EEE EEE'EE ;[ Ef] I? ‘ EIE ' El; "”42 EE‘ EEEEEEE‘ E" E‘ E EEEE {a 31m?“ .‘Egfli X . -! E 3'” . 'E‘EEEEEEE E E' E E. EEE' EEEE.‘ E E‘E “‘E'i‘ . “.1: E EEEEEEEEE E E. E EE EE .EEE‘EEEEEEEE E; . » E» E E“: EEEEE EE EEE. E E; E .EEEEE EE EE E E E'E J” E EE' ME E1333} “‘0‘“ m 53E: EWEEEEEEE 1‘ EEE'EEI' E, EEE: 1E‘EILEE-EIEEEIE NEE 31%;" “ “a: EEEE- WEWWEMEWMWEWEfE; '2" {WI EEE’. ,E 1‘.“ 4 E .1 ”EL Ell, iEEEE “N 3; 13E1iE ' El .. 1 ETEEEEIE‘EE‘EEEEE" E E." EEEEEEE EEE EEEEE EEMEE‘E‘EEEEE “E 1, EEE‘EEEIE EEE EEIEE‘EE‘E’EEEEEEEEEEQEEEEE{Rig E E .T. EEEEEE E EEEE‘ E FEE EEE ’"EEEE. EEEEEEE EEEE‘ “E'EEE‘EWE‘EEEE’E~ E? E‘EEE E ‘ EEEYEE'VEEIE“ EEEEEEEE Efi‘ E’EEE‘EEEE EEEEE 431E“? 3 E ‘ 55‘ EM EM ‘ ' h. £3901 E.‘ 6" l E EEEE‘EEEEEEa EEK»; E .E‘E E E EEE Zr: ‘ ?' EEE EE . EiEEE «SEE E E ‘ E. EE E h‘ ‘E ‘EE-EE Efl‘EEMNEEE'V“ 1:11;"? ”(£5111 ) $.33iz‘2 'EWE.EMWWMWEEEEMEMME EE . .E EEEE‘ EEEE E 'E'EEE'E E E E EEE "’E‘EE: E"E “EE” E EEEEEEEE - E EEEIE “M ,EEEEE ’EEE'EE EEEE‘ Em, EEEE ”EEE‘EEEEEEEEEE‘EEEE EEEE EE‘LEEEEEEEE ‘ . E. ' I t l "210+“: . ‘ flu“? V 11 ‘EE'E E EEEEEE; E‘ TEEN EEEEEEE‘E EEEEE”{fi‘E‘EEEEHEEEEEEEEEE‘EyLEEE’EEEEEEE”‘31fiSEEEEEEEtfiE‘Eéig-ifi;EEE .. r" E E ,EE‘E.’ EEEE EEEEEEE E'E EEE‘EE‘E EEE EE‘EEE.”” E’EVEEFEEE‘EE“ EE EEEEEE 1‘ LEE” , f! I - u. IKE} H , 4} EE .3. 31:5 1. with I” .. E 1E: E. E EEEE BEEEEEEEEE’E kg?“ . 'LEE‘JEEE EEEE‘EEEE‘ 'EEE H:;§E‘!IEE Sti$;!.%‘i§tfi%¥'lp§éé1"E'EIEEE‘~¥HP§];I£EEE 'EE-“z EE'E‘E‘EEHEE " EEEEEEEEEEn EE‘E'EE’EE ’EEEEIE EEEEEEP EEEEEEEEE EEZE “WEE ‘E “M"‘EE E3? E3 {9'93“ EE": "FE’EEEEE'EEE’ EEEg‘ Luff}; ”(hi E :MIIEE ”EI;L::1E’I§:5EE:2§EE§§ ””1"“ H" "Eh-EV "W'NE‘ 11133]! EJEEEEEEEEE 1:; E H; E? EJEE‘PE Eh? {E33 .me WE’VE" m ('EEEEEE‘ELE‘LEE'E‘EE’E “5:1!“ :EEE‘WE EEEEEEEEEEBE'E‘E 4E? [Etldg E“ LEIEEEEEEEEEEEE E'EEEE’EE‘EEE'WEEE HEM“) EEEPEE E {BEEEEEEEPEEE -E":EW’;‘P‘§L "with, ‘EEEIWE EEEE _ E33: “EEE EEE‘EAEEE‘EEEE "*EEEEEEE EEK“ EEEEE EEE EEEEEE :ELE E EJEEE ‘fi'EEiEEEEEEEEL E “It E fi‘EEEEEE’EE’ EEEEJEE EEE‘EEEEEEEEEEEEEE .EEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEE‘E EEE E: EEEEEEEEE‘EEE EEE'EEEEEEEEEEE ,llflllllillll‘lfllllllllll'lfllfllll 3 1293 00640 37 Lllfl(l\ll' Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Effective Leaders and Their Relationship With Informal Organization presented by Christine Larson VanSlyke has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree“, Education, Major rofessor Date April 11+, 1986 "(In AL.“ - - .- .n i l .1 . 0-1277' MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in boOk drop to remove this checkout from LIBRARIES 1.3—:— your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. M1; » .3 4‘ 3 3 APR 161999 I 1 LL. .2 .i EFFECTIVE LEADERS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH INFORMAL ORGAN IZATION By Christine Larson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Departnent of Educational Administration 1986 ABSTRACT EFFECTIVE LEADERS MD THEIR RELATIONSHIP NITH INFORMAL ORGANIZATION By Christine Larson This study sought to explore the relationship between elementary principals and their effectiveness as related to the informal organization that may exist among their teaching staffs. The population of this study comprised school superintendents. elementary school principals. and classroom teachers from three public school districts within the Kent Intermediate School District in Kent County. Michigan. The instrument used was designed by the researcher and validated through a pilot study. The statistical treatments used in testing the six hypotheses were chi-square and Pearson correlation coefficient. The level of significance was set at OJKL The central findings of the study were: 1. An informal organization was operative among the teaching staffs. More effective principals recognized its existence. while less effective principals felt that the informal organization was less frequent in occurrence. Christine Larson 2. Informal organization was a significant factor for more effective principals when determining work assignments for their staffs. It was not a factor with less effective principals. 3. More effective principals perceived that the informal organization had greater strength and effect on staff work output. while less effective principals did not. 4. More effective principals were members of the informal organization. while less effective principals were not. Based on Inembership within the informal organization. effective principals maintained high degrees of compatibility with the informal leaders. 5. More effective principals maintained positive attitudes toward the informal organization. while less effective principals did not. 6. A statistically significant relationship did not occur between principal effectiveness and principal control or principal influence over the informal organization. 7. A statistically significant relationship did not occur between principal effectiveness and staff‘s feelings of kinship to the principal or to the principaJ's feelings of closeness to either the teaching staff or the administrative staff. This dissertation is dedicated to my parents. Jacqueline Thompson Larson and Carl Larson. whose all-encompassing. unrelenting. and unconditional support and nurturing love have made possible this fulfilling and humbling endeavor. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Over the years as I have listened to thank-you's and acknowl- edgments at various functions. I may have thought that these forms of gratitude could have been trivial and superficial and rather meaning- less and something that had to be said. This however. is not the case as I have so painstakingly learned. The thank-you's I give are true and deep and are given with a sincerity that I never knew existed. I thank Dr. Louis G. Romano. my mentor. chairperson. and friend. who was able to channel and control my soaring spirit for the time it took to complete this project. His belief in me and persist- ence will always hold a special place in my heart and will help me achieve new goals. I also thank my other committee members. Drs. John H. Suehr. Robert P. Poland. and C. Keith Groty. for their candid and professional guidance toward the completion of this project. I thank Dr. Marie Smith. my professional and personal confidante. for the unconditional support and friendship she has given me and for the many experiences we have shared. I thank Joshua Gisemba Bagaka's. Statistical Data Analyst for the College of Urban Affairs. Michigan State University. for helping make a most difficult statistical task feasible and educationally productive for me. I thank the superintendents. principals. and teachers who took time from their busy schedules to participate in my study. I thank the many other individuals who contributed to this prodect for their belief in me and their individual forms of attention and support. whether it was psychological or physical. that it took to help bring this project to fruition. I thank my tremendous parents. Jacqueline and Carl Larson. and my sister. Colleen Larson. for their love and relief time from other duties so I could complete this project. And last. I thank Stuart Clayton VanSlyke. my husband. for his peaceful. sustaining. stable attitude. which I am sure I altered during the course of this undertaking. for his listening ear and support. and for our son. Ford Larson VanSlyke. who will never know how difficult it was for me to go downstairs and work on my dissertation while he was upstairs growing up and changing. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TMLES O O O O O O O O O O O O I Chapter I. II. III. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . anortance of the Study . . Assumptions and Limitations Definition of Terms Research Hypotheses Overview . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE AND RESEARGi Introduction . . . . . . . . . Informal Organization Perception as a Research Tool Principal Control Principal Compatibility and Cohesion Amon Principal Membership Within the Informal Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Principal Leadership in Relation to the Informal Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to the Informal Principal and the Relationship Leader 0 O O O O O O O O I Principal Effectiveness . . . Summary DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . Population and Sampling Method Instrumentation Pilot Study . . . . . . . . Data-Gathering Procedures . . Stati sti cal Treatment 9 S we... :0 O O O Page vii Testable Hypotheses . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . Introduction . Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 5 . . . . .'. . . . . . . Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS smary O O O O C O O O O O I O O O O O The Literature Reviewed . . . . . Design of the Study Reviewed . . . Findings and Conclusions . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Further Research APPmDICES O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 0 O O A. SUPERINTENDENT QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . B. PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . C. TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . D. FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SURVEY SAMPLES . . BIBLIOGRWHY O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 vi 0 O C O 103 104 107 113 118 120 Table 2.l 2.2 3.1 4.l 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 L IST 0F TPBL ES Page Partial Table of Organizational and Performance Characteristics of Different Management Systems . . . . . 21 Description of Leadership Styles. Including Examples of Formal and Informal Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Distribution for Total Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Effectiveness With Perceptions of Informal Organizations . SS Effectiveness With Perceptions of Ability to Exert a High Degree of Control of Informal Organization . . . . . 6O Effectiveness With Perceptions as Members of Informal organ1zat10n O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 64 Effectiveness With PerceptiOns as Informal Leaders in Informal Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Membership With Degree of Compatibility With Informal Leader 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 70 Effectiveness With Membership in the Informal Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 vii CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PRmLEM W "No formal organization will operate effectively without an accompanying informal organization." so stated H A. Simon (1976. p. l48). Our schools are formal organizations. and within each school there also exists an informal structure in which needs that are not fully satisfied by the formal organization are met. The informal organization. a supplemental organization. is the "unplanned. informal set of groups. friendships. and attachments that inevitably develop when people are placed in regular proximity to one another" (Milton. I98l. p. 2291. The school. as the formal organization. provides the setting for the informal organization. and from this point the two are inter- dependent. People relating to people. principals relating to teachers and parents. teachers relating to students--these relationships are the essence of the school enviromnenL. Formal structure is needed to determine and clarify policy and boundaries. objectives and goals. But people interacting with people within the informal structure is the life-generating source of the school environment. Without this life- giving element of the informal organization. a school is sterile. rigid. uninvolved. nonhumorous. a nonpeople place. departing from its basic thrust as education has evolved. It is with this important understanding in mind that the principal's awareness of and relationship to the informal organization must not be overlooked. It must be studied and blended toward interaction that exemplifies and complements the effectiveness of a principal. Manasse (1984) pointed out that effective principals focus on the informal system of the school environment. She noted that within the school's informal structure. the process or control and communi- cation are less formal. less hierarchical. and thus less tangible. An effective principal is aware of this and understands and uses the informal organization to his/her best advantage. The effective princi- pal "pays close attention to the issues on which people agree and uses rituals. symbols. slogans. and selective staff placement and manage- ment" (p. 19) to hold the school environment together. All too often. principals. in their zealous attempts to meet central Office timelines and demands or their own personal goals. miss the mark. They are ineffective in their lack of awareness of the informal organization and its effect on the staff. As Knezevich (1980) pointed out. with the evolution of the principal function. the staff relationship is the key to a productive school environment. A princi- pal's "effectiveness is measured by the interactions or impact on others" (p. 3). He further stated that "faculty-principal relation- ships are crucial to what happens in education" (p. 3). It is with this concept in mind that the principal. upon his awareness of the informal organization. is also able to identify and work with the informal leader(s) within the staff. 