while the character-
istic of individuals (Z)-—or an individual-—was held con-

stant. The structural effect thus referred to the effect

of 29p on W.

 

25This section closely follows Peter M. Blau "Formal
Organizations: Dimensions of Analysis," American Journal of
Socioloqy, Volume 63, 1957, pp. 58-69 and Arnold S. Tannen-
baum and Jerold G. Bachman, "Structural Versus Individual
Effects," American Journal of Sociology, Volume 69, 1964,
pp. 585-595.

 

 

 

13

This method was illustrated by Blau through hypo-
thetical data presented in Table l in which five hundred
persons were assumed to be arranged in fifty groups of about
ten members each. Blau suggested that a structural effect
was demonstrated by the differences in average performance
scores between the two columns in the table. Blau stated,
"This finding would show that even when the effect of the
individual's discussion rate of his problems on his perfor-
mance is eliminated, just to be in a group where communication

flows freely improves performance--other things being equal."26

Table l.--Performance Scores by Rate and Frequency of Discus-
sion (Blau's Hypothetical Data)

 

 

 

Individuals Who Discuss Group Most of Whose Members
Their Problems Discuss Their Problems
Rarely Often
Often .65 .85
RarEIY .40 .70

 

Regarding structural effects, it was recognized that
one may define structural constructs as opposed to purely
individual variables for purposes of group or organizational

theory. Blau noted that his method of isolating structural

 

26Blau,."Formal Organizations . . .,V p. 64.

14

effects differentiated the effects of structural variables
upon patterns of action from the influence exerted by char-
acteristics of individual level relationships.27
Blau divided structural effects into two categories.
The first was concerned with the consequences of the common
values or shared norms of a collectivity, and the second
dealt with networks of social relationships or distribution
of social positions.28 Also, Blau noted that either of these
two basic aspects of the social structure could have direct

29 (These

effects, inverse effects, and contingency effects.
effects will be examined later in this study.)
Structural effects of common values indicated the
influence upon an individual that resulted from the shared
values of the other members of the group.30‘
Structural effects of relational networks attempted
to theoretically remove the supportive or constraining force
exerted by the social organization of the relationships
between individuals in a collectivity from the influences of
each member's (or member) interpersonal relationships or

social status.31

 

27Blau, "Structural Effects,“ p. 191.

28Ibid., p. 191.

29Ibid., p. 191.

3°lbid., p. 191.

3lIbid., p. 191.

SETTING OF STUDY

The setting of this study was the school. Five large
Michigan school districts of approximately equal size were
examined in this study. These districts were Dearborn, Flint,
Grand Rapids, Lansing and Saginaw. Fifty-three public schools
(Grades K-12) were selected on the basis of a stratified,
random sample of each district. Self-administered question-
naires were given both to the teachers in the schools and
school principals. In this study, the teachers within the
various schools were taken as comprising the.various work
groups. The principals were taken as the formal leaders or
supervisors of the work organization. It was noted that
there were important differences between teachers who repre-
sented a professional occupation and the industrial and
clerical workers who were used in most Human Relations studies
in terms of training, status, autonomy in work situation and
importance of collegial values. However, it was not the
purpose of this study to test the assumptions of the Human
Relations studies but rather to gain a greater understanding
of group determination of leader behavior.

Bidwell noted in his summary discussion of authority
structures in the school that the positions of Waller and

Getzels offered alternative points of View: dominative

15

l6

authority resulting from a basic difference in the orienta-
tion of teachers and administrators as opposed to collegial
authority based upon the common occupational background of
teachers and administrators.32
Becker pointed out in his study of Chicago public
school teachers that the authority of administrators in

33 In the area of student-

relation to teachers was limited.
parent relations, the teachers accepted the official author-
ity of the principal as legitimate. These teachers, on the
other hand, did not accept the principal's official author-
ity as legitimate in the areas of curriculum and instruction.
Here they viewed the principal as a colleague and expected
him to base his supervision of instruction on professional
competence, giving advice rather than orders.

Becker's study was especially relevant because it
indicated that group determination or influence upon leader
behavior was possible within professional work groups located
within an organizational setting. .There was evidence of the
collegial authority of teachers and the principal's apparent
limited acquiescence in the face of its realization.

Like many large-scale organizations, the schools

have encountered the problems of professionals in organizations.

 

32Charles Bidwell, "The School as a Formal Organiza-
tion,“ in March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Chicago,
Rand McNally, 1965, p. 1004.

33Howard 8. Becker, "The Teacher in the Authority
System of the Public School," in Etzioni (ed.), Complex
Organizations, New York, Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, Inc.,
1961, p. 243.

 

 

17

Scott outlined several areas of role conflict associated
with the differences between the professional and bureau-

cratic models of organization and among them was the profes-

u o o a u 34
s1onal's re51stance to bureaucratic superV151on. The

increasing specialization and expertise of teachers have
‘given rise to teacher demands for autonomy and profession-
alization. This has conflicted with school administrative
needs for bureaucratic authority and for mechanisms of inte-
gration and coordination. Wildman noted that as a result of
such conflicting forces, teachers have become more active

in teacher professional organizations which are adding collec-

35

tive negotiations to their responsibilities. These organi-

zations have reinforced the professional image of teachers

by dissiminating information about the job and providing

symbols which could be shared by all members. Marcus stated:36

The professional organizations then, become a mech-

anism for standardizing the relationship between teachers
and administrators. The number of directives and pro-
liferation of rules that administrators can initiate
unilaterally are limited without teacher involvement.
. . . Administrators are forced to ad0pt new roles for
themselves and acquire new abilities or staff to devote
their energies to teaching and not to vocal and inter-
fering parents. ‘

 

34W. R. Scott, "Professionals in Bureaucracies-Areas
of Conflict," in Vollmer and Mills (eds.), Professionaliza-
tion, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,_Prentice-Ha11, Inc.,
1530, pp, 265-275.