'This is the indi- vidual whom other stafflnembers see as "possessing qualities that the other members perceive as critical to the satisfaction of their specific needs" (Baker. 1981. p. 21). The informal leader has influence over the other staff members and has a following of these members. as well (DuBrin. 1974). For expedient adoption and implementation or a new idea. it is imperative that a principal understand the cohesive structure that exists within the informal organization. (kxnmunication and quality of output on the part of a teacher and resultant decisions made by that principal can have long-range. insightful effects as they are related to the cohesiveness of the staff. An understanding of this concept is very important. Cohesion "serves as a building block or base of trust" (Berg 8. Landreth. 1979. p. 103) within a staff that extends itself from a feeling of comfort from group membership to the concrete implementation by a staff of a new idea or concept--all as an outgrowth of the effective principal's awareness of the elements that constitute the informal organization. W The purpose of this study was to investigate principal effec- tiveness as it relates to the existence of the informal organization operative within the school staff. Further investigation focused on the principal's control of and compatibility with the informal organization and its membership. leadership within the informal organi- zation. and its relationship to the informal leader. Information obtained should provide further insights into the training and develop- mental needs of principals and teachers in the application of the informal organization within the school setting. MW Past research has indicated that informal organizations do exist. However. some researchers have resisted that acknowledgment of the informal organization. and somelhave diminished its importance and relativity. Some have said even further that it is an intangible. unmeasurable concept. But this writer purports the existence and strength of the informal organization. She goes even further to examine its existence within the school staff setting and the principal's effectiveness as related to the informal organization. Farris (1978) examined informal organizations for many years and from many perspectives. His concept of informal organization was very clear. concise. tangible. and measurable. He based his precepts on informal organization from the viewpoint that beginning with the Western Electric Hawthorne studies of the 19205 (Roethlisberger 8. Dickson. 1939). informal organization has been a noteworthy subject of study. He stated that informal organization comprises spontaneous. repeated patterns of individual behavior. The informal organizationks goals are those of the individual. whereas the formal organizationus goals are those of the organization. The structural unit of the informal organization is the individual role. "the essential persisting features of recurring actions of an individual" (Katz & Kahn. 1966. 5x 43). These roles form role networks with the function of informa- tion exchange and the exercise of influence. specifically: W-exchange of information relevant to task achievement. Boundary_spannjng--exchange of information relevant to task inte— gration with the outside environment. Grapeyjne--exchange of information relevant to personal develop- ment. .Engblem_sglxlng--the exercise of influence on task achievement. .Besgunce_allgcation--the exercise of influence on task integration with the outside environnent. and Socialization--the exercise of influence of personal development. (Farris. 19789 p. 7) The role networks (informal organizations) maintain several characteristics: Wusome individuals are at the center of the informal organization as infonnal leaders carrying heavy influence. -members are obtained from the informal organization who interact frequently with one another and infre- quently outside their group. --role networks overlap when colleagues from different networks share ideas. .Latena1_h1enangh1es--some individuals regardless of their status in the formal organization attain higher degrees of influence and status in the informal organization. (Farris. 1978. pp. 14-16) Yet another facet of Farris's studies of the informal organiza- tion addresses the issue of what determines which individual will interact with which other individuals. He’listed five factors of proximity that help answer that question: .Eh¥§1911_n£981m11x--an interaction is more likely to occur between persons who are situated close to one another. -persons tend to interact with colleagues who have similar educational backgrounds. W-wersons tend to interact more with indi- viduals who are working on similar tasks. --persons who see each other socially tend to interact more often in work-related discussions on the job. - - --persons working in the same unit (school) tend to interact more with people from the same unit. (Farris. 1978. pp. 18-21) Effective principals recognize the informal organization operational within their staff and use the informal organization to further their effectiveness. Leithwood and Montgomery (1982) conducted several studies involving principals and broke that focus into three areas: (1) those that focus on the role of a principal. (2) those that deal with school changes and the implementation of educational innova- tions. and (3) those that look at school effectiveness. They found that principals are most concerned with attainment of goals and the factors that determine or enhance that attainment. Positive rel ation— ships with staff members and parents are very important. as well as building trust among staff members and fostering relationships that can help improve the school program (Strother. 1983L The studies that Leithwood and Montgomery conducted consis- tently suggested that effective principals are aware of the importance of interaction between staff members and thus showed the importance of the informal organization. In addition to other characteristics of the effective principal. the effective principal: --Seeks the advice of staff members on important issues. --Listens to teachers' problems and ideas. --Disperses decision-making authority and encourages its use. --Expresses support for new practices related to program improvement. --Decides who will participate in innovative school projects. --Gains personal experience by involving him/herself directly in school activities. and --Encourages teachers to evaluate their own professional competence and to set goals for their own growth (Strother. 1983). In another study conducted by Morris. Crowson. Hurwitz. and Porter-Gehric (1982). the researchers examined principals' behavior in relation to the staff with whom they worked. Again. their study supported the importance of positive. informal interaction with the staff. They found four areas of key importance. which were: --Face-to-face encounters and stroking--It is very important that the principal know how to tal k--how to communicate with the staff as most of his job is done in communication on a one-to-one basis. The authors stated that: If we wish to improve the»quality of education we must make certain that principals receive more training and experience in dealing with individuals and in assessing each person's unique psychological needs. Some individuals need compliments and daily reminders of their progress; others need to be left alone to function effectively in their own ways. on 689) --0rganizational ambiguity—-Within the school structure employees seem to be physically isolated from each other part of their workday. Thus procedural informality exists and information passed between principal and teachers is sometimes lost. resulting in varied forms of implementation of that information. It is very important that the principal tighten those loopholes and communicate a common message to all staff members. --The exploitation of chaos and confusion in organizational life-- An effective principal knows how to use the many interests. inputs. and conflicts from staff. parents. students. and others to his/her own advantage. The effective principal can turn this chaos into opportunities that enhance the school environment. --Stability versus enhancementr-Many principals are required to keep the school functioning on an even keel. Yet at the same time. effective principals are also able to "initiate new programs in imaginative ways. and bring in new resources" (p. 690). The characteristics and areas of key importance listed above involve the informal interaction process. The effective principal who employs the process is able to use the informal organization in guiding staff in their creation of and participation in a positive school environment. Wanna: This study was based on the following assumptions: 1. The school is an organization. and the principal is a leader as well as a supervisor of classroom teaching staff. 2. The informal organization as defined for this study may exist within the school staff. and if it does there is a correlation between its existence and the principal's effectiveness. 3. For the purposes of this study. effectiveness of the prin- cipal within the school setting was used as job knowledge. sincerity. impartiality. and use of a supportive attitude and appropriate style of interaction to achieve positive results. 4. Formal and informal systems and the roles of individuals within the systems may overlap. However. a clear separation between the formal and informal organization may also exist. 5. Throughout this study. the words "his" and "her" refer to either gender when one or the other has been omitted. Limitations of the study were as follows: 1. The data collected were based on elementary schools. with the knowledge and understanding that elementary principals and teachers and their professional and personal characteristics cannot be equated with any other entity. i.e.. secondary schools. 2. The study data were affected by the degree of honesty. sincerity. and frankness of subjective responses to the instrument administered. 3. The investigation was limited to the study of the informal organization within the school setting and the princi pal's effective- ness as he/she related to the informal organization. 4. The descriptive nature of the study represented a limita- tion inasmuch as it only describes what is perceived to be true and not what is true. 5. The findings regarding the relationships examined in this study cited in the previous statements were viewed as correlational and not causal. 10 6. Informal organization within the school setting specifi- cally has been the object of limited study as far as this investigator has been able to determine. 7. When using the informal organization for the purpose of this study. there were no control factors fer specific variables. such as unionization. salary differences of the individuals involved. teach- ing assignments. and the existence of internal problems that may have been occurring at the time of this study. 8. Background information such as principals'1and teachers' age. previous educational experience. and educational philosophies was not controlled for in this study. W: W The informal organization describes the actual operating relationship and patterned interactions between staff inembers with the function of information exchange and/or exercising influence (Farris. 1978). In other words. it is the relationships that develop between people that are not part of or controlled by the formal organization. These are attitudes. habits. understanding. or customs of the group--how members get along with each other and how they commu- nicate with each other outside the established formal network of com- munication in the organization (Sedwick. 1974). Examples include volunteer teamwork. cliques. personal influence. co-worker evaluation. social interaction. group cohesion. social group membership. and grape- vine (Monczka. Newstrom. 8. Reif. 1973). 11 Staff. For this study. the staff's membership comprised the school principal and teachers. working together to create a developmen- tal environment for students and themselves (Garland 8. O'Reilly. 1976). W. The formal organization is the planned pattern of formal relationships and duties. formal rules. operating policies. and work and control procedures used by administrators to guide teacher behavior in directions to meet the prescribed goals and objectives (McKenna. 1975). .Infgnmal_1eaden. This is the individual who the staff feels has the greatest degree of influence over the informal structure of the staff. WWI. It is a principal. as perceived by the superintendent. who is an instructional leader and has an adminis- trative style of interaction with staff that achieves positive results. .Less_e££ectixe_nn1nclpa1. It is a principal. as perceived by the superintendent. who is less effective as an instructional leader but not ineffective and has an administrative style of interaction with staff that achieves less positive results. .EIJDQlDil.§Qfl1LQl. It is defined as the degree of influence a principal feels he/she has over the informal organization within the staff. .EL1n91211_l§ad§L§hip. Here it is defined as the principal having the ability to interact and initiate new structure or procedure for accomplishing the school's goals and objectives or for the change of the school's goals and objectives (Tye. 1977). 12 .Erjngjpal_cgmpa11b1111y. It is the ability of the principal to interact in a positive manner to effect trust. regard. and insight with staff. ,Staif_cghesixeness. This is defined as constant interaction between principal and staff. whose relationship cannot be fully exam- ined apart from each other and whose retainedlnembership in a group is a result of these interactions. W219: To determine whether statistically significant differences existed between principals with more effectiveness and those with less effectiveness. and their relationships to the informal organization. the following hypotheses were formulated: thauuuuufluLJ5 There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of the informal organization operative within their staff. .flg_1a: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals! perceptions of the informal groups' existence and strength. .fig_1b: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers! and principals' perceptions of staff having informal groups. .flg_1c: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals! perceptions of staff controllability through the use of informal organization and/or fonmal rules. 13 5944: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal decisions concerning staff work assigments involving informal organization. jig_]_e: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. fl_Q__]_f: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal relationship to the infor- mal organization. flg_l,g: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of the contribution of the informal group toward group performance. fig_]_h: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of the effect of the informal group on staff work output. 11W: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of their ability to exert a high degree of control of the informal organization. Jio_2_a: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of controlling staff through informal organization. 111112: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of independent operation and control of staff. 1191;: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of influence and direction of actions of informal groups within staff. flg_2_d: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of responsibility in governing staff. 14 11.9.2.9: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of need to control with regard to leadership position within informal/formal groups. W: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and princi pal s' perceptions and the way they perceive themselves as members of the informal organization. fl9_3_a: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. 1:19.212: There 'is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal closeness of relationship to staff as members of the informal organization. New: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective. principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of the way the principals perceive them- selves as the informal leader in the informal organization. 1:12.41: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of the principal as informal leader. 1:19.412: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal influence and leadership within the informal group. W: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization and the degree of compatibility with the informal leaders. 1:19.53: There is no significant i‘el ationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal relationship to the infor- mal leader. fl9_5_b: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal compatibility within the informal organization. 15 .flgdfig: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal as informal leader linked with principal membership within the informal organization. ‘flypgthesis_§: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teacherslland principals' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. .flg_§g: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers'land principal s' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. .flg_§b: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal as peer with teachers. .flg_6;: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers'1and principals' perceptions of the principal/teacher relationship. man: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers'land principals' perceptions or principal closeness to the informal group. .flg_§e: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal closeness to the teaching staff. Mutter In the first chapter. the rationale for the purpose of this study was examined. 'The assumptions and limitations were presented. along with the definitions of important terms. Research hypotheses in the null form were stated. In the second chapter. selected literature and research materials are reviewed as they relate to the confines of this study. 16 Informal organization as it relates to the leader is presented..and principal effectiveness is also discussed. In Chapter III. the survey-research methodology of this project is explained. First. the sampling techniques are reviewed. which include three forms of questionnaires that were designed and validated for use in this study. Third. the study design and statistical treat- ment that were used in interpreting the data are examined. Finally. the research hypotheses are presented in testable format. In Chapter IV. the data analysis is examined with regard to each of the hypotheses included in the study. Conclusions regarding the study are drawn in the fifth chapter. Implications of this project for school principals and their relation- ship to the informal organization are discussed. Last. suggestions for further research regarding informal organization and the school princi- pal are presented. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH Introduction The focus for the purposes of this study fell into two major areas. First. informal organization is discussed with explanation of principal control. compatibility and cohesion. membership. leadership in relation to the informal organization. and the principal's relation- ship to the informal leader. Second. principal effectiveness is exam- ined. Additionally. other related studies are included throughout this review. as well as a discussion on perception and its occupation within this study. Inmmalflnaanlzatmn Farris (19780 has studied informal organization for many years and thus has studied the works of other leaders in the field since its identification with Hawthorne's Western Electric studies of the 19205. cited earlier. From his research. Farris discussed the concept of informal organization as the interpersonal relationships that exist in the work setting that are not determined by the rules and policies of the formal organization. These relationships emerge spontaneously in order to satisfy individual members' needs. 17 18 For the purposes of this study. the formal organization must also be identified. Graham (1971). in his research design of a study regarding informal organizational membership. which is described in greater detail later in this chapter. stated that a formally structured work situation is denoted by several components. such as job assign- ments by formal leaders and formal authority relationships where roles of the subordinate and supervisor are cl early defined. Formal communi- cation channels are used by the supervisor. and planning and goal setting are formal endeavors taken on by work units defined for them by the supervisor. Work goals are part of the formal structure. as is the subjective assignment of rewards which the supervisor determines based on his concept of performance. Katz and Kahn (1966) suggested that within the formal organi- zation the goals are those of the organization rather than those of the individual as in the informal operation. The structural unit of a formal system is the office space or the ranking. which places an individual in relation to the other workers with respect to the job to be done and his part in giving and taking orders. In the informal system the structural unit. as Farris (1978) pointed out. is the individual role where an individual's actions persistently reoccur. Within the formal organization. the basis for communication is the set of formally stated objectives and relationships among personnel. Within the informal organization. various forms of proximity between individuals serve as communication bases. These forms of proximity were discussed in Chapter I. 19 Farris (1981) stated that within the formal organization the basis for power is legitimate authority where work rules dictate tasks. decisions. and individual behaviors. Within the informal organization. power is also salient. But the power belongs to the individual who tries to satisfy the particular needs of another individual. the partner of the interpersonal relationship. Hierarchies of power are then established within the informal structure. which develop as lateral hierarchies where individuals regardless of position become the power source. Galbraith (1977) also conducted research in the area of lat- eral hierarchies within the informal organization. He discussed them from the simplest to most complex hierarchy in the following order of complexity: (1) direct contact between managers who share a common problem. (2) liaison roles established between two departments or buildings where each is in frequent contact with the other.(3) tempo- rary task forces formed to solve problems affecting several different work groups. (4) permanent teams set up to deal with reoccurring prob- lems within an organization. and (S) establishment of an integrating role when leadership of the lateral processes becomes a problem. Galbraith pointed out that in the formal organization. power that is based on legitimate authority establishes vertical hierarchies. as opposed to the lateral hierarchies just discussed. To summarize briefly. Farrjs (1978) pointed out that both informal and formal operations exist within an organization and are developed to satisfy individual needs. which may or may not be in 20 compliance with the organizational goals. The informal organization is built around the role of the individual or repeated interpersonal activities that develop between individuals who are close to one another as needs are satisfied. These hierarchies that laterally occur in the informal organization exist as certain individuals have greater power to satisfy certain needs. Likert (1967). another leader and pioneer in the field of human organization. has studied and researched the elements of informal and formal structure. His depiction of different management systems is shown in Table 25L System 1 depicts the informal organization as a thriving entity that opposes formal structure. At the other end of the continuum. System 4 exists. where informal and formal organizations are one and the same. where group decision making occurs rather than man- to—man. superior-to-subordinate direction and control. It is a cross- function linking process of the formal and informal organization. Each system maintains different strengths and controls of the informal organization. Likert taking the position that a System 4 organization is the optimum organization. leert also stressed the notion and importance of an interesting variable within the informal organization-that of time--along with the causal. intervening. and end-result variables that are directly linked to effective supervisory leadership. Likert perceived time as a variable that influences the power and formation of relationships as in the amount of time spent nurturing peer leadership positions within the organization. 21 .mCN .o. .aa .Akem_ ..ou soon ___=-3.Luuz ”xL0> 302v cowum~_cmmco case: on» .ucox_4 m_m:o¢ “ooL30m >_o>_u_c:q tom: uoc "oocmu_:m vcm oc_>_0m 50.noLa oeumc_uL00o no» ecu oocme_:m-».om Lo» tum: acosommcme aou cozy m_oLucoo cease—u ecu mzom>oc meoLom_L once mcmmoeeu mos,“ an mu_c: L030. :u_3 .oLucoo ecu Zom>oc cob >u.._n_mconmoL umoLamoo_3 eu_:o . m_mOm m.co_um~_cmmco o>o_zom ou «accumo utoanam «coco» .m_oom __m coco; Hosea ecu 0cm oco oLm co_um~_cmmco .oELOu ecu .mEcouc_ oocmo_:m-u_0m no» em_m om: 060m uncovco ;u_3 uL0oom c. oocmv_:m to» new: “uCOEcm_caa oeom £u_3 use ecmxoc co >__m ism: mummgaeo ;u_3 cc. -o__oa to» cum: >_oacm4 o_n_mcoomoc .oou m_o>o_ Locum; mm _.03 we Luzo— “mOmmeoocq .oLucOU can zom>oL we co_umm -o_oc vcmzczon oumcouoz co_um~_cmmco _mEL0w we m_moc um_moL >__m_u -Lmn Lo acoaaam Lozu_o can acumoLa on >mE co_um~.cmoLo .mscowc. mcuuco :u_3 encoum c. use oocmu_:o new ans: -oEOm vow: n>_o>_u_c:a meE_uoEOm .ucoE;m_::a vcm P539. :33 “we—Q30”. ac_o__oa to» tow: m_o>o_ Luzo— ecm 0.36:: ou .ocuc0o nuance—on 050m ;u_3 .ooumcucoo -cOo >_;o_c >_o>_um.ox m_m0m acmum_moL >__m_ucma vcm acumenn >__m:m: co_um~_cmoco .meco»c_ Eocene o>_u_::a m c_ ucm mc_u__0a cob new: ucoEommcmE aou c_ voumcucoocoo >_:m_: co_um~_ -cmmco .mELOu mo m_mom ocmmOQQO vcm unemoca :o_um~_cmmco .oELo»c_ Eocene acme..oa .o>_u_c:a mp: mLo_L -oaam >a tom: Lo "moo ->o_aso >L0m_>coq:mcoc new accomcme xa ac. ->_Om Eo_noLa naocm Lo oocmemza-u_om new new: ocm A.ouo .umOO .