35Wesly Wildman, "Implications of Teacher Bargaining
for School Administration,V‘Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 46, 1964,
pp. 152-158. ’

36Philip M. Marcus, "Bureaucratization and Profession-
alization: Converging Forces at the Negotiating Table in
Public Education," in progress.

 

 

18

Thus we can see that professional teacher organizations
have begun to force readjustments between teachers and admin-
istrators. Recent teacher organization militancy in the state
of Michigan has brought about several changes altering the

37 Officials at

traditional teacher-principal relationship.
the annual meeting of the American Association of School
Administrators stated that teacher militancy--expressed in
the increasing tendency among teacher organizations toward
collective negotiations and strikes as a viable means of
affecting changes in their job situation--was the major con-

38 Principals

cern among the administrators in attendance.
have become unwilling to relinquish some of their traditional
supervisory prerogatives involving curriculum and job assign—
ments.

Because teachers and teacher organizations have
become increasingly concerned about matters such as profes-
sionalization, the relationship between teachers and their
bureaucratic supervisors, principals, offered an excellent
opportunity to study the possibility of group determination

of leadership behavior in work groups located within an

organizational setting.

 

37"Teacher Militance No. 1 Issue," Lansing State
Journal, February 17, 1969, p. 9.

 

381bid.

HYPOTHESES AND STUDY DESIGN

A Modification of Blau's
Technique

 

 

It was the basic assumption of this study that by
utilizing Blau's method of isolating structural effects,
group determination of leadership behavior could be demon-
strated. Blau's technique was modified to isolate a struc-
tural effect upon a single member of a group. Instead of
looking at the influence of structural effects.upon each
member taken across dichotomous collectivities, attention
was focused upon a single individual that occupied a partic-
ular status or position. For example, in the situation of
the work group located within an organizational setting, this
position was that of the formal leader. Using this tech-
nique, it was possible to test the hypothesis of group deter-
mination of leadership behavior in work groups located within
organizational settings.

This modification of Blau's technique could be demon-
strated through the following hypothetical data. Fifty-three
work groups and their leaders were classified according to
their attitudes concerning employee unions. The leaders were
classified according to their attitudes toward supervision.
The results of an analysis of these data are presented in
Table 2.

19

20

Table 2---Re1ationship Between Attitude Toward Union and
Supervisory Style (Hypothetical Data)

 

Group Attitude Toward Union

 

Favorable Unfavorable
Style of Supervision Leader's Attitude Leader's Attitude
+ - + -
General 70% 65% 60% 30%
Close 30 35 40 70

 

From this table, it was demonstrated that even when
the effect of an individual's attitude toward the union was
held constant, to be in a group where attitude toward the
union was high influenced a leader's orientation toward

supervisory style.

Dependent Variables

 

The responses of fifty-three public school principals
to selected items were used to indicate orientation toward
various leadership or supervisory practices. The principals
responded to each item on a five-point scale. The items
used were as follows:

It should be permissable for a teacher to violate a
rule if he believes the student's best interests will be
served. (Permissable to violate rule)

Every teacher's procedures, assignments and rate of
progress through a course should be unique to him and his

own sense of judgment. (Teacher's own sense of judgment)

Teachers should not be transferred from one course
to another as the need arises. (Transfer)

21

The ultimate authority over the major educational
decisions should be exercised by the teachers in the subject
area. (Ultimate authority by teachers)

'A teacher should be able to make his own decisions
about problems that come up in the classroom. (Teacher make
own decisions)

Extent exchange information, Opinions, and ideas
about doing your job with the building representatives of
the MBA or MFT in your school. (Exchange information with
building representative)

Extent eager to organize principals into a bargaining
unit separate from teachers and superintendents. (Organize
principals)

Extent eager to unite with teachers in their bar-
gaining unit. (Unite with teachers)

Each of these items represented various aspects of
bureaucratic leadership or supervisory practice that were
relevant to the formal leader position of school principal.
A favorable response to these items represented the general,

supportive style of supervision advocated by Likert and his

 

associates. The items that dealt with "organize principals"
and "unite with teachers" did not portray dimensions Of
Likert's management concepts, but rather, were included
because they represented relevant observations concerning
the influence of the social value items that dealt with
teacher strikes and collective negotiations. The expected
association of the leadership or supervisory practice items
with each other was that of a consistent interrelationship.
In other words, it was expected that each of the supervisory
practice items would be related to the independent variables

in the same direction.

22

Independent Variables

 

As noted the structural effects of common values
indicated the influence upon an individual that resulted
from the shared values Of other members of the group. Becker
noted that the authority Of principals in relation to teachers
was limited. Wildman noted that strong and increasingly
militant professional teacher organizations forced readjust-
ments in the relationships between principals and teachers.
It was expected that the prevailing value orientation within
the school toward collective negotiations and teacher strikes
would influence the principals' responses to questions con—
cerned with leadership or supervisory practice.. These two
independent variables represented general indicators of the
prevailing value orientation within the schools toward the
militance of teacher organizations. Teachers in schools in
which the prevailing value orientation toward teacher strikes
and collective negotiations was favorable were expected to
favor the complex Of issues and problems that have become the
concern of teacher organizations, including that of profes—
sionalization. Thus they could force readjustments in the
traditional relationship between teachers and principals by

challenging traditional bureaucratic supervisory prerogatives.*

 

*The two independent variables--the prevailing value
orientation of the school toward teacher strikes and collec-
tive negotiations--were correlated with the question: "To
what extent are you active in teacher organization." For
collective negotiations the rs = -0.22- For teacher strikes
the rS = 0.27, DF = 51, p<.05.

.23

The responses Of fifty-three public school principals
to selected items were used to determine the principals'
value orientation to specific questions. The means of the
teachers' responses in each school were used to determine the
prevailing value orientations Of the various schools.