>u. ->_uo:voLa .mc_uc:ooum ..m.ov some _ocu -cOo ;o_:3 ou acouxw noumcucoo -cOo new mco_uocam _ocucou ecu zo_>oc any :o_:3 cu accuxm :omum~ -_ceaco .oELOw mo m_mom m:_moooo Lo mc_uL0aQ:m can “cemocn co_um~ -_cmmco .oELOuc_ cm m. 0.0;» zo_;3 ou uCOuxm : Eoum>m m Eoum>m N soum>m _ Eoum>m o_nm_cm> co_um~_cmmco .mEOum>m acoeoomcoe acoLeum_c we mo_um_co«omcmco oocmscoucoa new .mco_um~_cmmco $0 0.3m“ _m_ucmm--._.~ o_am» 22 Peer leadership. Likert pointed out. has been substantiated as a powerful. influential. organizational commodity that stimulates and contributes to organizational success (Bowers 8 Seashore. 1966). Peer leadership contributes to high performance and can be used positively rather than stifling output. as seen with Likert's Management Systems 1 and 2. (See Table 2.1.) Graham (1971) also conducted studies regarding informal organizations. One study examined the reason why individuals chose other individuals with whom to informally interact professionally and socially within the formally organized framework. This research concentrated on the level of interpersonal attraction under the assumption that this interpersonal attraction is what caused the informal group to form. Like Farris. Graham also believed that physical proximity is very influential in the make-up of the informal relationship. In his studies individuals who were in close proximity developed strong ties. while the individuals who were physically iso- lated were also socially isolated and not part of the informal organization. He took this theory one step further and stated that even within a similar environment. persons are attracted to others (and they attract others) in varying degrees of intensity. Through this intensity. Graham showed in this study that individuals are more attracted to others who hold similar ideas. opinions. and values than to individuals who hold different viewpoints. In summary. Graham researched to what extent influence. atti- tudes. task orientation. physical attraction. and contributions to 23 group goals influenced the intensity with which individuals were attracted to each other on a work or social basis. The results indi- cated that those individuals who were rated highly by peers tended to choose other highly rated individuals as work and social companions. Individuals who were rated low by their peers tended to reject other persons rated low as social and work companions. An explanation for the low-rated individual to reject those who were also rated low may be that of a perceptual difference. The low-rated individual had a self- image that was different from the image his peers had of him. Thus. this individual might have perceived himself as rating high on these criteria and was attempting to choose others who were rated high. It may be well at this point in the review of literature to discuss perception as understood and implemented in this study. WM Perception is a quality that became a scientific term and entity early on by many researchers. .As early as 1866. Von Helmholtz determined through his studies that past experiences lead individuals toward what to‘expect and give them a pre—established attitude that may determine what is to be perceived and how one will react to that perception. Then again. Titchener. in 1909. determined that percep— tion would be different for different persons. again according to their past experiences (Beardslee 8 Wertheimer. 1958). Perception is observation. and observation is influenced directly through the physical senses. gaining the stimulation through 24 sense organs from the object being studied. It is the way things look. sound. feel. taste. or smell. It is an understanding. an awareness. a meaning. Allport (1955) stated that perception is influenced by need. motivation. and emotion. It becomes an entity through our sense organs. Through these sense organs. the receptors and neural impulses transmit information through the nerves to the brain. It is then recorded as perception. stored inlnemory. and made available as knowledge with perception establishing itself as the original building block upon which knowledge is obtained (Locke. 1967). Early psychologists asked whether perception was an innate characteristic of man or whether it was an outcome of the individual interacting with the environment. After continued research in the area of perception. perception has been determined to be an accepted research tool. We now ask which aspects of perception occur with previous experience and which are an outcomerof learning. and how inborn and learned perceptual activities intertwine. Other theorists who have contributed greatly to the scientific use and validation of perception include the Set Theory of Kulpe and Bryan in 1904; the Gestalt Theory of Kofka in 1935; the Cortical Field Theory of Kohler and Wallach in 1944. Kohler and Held in 1949. and Lashly. Chow. and Semmes in 1951: the Associative Theory of Hebb in 1949; the Attention Theory of Muller in 1904 and 1923; the Transaction- alist Theory of Dewey in 1986 and of Brunswick in 1940; the Decision Theory of Swets. Tanner. and Birdsall in 1964; and the Figure-Ground Theory of Rubin in 1951 (Allport. 1955; Beardslee 8 Wertheimer. 1958L. 25 W Principal control of the informal organization is an important variable in this study. which needs to be addressed. Control. according to Stout (1981). is political. It seeks power over the informal and formal structure of an organization. The organization is a tool. It does not create. develop goals. or operate on hunches. And it even can inhibit the application of new information into new behaviors. new policies. The principal must know how to manage this tool. the organization. the staff. In business. control is described in terms of power over the development and the production function. In educational terms. this translates into the same thing--developing the human organization. the educational process. which then can produce positive educational results elicited by a cohesive staff. Upon developing a behavior. a principal must react to the environment. to the community and the staff personality. But the production function is single minded. It must operate from a stable goal. When product is emphasized and the developmental aspect of an organization becomes less. the operation of a school becomes self-directed. thus losing sight of why education has evolved. for and by the people. Control of an organization. Stout said. allows a leader to know where the organization is going and why. McKenna (1975) stated that a principal cannot operate effectively if he relies only on his affiliation with the formal organization. His success depends on his ability to control and influence his stafflnembers in the informal organization. It depends 26 on building trust and relationships in his environment and with all members of the organization--his peers. associates. superiors. and subordinates. Controlling this work environment enables a principal to use his perceptions and built-in sensitivities that it is hoped he has developed en route to this leadership position of guiding and recom- mending to staff members. Smith (1975) researched control as experienced by Chester Barnard. and in this study Smith equated control and authority through Barnard's study of formal and informal organization. Barnard said that the informal organization within a formal structure must not be overlooked as it has a significant effect on the operation of the formal organization. And the informal organization must be controlled and understand and within the grasp of the leader of the organization. The group attitude of the informal organization is so strong that within the formal organization it says that authority "comes down from above)‘ This notion often facilitates the process of authority and control. ‘This control allows the staff to maintain their individual status and work and personal dignity. It includes the formal organization within their informal work style simply because a directive came "from above." and they had no choice but to abide by that dictate. A study conducted by Kruegar and Parish (1982) discussed the informal organization as the "Informal Covenant" whose sample was taken from five different school sites. Within the "Informal Covenant.” their research showed several aspects of awareness. use. and control of the 27 informal organization as it pertains to the implementation of new programs. Reasons and discussion for that control included: 1. 2. Those persons with direct responsibility for implementation must understand the reasons why a particular program has been selected for implementation and be able to substantiate a program to individuals involved. particularly teachers. Selection of a new program must take into account the school culture and the degree to which a program matches or contradicts existing views held by teachers in order to accommodate a teacher's teaching/learning style. It is necessary to develop a climate of credibility and trust among all those involved in the program implementation. In other words. this means for those who promote change that they must learn the language of the local school and the informal structure in operation at that particular school site. It is important to develop a double loop communication and informatflon sharing process between the formal and informal systems as the researchers stated that it was the informal networks that had the greatest impact upon implementation. As well as being aware of the informal structure operative at a school site. it is also important that those involved in pro- gram implementation learn the formal deci sion-making procedures and timelines as well as those local issues about which the administrators are sensitive and in which they take a special interest. It is important to make use of the informal networks within the school to develop support groups for the implementation. Specifically. change agents should build support with teachers who favor the new program and then use them as demonstration teachers. These teachers. who may become the influential. informal leaders. can also be used to form support and problem- solving groups. Identify the "teachable moments" in the implementation and use the formal and informal structure and the external and internal processes to problem solve. As teachers have their estab- lished value systems and norms by which they live and. in turn. by which they teach. it is important that implementation be introduced at.just the right moment. when the teacher would be more receptive to listening and learning about a new concept. 28 8. Recognize when limits or plateaus of change have been reached. and know when it is time to walk away. It is apparent that there will be times when people within a school will no longer be willing to put energy into a given improvement effort. It is important to be aware when these times occur and to channel this depleted energy into a new direction for revitalization. Kruegar and Parish summarized their study by emphasizing that principal and teacher control of the above elements of the informal organization creates positive conditions in the school setting. These conditions promote successful and productive relationships with suc- cessful implementation and improved instruction. W W In their study. Kruegar and Parish also exemplified the process of compatibility and cohesion between the principal and his staff. which was also an important element of this project. The "Informal ConvenantP comprised a set of social systems. of agreements. where teachers and principal shared ideas. authority. and control toward a common end. This cohesion was the social glue which. by its implementation. brought significant success in the implementation of educational programs. Carlisle (1973) also studied the element of cohesion within the organization. the school setting. among other elements including membership. group identification. and the informal structure itself. He also studied the informal barriers that evolve within an organization. These barriers are depicted through attitudes of the current membership. role concepts. status relationships. restricted 29 social interaction. and the informal criteria used to develop associations. A leader's cohesion with the staff and awareness of these barriers help create the productive informal organization. As a result of this creation. a cohesive work group is formed. It is a staff that is committed to the formal and informal organizational objectives. which incidentally reduces the supervisory burdens of the principal. The informal group disciplines its own members and can work toward the organization's goals as a unit. Cohesiveness is a positive and controlling aspect of the informal organization. When the staff and principal are not cohesive. and the informal organization does not support the school's goals as a unit. dissension and conflict become more difficult to manage. Cohesion. Carlisle stated. exists as a measure by which individual needs are satisfied through the achievement of group goals. It is affected by the compatibility of interpersonal relations and external effect and threats by individuals outside of the informal structure. Individual involvement with decision making when group activities are involved and the homogeneity of the value systems and norms of group members also affect compatibility within the informal organization. Herbert (1976) pointed out that having an effective. on—goi ng communication network that is responsive to the needs of members of the informal organization promotes a high degree of cohesiveness between staff members. As cohesion measures the attraction among group members and their commitment to the informal group. cohesion is a 30 valuable tool for both principal and teacher. A principal needs to be aware of the fact that if cohesion does not exist. intended changes will be difficult to implement. 'The informal group will then resist this new concept on the basis of self-protection. rather than working and thinking together cohesively to support the organization's goals rather than their own individual goals. Herbert also examined the social and emotional satisfaction within the informal organization. When a highly cohesive staff supports the formal goals of the organization. the work performance may be either greater or lower. The direction depends on the degree to which the informal group members were able to satisfy their emotional and social needs by their current values and norms. Seashore (1954) examined the role played by group cohe51veness through group attitudes and productivity. He found that: Members of highly-cohesive groups were less anxious about job- related matters than were members of low-cohesive groups; this may be related to high degrees of satisfaction of security needs through the group. Productivity varied significantly less among highly-cohesive group members than among low-cohesive group members. The productivity of highly-cohesive groups differed (above and below) from work standardsrnore often and to greater extents than did productivity of low cohesive groups. Attitude toward management affected whether group productivity would be higher or lower than work standards. Group cohesiveness increased with the prestige attributed to group members' jobs. Group cohesiveness increased with opportunities for interac- tions among group members. Seashore's study is important in that high cohesiveness may increase positive attitudes among group members and still affect productivity negatively or positively. The ability of a leader to 31 influence the informal group's behavior and attitude toward a positive end is thus significant. WW .thLInLQrmaJJannizatmn Reif. Monczla. and Newstrom (1976) conducted a study that asked which part of the organization it is more important to be a member of. the formal or the informal. Which membership is more significant? Although much of their research pointed out that membership in the informal organization was significant. they were skeptical about the fact that researchers have been biased in their selection and use of knowledge in their research. ‘The authors contended that their study supported the concept that membership in formal organizations had a greater effect on the success of that organization. They also contended that more researchers. when studying organizations. should take a systems approach with its concern for the total organization. rather than arbitrarily classifying membership within an organization as formal and informal. concentrating on improving a part and ignoring the whole. Wanna 194W When there islnembership within the informal organization. the principal can play a key role. depending on his application of a leadership role. which also is a variable to be reviewed in connection with this study. Galbraith (1977) suggested that leadership within the informal organization can often be handled by the problem-solving 32 approach without the dictates of a single. powerful leader. A principal as leader may informally or formally employ the use of consensus. which is not unanimity but occurs when an individual disagrees with the preferred solution. as is so clearly stated in this example by Schein (1956): I understand what most of you would like to do. I personally would not do that. but I feel that you understand what my alternative would be. I have had sufficient opportunity to sway you to my point of view but clearly have not been able to do so. Therefore. I will go along with what most of you wish to do. However. consensus is not always achieved within the informal organization. and a leadership style is employed formally and informally--if. in fact. the principal is alnember of the infermal organization. This leadership may take on the appearances of traditional leadership styles. such as autocratic. democratic. anarchic. pseudodemocratic. or newly termed nomothetic. idiographic. and transactional styles as discussed by Knezevich (1975). As McKenna (1975) pointed out. closer examination of the three traditional leadership styles interfacing between the formal and informal systems is depicted in Table 2.2. W Wear: Another aspect of the informal group that pertains to this project is the study of informal leadership. Typically. the informal leader does not possess formal power. However. this aspect does not always affect who will be the informal leader or for how long. .33 Table 2.2.--Description of leadership styles. including examples of formal and informal elements. Formal Informal Authoritarian Organization tells Person doing ordering which person does informally converses ordering with vendors and decides which vendor to use Democratic Basic formal lines Thoughts and concerns of communication of others are taken followed into consideration by leader when ordering material or making decisions Anarchic A highly structured Informal system does and technical organi- not seek leader out zation exists with and subordinates make leader involved in decisions and leader making decisions sanctions group decisions Baker (1981) denoted that the informal leader is the individual who emerges possessing qualities that other members of the informal organization perceive as critical to the satisfaction of their specific needs at a particular moment. As needs change. so does the leader. Only rarely does a single individual possess all of the leadership characteristics needed to fill the various needs of the informal group. The informal group's judgment of its leaders tends to belquicker. more harsh. and less understanding than that of most formal groups. 34 A leader. Baker suggested. can use several strategies to affect the leadership and control in the informal group: 1. Causing the leader to change one or more of his character- istics. 2. Replacing the leader with another person. 3. Systematic rotation of the informal leader out of the leadership role. 4. Allowing a leader to emerge who has objectives similar to those of the formal organization. 5. Absorbing informal leaders into the decision-making process of the formal organization. As discussed. informal leadership is a key factor in the significance of the informal organization. its operation. and its effect on the formal system. W Within the organizational structure of the school setting. principal effectiveness plays a paramount role. which also needs to be examined for this study. Like many others. Mazzarella (1980) did extensive research in this area. In her approach to leadership effectiveness. Mazzarella studied principals and teachers to gain data for her studies. In her pursuits. she found that principals stated that there were barriers to their effectiveness. which included too much paper work and not enough time. Loss of power as an administrator was also cited as a deficit because of increased power of the community and control of the school by the local school board. Increased independence and negotiating ability of the teachers and increased power of students also were seen as 35 barriers. as was the growth of teacher associations and collective bargaining. Mazzarella's studies also pointed out that the loss of confidence in and the negative image of schools may interfere with the power of the administrator. Administrators feel that the lack of training and adequate preparation programs have also contributed to this disadvantage. Mazzarella also stated that a basic requirement for effective leadership was found to be the employment of time-management techniques. These techniques include blocking out large amounts of time for daily planning. accounting for how time is spent. prioritizing and using ti me-management tools such as proper delegation of tasks and responsibility. role definition for staff. and secretary development. Effective leaders. Mazzarella suggested. are involved in specific leadership training. This training focuses on technical skills of educational methods. techniques. and use of school equipment. as well as human skills. which include communication and interaction within the formal and informal organization. Conceptual skills of having the ability to look at the overall organization as well as its parts and the goals of that organization must also be included in leadership training. Hal pin and Croft's (1962) findings on effective leaders also established the importance of the organizational climate. Their studies supported the idea of an open rather than a closed climate. where the effective leader has the ability to create a climate in which the leader can initiate and implement his leadership role. Their 36 studies found a determined link between leader behavior and school climate. An effective principal can provide varied learning envi- ronments and opportunities for active learning to take place where performance expectations are individualized and the rules are coopera- tively determined by staff and students. Like Halpin and Croft. Mazzarella (1980) also pointed out that an effective principal knows how to develop trust among his staff. It is the responsibility of the principal to establish strong. open. and honest relations within the work setting. Through this flowing commu- nication pattern. there is a close relationship with the decision- making process that exists within the school environment. An effective principal knows how to turn the decision-making process of change into a positive element among staff. By involving staff. the individuals are then committed to these decisions. This can be done by involving those who will be affected by the change rather than simply imposing change through dictates without contributions to the process. Suggesting ideas to staff and using staff support are paramount in gaining support of significant individuals when making decisions and implementing change. As discussed earlier in this chapter. leadership and leadership style are key issues regarding the principal and the organization. Leadership style has been observed to be situational. with different leadership styles being needed depending on specific situations that may arise. 37 Fielder (1967). upon developing the contingency theory. studied two different approaches to leadership style-task oriented and rela- tionship oriented-~within three kinds of situations-~favorable. unfavorable. and moderately favorable. Favorable was defined as the power of a leader. the quality of relations among staff. and how struc- tured the task was. Fiedler discovered that task-oriented leaders worked best when the situation was either very favorable or very unfav- orable. The relationship-oriented leaders worked best in a moderately favorable situation. With continued efforts. Fiedler worked in leader- ship training to improve the ”favorableness" of the situation by improving relationships. task structure. and control. Many individuals have studied Fiedler's theory. such as Garland and O'Reilly (1976). who used Fiedler's contingency theory in their own study of leadership effectiveness. Relationships between principal and teacher interaction were examined within the educational environment. Their study supported the concept that an effective school under effective leadership is responsible for providing a situation where learning is most likely to happen. This environment would facilitate the development of needs which arelcharacteristic of a self-actualized individwaL Significant differences in group performance were found when the group atmosphere in the educational setting was varied along with the leadership style. In summary. Garland and O'Reilly's study suggested that group effectiveness may enhance effective leadership in ways to promote good relations among staff. 38 Manasse (1984). in her research and study of effective principals. found that goal setting played a major role for the effective principal. For principals to be successful in the management of the goal-setting process and achieving support from staff. the principal must know what direction the school is going. based on the values of those involved in that particular educational goal. Manasse asserted that goal-setting behavior on the part of an effective principal involves: l. A personal vision of their school as they want it to be at some point in the future. 