The principals and individual teachers responded to
each item on a five point scale. The items used were as
follows:39

How much approve of teacher strikes? (Teacher strikes)

How beneficial will collective negotiations be to
teachers in the next five years? (Collective negotiations)

One item was used in which the individual teachers
and principals responded to a dichotomized set of answers.
They responded to "as much authority as needed" and "not as
much authority as needed" to the following:

Does principal have as much authority as needed in
regard to: Deciding to take or reject a new or trans-
ferred employee? Speaking to staff members about being
late or quitting early? Initiating action to promote
staff? Granting few hours off to staff? Changing staff
procedures? ‘

The ranks Of the means of the teachers' responses

within each school were used to.determine the particular

school's prevailing value.orientation. The combined responses

 

39This approach has placed primary emphasis upon the
influence exerted by contextual variables. However,_the
selection Of principals into the existing context of values
and the mutual association of both prinCipals and teachers
can be related to the principals' responses to supervisory
practice items. ’

24

of the principals were dichotomized by examination of the
marginals for each item used to represent a particular social
value orientation. The ranks of the means of each school
were also dichotomized at the median for each item used.

The principals then were classified two ways: according to
which dichtomized category of prevailing value orientation
their school was located and according to their own individ-
ual value orientations. Thus, to isolate the structural
effect of the prevailing value orientation Of a principal's
school, the relationship between the school's prevailing
value orientation and the principal's response to the super-
visory practice item was determined while the principal's

individual value orientation was held constant.*

Hypotheses

 

Based upon the preceding discussion, one would ex-
pect the following results from a study using Blau's tech-
nique Of isolating structural effects to examine the rela-
tionshipbetween teachers and principals in regard to bureau-
cratic supervision:

REGARDLESS OF INDIVIDUAL VALUES, PRINCIPALS OF SCHOOLS

 

IN WHICH THE PREVAILING VALUE ORIENTATION WAS RELATIVELY‘

 

FAVORABLE TOWARD TEACHER STRIKES WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO

 

 

*The interview schedules were coded and put onto IBM
cards. The data including the ranks of the schools were
tabulated by the CD 3600 computer at Michigan State Univer-
sity.

25

EXHIBIT A TEACHER-CENTERED ORIENTATION CONCERNING QUESTIONS
OF LEADERSHIP OR SUPERVISORY PRACTICE THAN PRINCIPALS OF
SCHOOLS IN WHICH THE PREVAILING VALUE ORIENTATION WAS RELA-

TIVELY UNFAVORABLE.

 

REGARDLESS OF INDIVIDUAL VALUES, PRINCIPALS OF SCHOOLS

IN WHICH THE PREVAILING VALUE ORIENTATION WAS RELATIVELY

 

FAVORABLE TOWARD COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS WOULD BE MORE LIKELY
TO EXHIBIT A TEACHER-CENTERED ORIENTATION CONCERNING QUES-
TIONS OF LEADERSHIP OR SUPERVISORY PRACTICE THAN PRINCIPALS
OF SCHOOLS IN WHICH THE PREVAILING VALUE ORIENTATION WAS

RELATIVELY UNFAVORABLE.

 

REGARDLESS OF INDIVIDUAL VALUES, PRINCIPALS OF

 

SCHOOLS IN WHICH THE PREVAILING VALUE ORIENTATION WAS RELA-

 

TIVELY FAVORABLE TOWARD THE PRINCIPAL HAVING AS MUCH AUTHORITY

 

AS NEEDED WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO EXHIBIT A TEACHER-CENTERED
ORIENTATION CONCERNING QUESTIONS OF LEADERSHIP OR SUPERVISORY

PRACTICE THAN PRINCIPALS OF SCHOOLS IN WHICH THE PREVAILING

 

VALUE ORIENTATION WAS RELATIVELY UNFAVORABLE.

 

The items that were used to measure the prevailing
value orientation toward teacher strikes and collective nego-_
tiations were general indicators Of teacher militancy within
a school. An Operationalization of exhibiting a teacher-
centered orientation was made by stating that it would be
indicated by having a response that was favorable on the
items concerned with supervisory practice. Schools and

principals were determined as favorable or unfavorable to

26

the social value items by dichotomizing the responses into

high and low categories.

Considerations

 

This study did involve some difficult methodological
problems and important interpretive limitations. The study
was based upon a secondary analysis of a larger project.40
Because the original study was not designed with an analysis
of structural effects in mind, one major problem encountered
was that of adapting the data gathered from the original
study for purposes of studying structural effects. There-
fore, although single-item indicators were used as measures
of social values, it was realized that the depth Of analysis
would probably be not as great as that that might have been
attained if multiple item indicators were used as measures
of analysis. For example, other areas of social influence
upon the principals' responses to questions Of supervisory
behavior such as expertise, autonomy, occupational commit-
ment, and ethical responsibility could have been examined.41

Two basic assumptions of Blau's technique for iso-

1ating structural effects were those of constancy both within

rows and columns. However, Tannenbaum and Bachman have

 

4 . .
‘ 0Marcus, "Bureaucrat1zation . . . ."

41George Strauss, "Professionalism and Occupational
Associations," Industrial Relations, Volume 2, 1963, pp.

 

27

pointed out that the dichotomous categories that Blau employed
in his technique failed to hold the individual variable and
the group variable strictly constant. They noted that dichot-
omous categories failed to take into account the continuous
nature Of these variables and suggested that consideration

be given to the analysis Of structural variables along a

continuum.42

Tannenbaum and Bachman's points, although well
taken, were impossible to realize since the restrictions
imposed upon this study because it was a secondary analysis
made dichotomous classification the best possible method for
the examination of structural effects. This was compatible
to the primary purpose of this study: the examination Of
Blau's technique for isolating structural effects as a method
to study group determination of leadership behavior.