2. The development of an agenda of actions toward the implementa- tion of that vision. 3. Management of the goal setting process to generate commitment to the vision on the part of all participants in the school community. 4. Expert information sensing and analysis skills. used to develop agendas. monitor programs. and provide feedback. 5. Timely use of conflict management and problem solving. as dictated by the information sensing activities. (pp. 14-15) Hollingsworth (1974). in his study of a utility company. concerning effectiveness of formal leaders within the organization. researched the boundaries and existence of an informal system within the organization and whether a relationship existed between the effectiveness of a formal leader and the informal organization. His study substantiated the fact that effective leaders are those who accurately perceive the strength of the informal organization within their work setting. He also studied a leader's membership within the informal organization and found that there was a weak association 39 between membership in the informal organization and formal leader effectiveness. Perceived membership in the informal organization. which was addressed earlier in the chapter. may be of importance to an effective leader but not totally necessary for effective leadership. Membership may allow the leader usage of the informal information system and may display an ability by the leader to achieve acceptance for his ideas with the informal group. Through Fiedler's (1960) studies. he supported the idea that experience is probably the most prevalent factor that influences team performance. In a study with the Office of Naval Research. he drew these conclusions as related to leader effectiveness. He stated that leaders who assumed a psychologically distant pose to the groups they led were'more effective than leaders who were warmer and more interper- sonal in their relationship with their subordinates. When warmer relationships existed. it was more difficult for the leader to disci- pline his subordinates. There also was a tendency to become more dependent on one or two grouplnembers. which may encourage rivalries and favoritism to develop. Thus Fiedler's study concluded that for the effective leader. psychological distance is important as it allows for better staff relations and emphasizes time on task. Argyris (1961). in his studies of organizational leadership. contended that the effective organizational leader is aware of the informal elements of the organization. He supports the traditional theories of organization. which contend that the main components of an 40 organization are high productivity and high human loyalty. Productivity as well as control. internal influences. and problem solving are within the grasp of the effective leader. Furthermore. Argyris stated that the effective organizational leader will find ways to optimize the degree to which individuals obtain self-expression and contribute to the organization. The effective leader helps his workers become aware of what aids and hinders the growth and production of the organization. By having that control and insight over these elements. an effective leader can be productive with change and hinder the occurrence of activities that may interfere with goal consummation. A lack of awareness of the strength of the informal organization has been shown to decrease leader effectiveness and as a result take away the strength of support toward goals of the formal structure. With this concept in mind. Whyte (1950) examined how this lack of awareness can deter leader effectiveness. He stated that the effective leader has the flexibility to adjust to changes in the type and frequency of interactions with others. ‘This flexibility can only be developed by experiencing many different kinds of situations that require adjustment to different kinds of patterns of interaction within a staff. He stated that the more limited a leader's experiences are. the more structured and rigid will be his pattern of interacting and the more difficult his adjustment when changes occur. Ih another contribution to organizational leadership. Whyte (1961) stated that where there is effective leadership there is a leader who is able to guide and control the correspondence between informal 41 and formal organization. An effective leader is one who recognizes and understands the joining process of each set of personalities and goals and each set of interactions operative within the formal and informal systems that exist within a single organization. According to Whyte. an effective leader also knows how to maximize each worker's potential and skill. Yukl (1983) examined business and education as one and the same. FHs particular insights and research were significant in the statement they made regarding the extent to which the leader is able to act on and correct any deficiencies in staff motivation. role clarity. or task skills. Resources needed for tasks. organization and coordi- nation of staff activities. and group cohesiveness and teamwork are also areas where problems often occur. He stated that a leader will not be effective to his potential if he does not recognize deficiencies in the above-stated areas. Effective leaders use in these challenging concerns varied and alternative corrective solutions. and identifying these behaviors is extremely important to the effective leaden. The leader must pay prompt attention to these deficiencies for optimum effectiveness in order to provide lasting improvements in educational performance. Sumac: In Chapter II. a theoretical base and related research were established for this study. Many researchers were cited for their contributions in the area of informal organization. such as Farris. Katz and Kahn. Galbraith. Likert. and Graham. Writings on perception 42 as a research tool were also included by this investigator. The quality of principal control was addressed by Stout. McKenna. Smith. Barnard. and Kruegar and Parish. Carlisle. Herbert. and Seashore's work contributed to the examination of principal compatibility and cohesion. Fhflncipal membership within the informal organization was reviewed in terms of the studies by Reif. Monczka. and Newstrom. Galbraith. McKenna. and Knezevich's contributions were included in the review of principal leadership in the relationship to the informal organization. The principal's relationship to the informal leader was reviewed by Baker's literature. Finally. principal effectiveness was addressed by Mazzarella. Halpin and Croft. Fiedler. Garland and (NReilly. Hollingsworth. Argyris. Whyte. and Yukl. Those reviewed were considered to have importance relative to this study. In the next chapter. the research design for this study is examined. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The direction of this exploratory study was to examine the relationship between more effective and less effective elementary prin- cipals and their relationship to the informal organization that may exist between themselves and their teaching staffs within the school setting. Specifically. one of the purposes of this project was to determine if. in fact. informal organizations did exist within the school settings under study. Second. a determination was made based on the returned data whether the principals included themselves as part of the informal organization. The extent of their compatibility with the informal organization. control of the informal structure. and principal leadership as it affected the informal system were also determined. This chapter presents a description of the processes used in conducting the study. First. the population involved is defined. along with the sample. The sampling technique is also discussed. and the data-gathering procedures are explained. The statistical techniques are presented. and the research hypotheses are restated in testable format. ‘13 44 W The population of this study comprised 3 school superintend- ents. lO elementary school principals. and 124 elementary classroom teachers from three sample school districts within the Kent Interme- diate School District (KISD) in Kent County. Michigan. The three sample school districts were taken from contiguous geographic locations of similar sizes and socioeconomic status. On the basis of 3 returned questionnaires from the superinten- dents. 10 returned questionnaires from the principals. and 92 returned questionnaires from the classroom teachers. the following distributions were collected from the samples studied. as seen in Table 3.1. Table 3.1.-—Distribution for total respondents. Total Number in Percent in Position Number Sample Sample Superintendents 3 3 100.0 Elementary principals 10 10 100.0 Classroom teachers 124 92 74.2 Instrumentation The instrument used for gathering data for this study was designed by (a) an examination of the literature and (b) an ERIC search of related literature. specifically. Hemphill's Gnoup_Qim§n§19n§;_A Went; Chowdhry and Newcomb's "The Relative Abilities of Leaders and Non-Leaders to Estimate Opinions of Their 45 Groups"; Goode and Hatt's WWII; Selltiz's WW: and Carter's "Some Research on Leadership in Small Groups." Copies of the questionnaires appear in Appendices A. B. and C. P_i_l_ot_8.tudx A pilot study was conducted with 2 superintendents. 7 princi- pals. and 12 teachers of the Greater Grand Rapids Extern Program. The specific questionnaires were given to the three groups to ascertain (1) whether each item on the questionnaire was clearly stated and (2) whether the cover letter was understandable in terms of direction for the completion of the questionnaire. Based on the pilot study recommendations. the three forms of questionnaires for the superin- tendents. principals. and teachers were revised for improved wording of certain questions and more simplified directions for compl eting the questionnaires. W The data from the three participating school districts were collected according to the following process. A meeting with each participating superintendent was arranged. and at these meetings distribution procedures for the questionnaires were discussed. as well as each district's use of the completed study. The superintendents completed and returned their questionnaires and distributed the princi pal s' questionnaire packet. which included the principal questionnaire plus the classroom teachers' questionnaire with a cover 46 letter. questionnaire. and a return-addressed envelope. The principal then distributed the teachers' questionnaires to the classroom teachers. Two weeks after the initial distribution process. follow-up letters and second questionnaires were mailed. All of the superinten- dents and principals returned their completed questionnaires. but out of 124 teachers. 92 (74%) of the teachers' questionnaires were returned. .51o115119o1_lroo1mon1 The Pearson correlation coefficient statistical treatment was performed for all hypotheses of this study. .And the chi-square was performed for all hypotheses except where there were fewer than 21 cases (Sprinthall. 1982). ‘These statistical treatments were approp- riate for all hypotheses as each hypothesis included the testing of variables whose relationships were to be determined andlneasured. The level of rejection of the null hypotheses for this study was set at OJHL This is a level of significance for the alpha error in many social-science studies (Sprinthall. 1982). Whose: To determine the relationship that may exist between more effective and less effective leaders and their relationship to the informal organization. the following testable hypotheses were analyzed: : There is a significant relationship betweenlthe more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of the informal organization operative within their staff. 47 519.910.935.13: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teach- ers' and principals' perceptions of the informal groups' exist- ence and strength. W: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of staff having informal groups. 111mm: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of staff controllability through the use of informal organization and/or formal rules. W: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal decisions concerning staff work assignments involving informal organization. 11%“: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. W: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal relationship to the informal organization. mm: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of the contribution of the informal group toward group performance. WW: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of the effect of the informal group on staff work output. W: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of their ability to exert a high degree of control of the informal organization. W23: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of controlling staff through infor- mal organization. 48 : There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of independent operation and con- trol of staff. Hypothesjs_2c: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of influence and direction of actions of informal groups within staff. .flypgtnesjs_2g: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of responsibility in governing staff. W: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of need to control with regard to leadership position within informal/formal groups. ,Alternatiye_fiypothesis;1: ‘There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions and the way they perceive themselves as members of the informal organization. ‘flypgthesis;1a: ‘There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. .flypgtnesjs_3b: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal closeness of relation- ship to staff as members of the informal organization. : There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of the way the principals perceive themselves as the informal leader in the informal organi- zation. ‘flypgtnesjsgaa: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of the principal as informal leader. .onothosis_4b: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal influence and leader- ship within the infonmal group. 49 : There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization and the degree of compatibility with the informal leaders. : There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal relationship to the informal leader. WM: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal compatibility within the informal organization. W55: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' ' and principals' perceptions of principal as informal leader linked with principal membership within the informal organiza- tion. WW: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. mum: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. Wham: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal as peer with teachers. mm: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of the principal/teacher relation- ship. flypothesjsm: There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal closeness to the informal group. 50 : There is a significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal closeness to the teaching staff. Summary The samples for this study were school superintendents. elemen- tary principals. and classroom teachers from three school districts in the Kent Intermediate School District. A self-administered question- naire was the instrument used. which was designed specifically for use with this study. A pilot study was conducted for validation and appli- cability. Data-gathering techniques were explained in this chapter. and the statistical treatments applied to the hypotheses were described. The statistical treatments used were chi-square and Pearson correlation coefficient. The testable hypotheses were then presented. The next chapter contains a detailed statistical analysis of the data. O-iAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction The statistical analysis of the data is presented in this chapter with statistical treatments employed as discussed in Chapter III. In this chapter each hypothesis is examined individually. In addition. the null hypothesis is restated with further explanation and interpretive discussion including the rejection or acceptance of each hypothesis. Specific items that were extrapolated from the question- naires as data are also discussed with regard to the hypotheses. Tables are used to clarify the statistical treatments and results. Finally. the chapter summary briefly describes the rejection or accept- ance of the hypotheses. For the purposes of this study. data were drawn from the three different questionnaires. In the Superintendent Questionnaire. each superintendent ranked his/her principals for effectiveness. membership in the informal organization. and cohesiveness with their teaching staffs. (See Appendix Ad In the Principal Questionnaire. each principal answered 19 items regarding his/her relationship to the teaching staff and to the informal organization. (See Appendix BA In the Teacher*0uestionnaire. classroom teachers answered 13 items regarding their perceptions of their principal as a leader and staff 51 52 member and his relationship to the informal organization. (See Appendix C.) flmihfiJLl There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' percep- tions of the informal organization operative within their staff. tkLJj; There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers'.and principals' perceptions of the informal groups' existence and strength. .flg_1b: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of staff having informal groups. flg_]_c: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers'land principal s' perceptions of staff controllability through the use of informal organization and/or formal rules. .flg_1d: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal decisions concerning staff work assignments involving informal organization. .flg_1e: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers'.and principal s' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. .flg_1f: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers'land principals' perceptions of principal relationship to the infor- mal organization. .flg_1g: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of the contribution of the informal group toward group performance. flg_1h: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals! perceptions of the effect of the informal group on staff work output. S3 Hypothesis 1 was statistically tested using the following items. which were drawn from data taken from the Superintendent. Principal. and Teacher Questionnaires: Superintendent Questionnaire identified the more effective and less effective principal: l. Superintendents' perceptions of principal as member of the informal organization. 2. Superintendents' perceptions of principal effectiveness. Principal Questionnaire included the following items (made up from Items 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8.10. and 13 in the questionnaire): 1. Principals' perceptions of informal groups' existence and strength. 2. Principals' perceptions of staff having informal groups. 3. Principals' perceptions of staff controllability through the use of informal organization and/or formal rules. 4. Principal s' decisions concerning staff work assignments involving informal organization. 5. Principals' membership in the informal organization. 6. Principals' relationship to the informal organization. 7. Principals! perceptions of the contribution of the informal group to group performance. 8. Principals' perceptions of the effect of the informal group on staff work output. Teacher Questionnaire included the following items (made up from Items 2. 3. 6. 7. 9. 10. ll. 12. and 13 on the Teacher Question- naire): 1. Teachers' perceptions of informal groups' existence and strength. 2. Teachers' perceptions of staff having informal groups. 3. Teachers' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. 54 4. Teachers' perceptions of principal's relationship to informal leader. 5. Teachers' perceptions of informal group aiding group performance. The eight items listed above taken from the Principal Questionnaire were then statistically correlated with the two items taken from the Superintendent Questionnaire and the five items taken from the Teacher Questionnaire. (See Table 4.1.) The specific principal items are listed below with the results of the test of significance. W- A significant relationship did occur at the .0338 level Pearson correl a- tion coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of whether or not an informal organization did. in fact. exist. The more effective principals acknowledged the existence of an informal organization oper- ative within their staff. while less effective principals felt that the informal organization was rare in existence. flxoothestummmmmos- A significant relationship did occur at the .0743 level chi-square and at the .0911 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of the number of informal groups operative within their staff. The more effective principals felt that there was a single informal group in existence within their staff. whereas less effective 55 Table 4.1.--Effectiveness with perceptions of informal organizations. Observed Pearson Observed Perception X2 df Signif. Correlation Signif. Variable Value Level Coefficient Level la. Informal groups' existence and a a a -.6325 .0338* strength lb. Staff having 5.2000 2 .0743* .4588 .0911* informal groups 1c. Staff control- a a a .2000 .2898 lability ld. Decisions con- cerning staff 4.6667 2 .0970* .5556 .0477* work assignments le. Membership in the informal 6.6667 2 .0357* .7454 .0067* organization 1f. Relationship of principal to 3.0000 2 .2231 .5345 .0557* the organization 1.0000 0 .5000 N lg. Contribution of 0 informal group 1h. Effect of the informal group 3.1429 2 .2077 .5571 .0472* on staff work output aWhen there were fewer than 21 observations for two variables each with two values. the statistical analysis depended entirely on the Pearson correlation coefficient. *Significant at the 0.10 level. 56 principals felt that there was more than one informal group operative within their staff. W. A significant relationship did not occur. which was evidenced at the .2898 Pearson level correlation coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principals and the teachers'land principals' perceptions of being able to control and direct a staff through the use of the informal organization. MOW. A significant relationship did occur at the .0970 level chi-square and at the .0477 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effec- tive and the less effective principals and teachers'.and principals' perceptions of the use of informal groups when the principal made administrative decisions regarding staff work assignments. The more effective principals took the informal organization into consideration when making staff work assignments. whereas the less effective princi- pals did not. mum—Wham. A significant relationship did occur at the .0357 level chi-square and at the .0067 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principals and teachers'.and principals' perceptions of principal membership within the informal organization. The more effective principals were members of the informal organization. whereas less effective principals were not. 57 W W. A significant relationship did occur at the .0557 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principals and teachers'.and principals' perceptions of the principal's relationship to the informal organization. There was no significance in this relationship. however. using chi-square. The more effective principals felt a positive relationship toward the informal organization. while the less effective principals were more varied in their feelings regarding the informal group. W- A significant relationship did not occur. which was evidenced by the'LOOOO level chi- square and the .5000 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the Inore effective and the less effective principals and the teachers' and princi pal s' perceptions of whether or not informal groupings aided group performance concerning educational pursuits. WWW .gutput. A significant relationship did occur at the.0472 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of the effect that informal groupings had on staff work output. “here was no significance in this relationship. however. using chi-square. The more effective principals perceived the informal group as having greater strength and effect on staff work output than did the less effective principals. 58 As tested for Hypothesis 1. six of the above subhypotheses had a significant relationship with effectiveness at the 0.10 level. and the null hypothesis was rejected. Two of the above subhypotheses were not significantly related with principal effectiveness as the observed significance level was greater than the 0.10 level of significance. The mean significance level for Hypothesis 1 was 0.134. W There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' percep- tions of their ability to exert a high degree of control of the informal organization. .flg‘Za: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of controlling staff through informal organization. .flg_2b: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers'1and principals' perceptions of independent operation and control of staff. H.129: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers'land principals' perceptions of influence and direction of actions of informal groups within staff. flg_2d: There is no significant relationship between thelnore effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of responsibility in governing staff. fl9_2_e: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers'land principals' perceptions of need to control with regard to leadership position within informal/formal groups. Hypothesis 2 was statistically tested using the following items. which were drawn from data taken from the Superintendent. Prin- cipal. and Teacher Questionnaires. 59 Superintendent Questionnaire identified the more effective and less effective principals: l. Superintendents' perceptions of principal cohesiveness with staff. 2. Superintendents' perceptions of principal as member of the informal organization. 