Since both high schools and elementary schools were
involved in the sample,_the question of the basic differences I
between the two was raised. Tannenbaum and Bachman noted
that an investigator who was primarily interested in examining

the presence of structural effects need not be overly concerned

with a spurious individual level «effect as a result of a

 

42Tannenbaum and Bachman, p. 586. Also Blau has
pointed out that structural effects cannot be expected to
account for all of the variance in dependent variables. For
example, the factor of time is not taken into account. How-
ever, since there were only fifty-three cases divided into
four unequal columns, only large differences would be sta-
tistically significant. For further information see for
example James A. Davis, Joe L. Spaeth, and Carolyn Huson,
"A Technique for Analyzing the Effects of Group Compositions,"
American Sociological ReView, Volume 26, 1961, pp. 215-225.

 

28

failure to hold group characteristics strictly constant.
However, the investigator should be concerned if an isolated
structural effect was spurious because of a failure to hold
individual characteristics constant.43 Consequently, con-
tained in the Appendix are the results of the principals'
responses to the items used in the study analyzed by means
of median tests for high school and elementary school

principals.

 

43Tannenbaum and Bachman, p. 589.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Principal's Authority

 

It was expected that regardless of individual ori—
entations, principals Of schools in which the prevailing
value orientation was high concerning viewing the principal
as having as much authority as needed would be more likely
to exhibit a teacher-centered orientation concerning ques-
tions Of leadership or supervisory practice than principals
of schools in Which the prevailing value orientation was low.

Teachers in a school in which the prevailing value
orientation was high concerning viewing the principal as
having as much authority as needed would influence the
principal's response to questions of supervisory practice.
Thus, principals in a school in which the prevailing value
orientation was different than that of their own individual
orientations would be influenced by the external constraint
presented by the group's prevailing value orientation that
had an expected influence upon the principals' responses to
the supervisory practice questions. For example, principals
whose individual value orientations were low concerning the
principal having as much authority as needed but were in
schools in which the prevailing value orientations were high

would more likely be high on the supervisory practice items

29

30

than principals whose value orientations were low but were
in schools in which the prevailing value orientations were
also low. Also, principals whose individual value orienta-
tions were high concerning the principal having as much
authority as needed and were in schools in which the pre-
vailing value orientations were also high would more likely
be high on the supervisory practice items than principals
whose value orientations were high but were in schools in
which the prevailing value orientations were low.

According to Blau, what we expected to Observe were
the direct structural effects of common values. This would
indicate that the individual principal's response to the
supervisory practice items was influenced not only by the
motivational force of his own value orientation, but also by
the social pressure resulting from the shared values of the
teachers within the school.44

As shown in Table 3, the results Of the principals'
responses on two Of the supervisory practice items did con—
form tO these expectations. The principals' responses to
the supervisory practice item "permissable to violate rule"
showed that principals who were high on their value orienta-
tions concerning having as much authority as needed were more
likely to be high on the supervisory practice item than
principals who had a lower value orientation. However, re-

gardless of their own individual value orientations, principals

 

44Blau, "Structural Effects," p. 181.

31

 

AHHV Andy Aoav Amav Hz

 

am He ow om =sueuoaps< mupeﬁuap= .m
me am oe mm =Hmmmcmua= .w
mm mm om me gucmsmppn= .m
cm an om ow =mqoamﬂoma= .m
wmo wan won mam =Oasm OpmHOH>= .H
Asmamv
BOA roam Bog swam mmmcommmm m.ammﬂocﬂnm
cowumucwﬂuo m.ammﬂocﬂnm coaumucmwuo m.HmmH0cHHm
sou amen
cowumucmﬂuo

OOHO> mcﬂaﬂm>mum m.HOO£Om

 

 

OOﬂpomHm NHOmH>HOmsm OGHOHOOOOU mEmpH on Omcommmm
m.ammHOnHHm can .muﬁsorusm OHMBOB coaumucmauo OsHm> m.ammHOcHHm
.muﬂuorp5¢ m.ammﬂocﬂnm OHOSOB cowumucmﬂno OOHm> mGHHHO>OHm m.HOOBOmII.m mance

32

of schools in which the prevailing value orientation was high
concerning the principal having as much authority as needed
were more likely to be high on the supervisory practice item
than principals of schools in which the prevailing value
orientation was low. Although the differences between the
columns were small, the results were in the expected direction
to indicate the direct structural effect Of common values.
Also, although the differences in the proportion of principals
who were either high or low on the supervisory practice item
associated with schools with contrasting value orientations
were small, they were equivalent to those associated with
contrasting individual principal value orientations.

The same pattern of relationships were Observed with
the supervisory practice item that dealt with "teachers make
own decisions." Again, regardless of their own individual
value orientations, principals of schools in which the pre-
vailing value orientation was high concerning the principal
having as much authority as needed were more likely to be
high on the supervisory practice item than principals Of
schools in which the prevailing value orientation was low.
Principals whose individual value orientations were low con-
cerning the principal having as much authority as needed but
were in schools in which the prevailing value orientations
were high were more likely to be high on the supervisory
practice item than principals whose value orientations were

low but were in schools in which the prevailing value

33

orientations were also low. This same relationship held for
principals with high value orientations concerning the
principal having as much authority as needed.

Concerning the supervisory practice item "teacherS‘
make own decisions," the combination of group and individual
value orientation made a considerable difference. A little
less than two-fifths Of the principals who neither had a high
value orientation concerning the principal having as much
authority as needed nor were in schools where the prevailing.
value orientation was high were high on the supervisory
practice item. On the other hand, four-fifths Of those
principals who had both a high value orientation and were in
schools in which the prevailing value orientation was also
high were high on the supervisory practice item. Concerning
the two supervisory practice items, "permissable to violate
rule," and "teachers make own decisions"? it can be said that
the social values concerning the principal having as much
authority as needed that prevailed in the school did exert
external constraints (as demonstrated by structural effects)
upon the principal in terms of his responses to questions of
supervisory practice.

The results Of the comparison of three other super—
visory practice items with the prevailing value orientations
Of the sOhools and the value orientations of the individual
principals were different. As shown in Table 3, the results

associated with the supervisory practice items "transfer"

34

and "teacher's own sense of judgment" did not indicate the
direct.structural effects of common values. The results

associated with these two items were similar tO.B1au's con-
tingency structural effects Of common values. The contin-
gency structural effects of common values would indicate

that the relationship between the individual's orientation
and another variable was contingent on the prevalence of a

particular value in the group.45

According to Blau, the
extreme case of contingency effect would be where the rela-
tionship between the individual's orientation and some other
factor had become reversed, dependent on the prevalence of

the value orientation in thergroup.46

The principals'
responses to the supervisory practice items "transfer" and
"teacher's own sense of judgment" did not meet these condi-
tions.

What was important concerning these two supervisory
practice items was the homogeneity Of the individual prin-
cipal's values with that.Of the prevailing value orientation
of the school in whichhe was located. Therefore, a struc-
tural relationship, in the sense to which Blau referred,
between the school's prevailing value orientation and the

supervisory practice items did not exiSt. It was not the

nature of the school's prevailing value orientation that

 

451bid., p. 183.

461bid., p. 183.

35

mattered, but rather the homogeneity Of the value orientation
of the principal and the school in which he was located.

The principals' responses to the supervisory practice
item "ultimate authority by teachers" was somewhat perplexing.
The results were somewhat similar to what might indicate an
inverse structural effect of common values. According to
Blau, inverse structural effects of common values would indi-
cate that group values were not parallel to the effects of
the individual's value orientation and would have Opposite

47 The principals'

implications for the individual's conduct.
responses to this supervisory practice item did not indicate
a case of an inverse structural effect but simply a case in
which principals in one group of schools were higher on the
dependent variable than principals in another group of
schools. Also, the relationship between contrasting indi-
vidual principals within schools with similar prevailing
value orientations was not consistent between groups of
schools whose prevailing value orientations were different
so as to rule out the case Of inverse structural effects.
Each of the supervisory practice items were expected
to be related to the independent variables in the same
direction, that of the direct structural effects of common

values. While this relationship did not necessarily have to

hold true when the results were finally analyzed, an adequate

 

47Ibid., p. 183.

36

substantive explanation of the.relationship between the
independent variable and supervisory practice items should
be Offered. However, the relationship between the item
"ultimate authority by teachers" and the school's prevailing
value orientation concerning the principal having as much
authority as needed was without an adequate substantive
explanation.

This was indirectly related to one Of the problems
involved in this study. As noted, this study was a secon-
dary analysis of available data. Thus, One of the problems
of this study was the availability of adequate measures.

This was especially the case in regard to selecting variables
that would represent relevant and important social values
that might act as a constraining influence upon the prin-
cipals' responses to questions of leadership or supervisory
practice. This was important because the conclusion that a
'given social value would have structural effects on the
principals' responses rested on the assumption that the rela-
tionships Observed were not spurious and the social value in
question was the independent variable.

Such social value variables that might have been used
in this study were limited. Some variables that might have
been considered ideal in terms of the relationship to super-
visory practice could not be used because of methodological
problems. Also,_the variables that were selected for use in

this study did have some disadvantages.

37

The indicator that was used for the authority vari-
able had two main problems. First, the several items that
comprised the authority question on the original question—
naire did not all relate to the principal's authority vis-a-
vis the teacher in the manner that this study proposed. The
second major problem involved the interpretation of the key
phrase "as much authority as needed." In this study the
phrase was interpreted in a limiting sense—-that the prin-
cipal had enough authority and did not want or need anymore.
However, that this phrase can be interpreted in another man-
ner was realized.

Because of these problems, the measure used for the
authority variable cannot be viewed as completely accurate.
However, it was not the primary purpose of this study to
provide any substantive demonstration concerning the rela-
tionship between any of the variables that measure social
values and the supervisory practice items. The primary
purpose Of this study was to examine modifications of Peter M.
Blau's technique for isolating structural effects as a
method for the study Of group determination of leadership
behavior in work groups located within organizational set-
tings.

Was there a relationship between the indicator used
to measure the values toward the authority of the principal
and the supervisory practice items examined? Obviously,

each Of the supervisory practice.items were not related to

38

the social value variable in the same direction of direct
structural effects. Because of this, we cautiously inter-
preted the results of this study by stating that we could not
determine if there was an association between the social
values that prevailed in a school concerning the principal
having as much authority as needed and the principal's
response to questions of leadership or supervisory practice.
However, the responses of the principals on two Of the super-
visory practice items--"permissable to violate rule" and
"teachers make own decisions"--did conform to the expected
results of direct structural effects. This has demonstrated
the viability Of utilizing Blau's technique for isolating
structural effects,_or modifications thereof, as a method

for examining the possible group determination Of leader—
ship behavior in work groups located within organizational

settings.

 

Collective Negotiations

It was expected that regardless of individual value
orientations, principals of schools in which the prevailing
value orientation was high concerning viewing collective
negotiations as being beneficial to teachers would be more
likely to exhibit a teacher-centered orientation concerning
questions Of supervisory practice than principals of schools
in which the prevailing value orientation was low. Teachers

in a school in which the prevailing value orientation was

39

high toward collective negotiations would influence the prin-
cipal's response to questions of supervisory practice inde-
pendent Of the principal's value orientation toward collective
negotiations. Again, what we expected to Observe were the
direct structural effects of common values.

As shown in Table 4, the results of the principals'
responses on two Of the supervisory practice items did con-
form tO these expectations. Concerning these two items--
"permissable to violate rule" and "teacher's own sense of
judgment," it was shown that regardless Of their own indi—
vidual value orientations toward collective negotiations,
principals of schools in which the prevailing value orien—
tation was high toward collective negotiations were more
likely to have responded high on the two supervisory practice
items than principals of schools in which the prevailing
value orientation was low. Concerning principals with similar
individual value orientations toward collective negotiations
but who were in schools with contrasting prevailing value
orientations toward collective negotiations it was found that
principals located within schools with high prevailing value
orientations toward collective negotiations were more likely
to have responded high on the two supervisory practice items.
Also, the combination of schools with low prevailing value
orientations toward collective negotiations and principals
with.low value orientations made a considerable difference

in the responses to the two supervisory practice items.

4O

 

Amy Away Aoav “may uz

 

mm he on mm =coﬂpmeHOOcH mmamaoxm= .m
me an om mm =mqoamaomo= .m
84 mm om He =suauoeus¢ mumswuas= .4
mm no mm am =u0mmcmue= .m
mm mm as as =ucmsmpsn= .m
mew was won wmm =0Hsm 0pmaoa>= .H

30A seem 30a seam Asmﬂmv
coepmucmﬂno m.HmmﬂOnHHm coﬂumncmﬂno m.HmmﬂoaﬂHm mmmcommmm m.HmmH0:HHm

30a seam
nowpmucmﬂno

OOHm> mcwHHm>OHm m.HOO£Om

 

 

OOﬂuomHm >HOmH>HOmsm mcﬂnumonoo mEOuH Op mmcommmm m.ammHOOHHm
0cm .mcoﬂumﬂuommz O>Hpomaaoo UHM3OB coaumuqmﬂno Ozam> m.HmmHOcHHm
.mcowpmﬂpommz O>ﬁuomaaoo UHMBOB GOADMpGOHHO Ozam> maﬁaﬂm>mum m.aoocomli.v mance

41

Shown in Table 4 are the results of the principals'
responses on the supervisory practice items that dealt with
"transfer," "teachers make own decision,9 "exchange infor—
mation with building representative," and "ultimate authority
by teachers." The results associated with "transfer" seemed
to indicate a contingency structural effect whereby the rela-
tionship between the principal's orientation and the super-
visory practice item had become reversed, dependent on the
prevailing value orientation in the school. However, this
finding was without adequate substantive explanation.

The results associated with "teachers make own
decisions" did not indicate either structural effects or
individual-level effects. The homogeneity of values in
terms of the principal's value orientation and the prevailing
value orientation Of the school was important as shown in
the results of "exchange information with building repre-
sentative." However, this again did not indicate either
structural effects or individual-level effects. The results
associated with "ultimate authority by teachers” did indi-
cate individual-level effects of common values.

What was the general relationship between the social
values that prevailed in a school toward collective nego-
tiations for teachers and the principals' responses tO ques-
tions Of supervisory practice? In terms of the results
indicating consistent structural effects or individual-level

affects, there was not an association between the social

42

values of a school toward collective negotiations and the
principals' responses to questions Of supervisory practice.
However, the responses Of the principals on two of the super-
visory practice items did conform to the expected results

of direct structural effects.

Teacher Strikes

 

It was expected that regardless of individual value
orientations, principals of schools in which the prevailing
value orientation was that of viewing teacher strikes as
favorable would be more likely to exhibit a teacher-centered
orientation concerning questions of supervisory practice
than principals Of schools in which the prevailing value
orientation was low. Teachers in a school in which the pre-
vailing value orientation was high toward teacher strikes
would influence the principal's response to questions of
supervisory practice independent of the principal's value
orientation toward teacher strikes. As with the two other
variables relating to social values in the school, we ex-
pected to Observe the direct structural effects of common
values.

As shown in Table 5, the principals' responses to
two of the supervisory practice items--"permissable to violate
rule" and "ultimate authority by.teachers"--did conform to
the expectations. Regardless Of their individual value

orientations toward teacher strikes, principals of schools

43

 

 

Avav Away Away AHHV uz
mm mm mm mm =m20HmHOOO= .m
we mu om mm =Hmmmcmua= .v
as no mm as =pqmsmpsn= .m
pm me me ooa =spﬂnosusa masseuse: .m
whm wmh mmh mum =OHOm ODMHOH>= .H
sou seem 30a seam Armani
coapmpcmﬂno m.HmmHOcHHm cowumucwﬂno m.HmmﬁOanm mOmGOQmOm m.HmmﬂOCHHm
BOA coaumucmﬂuo

Osam> maﬁaﬂm>mnm m.Hoonom

 

 

.OOHpomum MHOmH>HOm5m mcﬂcumocou mEOuH Op Oncommmm
m.ammﬂOcHHm cam .mOxHHpm Hmsomms pumaoa coaumucmano msam> m.ammﬁo
Icﬂnm .mOMHHpm Hmromma OHMBOB cOHumucmﬂHO Ozam> mcHHHm>mHm m.aoosom||.m mance

44

in which the prevailing value orientation was high toward
teacher strikes were more likely to have responded high on
the two supervisory practice items than principals of schools
in which the prevailing value orientation was low. Con-
cerning principals with similar individual value orienta-
tions toward teacher strikes but were in school with con-
trasting prevailing value orientations toward teacher strikes,
it was found that principals located within schools with high
prevailing value orientations toward teacher strikes were
more likely to have responded high on the two supervisory
practice items. Also, the combinations of school with low
prevailing value orientation-—principal with low value orien-
tation and school with high prevailing value orientation--
principal with high value orientation made a considerable
difference in the principal's response to the supervisory
practice item "ultimate authority by teachers."

Shown in Table 5 are the results of the principals'
responses to the supervisory practice items that dealt with
"teacher's own sense of judgment," "transfer," and "teachers
make own decisions." The results associated with "teacher's
own sense of judgment" did not indicate either structural or
individual-level effects. A type of inverse individual-
level effect was shown by the results associated with ”teach-
ers make own decisions." The results associated with "trans-
fer" indicated inverse structural effects. These diverse
kinds Of relationships did not form any kind of discernible

pattern.

45

Three items concerned with leadership behavior that
were closely related to teacher negotiation organizations
were compared with the social value variable that dealt with
teacher strikes. It was expected that the relationship
between these three items and the social value variable
would be that of a direct structural effect of common values.

As shown in Table 6, the results Of the principals'
responses to two of the leadership behavior items--"exchange
information with building representative" and "unite with
teachers"--conformed to these expectations of the direct
structural effects of common values. The combination of a
school with a low prevailing value orientation toward teacher
strikes and principal with a low value orientation toward
teacher strikes made a considerable difference in the prin-
cipal's responses to the two leadership behavior items,
especially "unite with teachers." None Of the principals
who neither had high individual value orientations toward
teacher strikes nor where in schools in which the prevailing
value orientation was high were willing to unite with the
teachers' bargaining unit while nearly one-third Of the
principals who either had high individual value orientations
or where located within schools in which the prevailing
value orientation was high were willing to unite with the
teachers' bargaining unit.

The results associated with "organize principals"

indicated a contingency structural effect of common values.

46

 

Away ANAL Away AHHV uz

 

8m me am an =mamaaopaum muapmmuo= .m
0 mm Hm mm :mnmsomme spHB Opens: .N
8mm mom 8mm 4mm gcoapmsuomcH mmqmaoxm: .H
304 seem 30a seam Asmamv
coaumucmﬂuo m.HmmHOcHHm coapmunmﬂno m.HmmHOcHHm mmwcommmm m.HmmHOGHHm
30a roam
cowumucmwuo

OOHm> mcﬂaﬁm>mnm m.HOO£Om

 

H0ﬂ>mswm marmnmpmmq mcﬂcumocoo mﬁouH Op mmcommmm
m.awmﬂocﬂum paw .mmxﬂuum HOQOOOB pumzoa cOHuOuGOHHO OOHO> m.ammﬂo
Izﬁum .mmxﬂupm HOAOOOB Onmzoa coﬂumucmﬂuo OsHm> mcwawm>mnm m.HOO£OmII.m OHQOB

47

The relationship between the individual principal's orienta-
tion and the leadership behavior item had become reversed,
dependent on the prevailing value orientation in the school.
The results were as expected in schools in which the pre-
vailing value orientation toward teacher strikes was low.
However, the relationship was reversed in the case of schools
in which the prevailing value orientation toward teachers‘
strikes was high. A possible explanation for this would be
that in the case where the principal was high and the school
was also high the principal did not desire to organize
principals, preferring instead to identify with teachers.
However, in the case where the principal was low and the
school was high, the principal possibly because he felt
threatened, preferred the organization of principals.

In terms of the results indicating consistent struc-
tural or individual-level effects, it could not be deter-
mined if there was an association between the social values
that prevailed in schools toward teachers strikes and the
principals' responses to questions of supervisory practice
and leadership behavior. However, the responses Of the
principals on four of the items examined did conform to the

expected results.

Overview of Relationships

 

As mentioned previously, each Of the supervisory

practice items represented the same broad dimension of

48

,general, supportive supervisory behavior. Therefore, each

of the supervisory practice items were expected to be related

'tO the social value variables in the same direction of

direct structural effects Of-common values. Shown in Table

7 is an overview of the relationships between the supervisory

practice items and the social value variables.

Table 7.--Summary of Results

 

 

 

Principal's Collective Teacher
Authority Negotiations Strikes
l. "Violate Rule" ds ds ds
2. "Judgment" N ds N
3. "Transfer" N N is
4. "Ultimate Authority" N il ds
5. i1

"Decisions" ds ' N

 

ds = Expected Results of Direct Structural Effects
is = Inverse Structural Effects

cs = Contingency Structural Effects

i1 = Individual-Level Effects

N = NO Structural or Individual Effects

Only one of the supervisory practice items--"per-

missable to violate rule"--exhibited a direct structural

effect over each of the social value variables. Each of the

other supervisory practice items that exhibited a direct

structural effect did so only once. Each social value vari-

able was related tO the direct structural effects of common

values on only two of five supervisory practice items.

49

Finally, there was no consistent pattern of inverse, con-
tingency or direct structural effects or individual-level
effects that was related to any of the social value vari-

ables.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary purpose of this study was that Of ex-
amining a method of ascertaining the possible group deter-
mination of leadership behavior in work groups located within
organizational settings. Blau's technique for isolating
structural effects was modified as to isolate a structural
effect upon a single member Of a group, the formal leader.
Three measures Of social values in the schools--the pre-
vailing value orientation of the teachers toward the prin-
cipal's authority, collective negotiations, and teacher
strikes--were expected to exert external influences concerning
the principals' responses to questions Of supervisory or
leadership practice, independent of the principals' individ-
ual value orientations.

The results of the study have indicated that no sub-
stantive relationship can definitely be established between
the principal's responses to questions of supervisory prac-
tice and the prevailing value orientation Of the teachers in
a school on any of the three social value variables studied.

Although there was no consistent pattern of rela-
tionships, the expected results Of the direct structural
effects of social values were Observed in several cases.

Principals within schools in which the prevailing value

.50,

51

orientation was high concerning a particular social value
were more likely to have responded high on questions of
leadership or supervisory practice independent of their own
individual value orientations.

This study has demonstrated the viability Of uti-
lizing modifications Of Blau's technique for isolating struc-
tural effects as a method for studying group determination
of leadership behavior. However, further investigations in
this area should take into account the limitations Of Blau's
method and consider the methodologies that have been sug-
gested in articles by Davis, Spaeth and Huson and Tannenbaum
and Bachman.

Of great interest were the results associated with
the social value variable that dealt with teacher strikes
and the three leadership behavior items (Table 6). Each Of
these items demonstrated a structural effect of common values.
Since these items were more directly related to the functions
of teacher negotiating organizations and the social value
variable teacher strikes, this relationship possibly indi-
cated that a more direct or functional relationship between
independent and dependent variables is advisable in further
investigations.

Finally, this study did have implications for deter-
mining exactly what leadership Or supervisory factors might
be subject to group influence.. As shown in Table 7, the

supervisory practice item "permissable to violate rule"

52

exhibited a direct structural effect over each of the social
value variables. This item could be interpreted as being
different than the other supervisory practice items in that
it represented a more limited span of teacher autonomy and
operational freedom that the principal was willing to tol-
erate. Viewed in this manner, the results associated with
Table 7 indicated that the social values that prevailed in a
school did influence the principal's response to questions

of leadership or supervisory practice independent of the
principal's individual value orientation--but only to a
limited extent. The principal was subject to group influence
to the extent the supervisory functions affected were within
the dimensions Of favoring limited teacher autonomy and Oper-
ational freedom. Beyond this, the principal was unwilling to

surrender his traditional supervisory prerogatives.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY,

Becker, Howard. "The Teacher in the Authority System Of the
Public Schools," in Etzioni (ed.), Complex Organi-
zations: A Sociologicl Reader. New York: Holt,
Reinhart and Winston, Inc.,—1961.

 

 

Bidwell, Charles. ”The School as a Formal Organization,"
in March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations. Chicago:
Rand McNally, 1965.

 

Blau, Peter M. "Formal Organizations: Dimensions of Analy-
sis," American Journal of Sociology, VOlume 63, 1957.

 

Blau, Peter M. "Structural Effects," American Sociological
Review, Volume 25, 1960.

 

Coch, Lester and Franch, John R. P. Jr. '"Overcoming Resis-
tance to Change," in Maccoby et‘al (eds.), Readings
in Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Co.,
1958.

 

 

Davis, James A., Spaeth, Joe L., and Huson, Carolyn. "A
Technique for Analyzing the Effects of Group Com-
position," American Sociological Review, Volume 26,

 

Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966.

 

Faunce, William A. Readings in Industrial Sociology. New
York: Appleton, Century, Crofts, I967.

 

Gibb, Cecil A. "Leadership," in Linzey (ed.), Handbook of
Social Psychology. Reading, Mass: Addi§On~Wesley
Co., 1954.

 

 

Homans, George C. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World, Inc., 1950.

 

Lazarsfeld, Paul F. and Menzel, Herbert. "On the Relation
Between Individual and Collective PrOperties," in
Etzioni (ed.), Complex Organizations: A Sociological
Reader. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, Inc.,
1961.

 

53

54

Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York:
McGraw-HilI Book Co.,_l96l.

 

Lippit, Ronald and White, Ralph K. "An Experimental Study
of Leadership and Group Life," in Maccoby et al (eds.),
Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt
and CO.{'1958.

 

Marcus, Philip M. "Bureaucratization and Professionalization:
Converging Forces at the Negotiating Table in Public
Ecuation," in progress.

Mechanic, David. "Sources of Power of Lower Participants in

Complex Organizations," Administrative Science
Quarterly, Volume 7, 1963.

 

 

Merei, Ferenc. "Group Leadership and Institutionalization,"
in Maccoby et al (eds.), Readings in Social Psychol-
ogy. New York: Henry HOIE and Co., 1958.

 

Miller, Delbert and Form, William H. Industrial Sociology.
New York: Harper and Row, 1964?

 

Scott, W. R. "Professionals in Bureaucracies--Areas of Con-
flict," in Vollmer and Mills (eds.), Professional-
ization. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1966.

 

Selznick, Philip. "The Leader as Agent of Led,“ in Dubin
(ed.), Human Relations in Administration. New York:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951.

 

Strauss, George. "Professionalism and Occupational Associ-
ations," Industrial Relations, Volume 2, 1963.

 

Tannenbaum, Arnold S. Social Psychology of Work Organization.
New York: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1965.

 

Tannenbaum, Arnold S., and Bachman, Jerold G. "Structural
Versus Individual Effects," American Journal of
Sociology, Volume 69, 1964.

 

 

"Teacher Militance NO. 1 Issue." Lansing State Journal.
February 17, 1969.

 

Whyte, William F. "Human Relations--A Progress Report," in
Etzioni (ed.), Complex Organizations: A Sociological
Reader. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, Inc.,
1961.

 

Wildman, Wesly. "Implications of Teacher Bargaining for
School Administration," Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 46,
1964.

 

APPENDIX

55

MEDIAN TESTS FOR HIGH SCHOOL AND ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

 

 

 

 

Items Test Results
1. "Organize Principals" x2=0.00 DF=1 p>.05
2. "Exchange Information" x2=0.01 DF=1 p>.05
3. "Violate Rule" x2=0.72 DF=1 p>.05
4. "Ultimate Authority" x2=0.81 DF=1 p>.05
5. "Teacher Strikes" x2=l.50 DF=1 p>.05
6. "Collective Negotiations" 2=3.35 DF=1 p>.05
7. "Ultimate Authority" x2=0.07 DF=1 p>.05
8. "Unite with Teachers" x2=0.70 DF=1 p>.05
9. "Decisions" x2=0.73 DF=1 p>.05
10. "Judgment" x2=0.07 DF=1 p>.05
11. "Transfer" x2=0.01 DF=1 p>.05
2

If X =p>.05 accept hypothesis that the distributions
of the responses of high school and elementary school prin-

cipals are the same.

has 3.134