3. Superintendents' perceptions of principal effectiveness and leadership qualities. Principal Questionnaire included the following items (made up from Items 1. 4. 7. ll. 12. and 14 on the Principal Questionnaire): l. Principals' perceptions of controlling staff through informal organization. 2. Principals' perceptions of independent operation and control of staff. 3. Principals' perceptions of influence and direction of actions of informal groups within staff. 4. Principals' perceptions of responsibility governing staff. 5. Principals! perceptions of need to control with regard to leadership position within informal/formal groups. Teacher'Questionnaire included the following items hnade up from Items 1. 2. 8. 9. and 13 on the Teacher Questionnaire): 1. Teachers' perceptions of principal interaction with staff. 2. Teachers' perceptions of principal leadership and direction toward staff. 3. Teachers' perceptions of principal influence toward staff. 4. Teachers! perceptions of principal and staff participation and control. The five items listed above taken from the Principal Questionnaire were then statistically correlated with the three items taken from the Superintendent Questionnaire and the four items taken from the Teacher Questionnaire. (See Table 4.2.) The specific 60 principal items are listed below with the results of the tests of significance. Table 4.2.--Effectiveness with perceptions of ability to exert a high degree of control of informal organization. Observed Pearson Observed Perception X2 df Signif. Correlation Signif. Variable Value Level Coefficient Level 2a. Controlling staff through informal a a a .2000 .2898 organization 2b. Independent operation and 4.0000 3 .2615 -.1060 .3854 control of staff 2c. Influence and direction of a a a -.2000 .2898 actions of informal groups 2d. Responsibility governing staff a a a O .5000 2e. Leadership with formal/informal 5.7600 2 .0561* -.3162 .2035 groups aWhen there were fewer than 21 observations for two variables each with two values. the statistical analysis depended entirely on the Pearson correlation coefficient. *Significant at the 0.10 level. WW Jdtuh A significant relationship did not occur. which was evidenced at the .2898 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more 61 effective and the less effective principals and teachers' and principal s' perceptions of the control of staff through the use of informal organization. Neither more effective nor less effective principals used control of the informal organization when directing staff members toward goal achievement. flxoothsetLZbLIndooondontmeratioandtontroJLstafl. A significant relationship did not occur. as evidenced by the .2615 level chi-square and the .3854 level Pearson correlation coefficient. between the more effective and the less effective principals and teachers' and principals' perceptions of operation and control of staff. mum—W1 groups. A significant relationship did not occur. which was evidenced by the .2898 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principals and teachers' and princi- pal s' perceptions of principal influence over the informal organization with regard to staff actions and performance. Neither the more effec- tive nor the less effective principals were perceived as having influ- ence and direction over informal organization operative within their staff. umwmmnmmmmfi. A significant relationship did not occur. as evidenced by the .5000 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principals and teachers' and princi pal s' perceptions of their level of responsibility in governing staff involvements and actions. Principal s' feelings of responsibility toward staff and the control of 62 the informal organization were not tested as significant when corre- lated with principal effectiveness. W. A significant relationship did occur at the .0561 level chi-square but did not occur as evidenced at the .2035 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principals and teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal controlling leadership of the groups the principal worked with. whether informal or formal. The relationship that was evidenced held that the more effective principals wanted to hold a leadership position. while the less effective principals wanted to hold the top leadership position. As tested for Hypothesis 2. all five of the above subhypotheses were not significant with effectiveness at the 0.10 level. Hence the null hypothesis was accepted with the exception of the leadership subhypothesis. whose chi-square value was significant at the 0.10 level with effectiveness. The Pearson correlation coefficient was not significant. however. and in summary the null hypothesis was accepted. The mean significance level for Hypothesis 2 was 0.3337. fixoothosiu There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' percep- tions and the way they perceive themselves as members of the infor- mal organization. j:LQ_3_a: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. 63 lio_3_b: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal closeness of relationship to staff as members of the informal organization. Hypothesis 3 was statistically tested using the following items. which were drawn from data taken from the Superintendent. Pri n- ci pal. and Teacher Questionnaires. Superintendent Questionnaire identified the more effective and less effective principals: l. Superintendents' perceptions of principals as members of the informal organization. 2. Superintendents' perceptions of principals' effectiveness. Principal Questionnaire included the following items (made up from Items 6. 11. and 15 on the Principal Questionnaire): 1. Princi pal s' perceptions of membership in the informal organization. 2. Principal s' closeness of relationship to staff as member of the informal organization. Teacher Questionnaire included the following items (made up from Itens 2. 3. and 6 on the Teacher Questionnaire): 1. Teachers' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. 2. Teachers' perceptions of principals' relationship to staff as member of the informal organization. The two items listed above taken from the Principal Question- naire were then statistically correlated with the two items taken from the Superintendent Questionnaire and the two items taken from the Teacher Questionnaire. (See Table 4.3.) The specific principal items are listed below with the results of the tests of significance. 64 Table 4.3.--Effectiveness with perceptions as members of informal organization. Observed Pearson Observed Perception X2 df Signif. Correlation Signif. Variable Value Level Coefficient Level 3a. Membership in the informal 6.6667 2 .0357* .7454 .0067* organization 3b. Closeness to staff as member of informal 3.2625 2 .1957 .1686 .3323 organization *Significant at the 0.10 level. hmthoflMMManJhflniomaLomninflonA significant relationship did occur at the .0357 level chi-square and the .0067 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principals and teachers'land principal s' perceptions of principal membership within the informal organization. The more effective principals were members of the informal organization. whereas the less effective principals were not. flunothesdsjorJlosenosioLrolationsmmthamLmomboLof .the_1n£ormal_organization. A significant relationship did not occur as evidenced by the .1957 level chi-square and the .3323 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principals and teachers'1and principals' perceptions of the principal's feelings of closeness to other staff members within the 65 informal organization on a continuum between the teachers and superin- tendents. As tested for Hypothesis 3. the subhypothesis concerning princi pal membership within the informal organization was significantly related to effectiveness at the 0.10 level. The other subhypothesis concerning principal closeness to staff as member of the informal organization was not significantly related to effectiveness at the 0.10 level. The mean significance level for Hypothesis 3 was 0.1695. film There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' percep- tions of the way the principals perceive themselves as the informal leader in the informal organization. 1:19.51: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of the principal as informal leader. 1:11.412: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal influence and leadership within the informal group. Hypothesis 4 was statistically tested using the following items. which were drawn from data taken from the Superintendent. Principal. and Teacher Questionnaires. Superintendent Questionnaire identified the more effective and less effective principals: 1. Superintendents' perceptions of principal effectiveness and leadership qualities. 2. Superintendents' perceptions of principal as member of the informal organization. 66 Principal Questionnaire included the following items (made up from Items 7. 8. 9. and 11 on the Principal Questionnaire): l. Principals' perceptions of principal as informal leader. 2. Principals' perceptions of influence and leadership within the informal group. Teacher Questionnaire included the following items (made up from Items 7. 9. and 10 on the Teacher Questionnaire): 1. Teachers' perceptions of principal as informal leader. 2. Teachers' perceptions of principal influence and leadership within the informal group. The two items listed above taken from the Principal Questionnaire were then statistically correlated with the two items taken from the Superintendent:Questionnaire and the two items taken from the Teacher Questionnaire. (See Table 4.4.) The specific principal items are listed below with the results of the tests of significance. W. A significant relationship did occur at the .0717 level Pearson correlation coeffi- cient but not at the .4459 level chi-square. According to the Pearson ranking. there was a significant relationship between the more effec— tive and the less effective principals and teachers' and principals' perceptions of the principal as informal leader of the informal organi- zation. The moreieffective principals were perceived as being informal leaders among some teaching staffs within the informal organization. while less effective principals were less likely to be seen as informal leaders. 67 Table 4.4.--Effectiveness with perceptions as informal leaders in informal organization. Observed Pearson Observed Perception X2 df Signif. Correlation Signif. Variable Value Level Coefficient Level 4a. Principal as informal leader 2.6667 3 .4459 .4975 .0717* 4b. Principal influence and a a a -.2000 .2898 leadership aWhen there were fewer than 21 observations for two variables each with two values. the statistical analysis depended entirely on the Pearson correlation coefficient. *Significant at the 0.10 level. WMWWMM W. A significant relationship did not occur as evidenced by the .2898 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principals and teachers'land princi- pals' perceptions of the influence and leadership the principal pos- sessed within the informal organization. As tested for Hypothesis 4. the subhypothesis concerning principal as informal leader was significantly related to effectiveness at the 0.10 level. The other subhypothesis concerning principal influence and leadership within the informal group was not signifi- cantly related to effectiveness at the 0.10 level. The mean signifi- cance level for Hypothesis 4 was 0.18075. 68 W There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' percep- tions of principal membership in the informal organization and the degree of compatibility with the informal leaders. figjj: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal relationship to the infor- mal leader. fig_5_b: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal compatibility within the informal organization. 1:12.53: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal as informal leader linked with principal membership within the informal organization. Hypothesis 5 was statistically tested using the following items. which were drawn from data taken from the Superintendent. Principal. and Teacher Questionnaires. Superintendent Questionnaire identified the more effective and the less effective principals: l. Superintendents' perceptions of principal as member of the informal organization. 2. Superintendents' perceptions of principal cohesiveness and compatibility with staff. Principal Questionnaire included the following items (made up from Items 5. 6. 7. and 8 on the Principal Questionnaire): 1. Principals' relationship to the informal leader. 2. Principals' cohesion and compatibility with informal organization relating to membership with the informal group. 3. Principals as informal leader linked with menbership. 69 Teacher Questionnaire included the following items (made up from Itens 2. 3. 7. 9. and 13 on the Teacher Questionnaire): 1. Teachers' perceptions of principal relationsnip to informal leader. 2. Teachers' perceptions of principal membership within the informal organization. 3. Teachers' perceptions of principal as informal leader. The three items listed above taken from the Principal Questionnaire were then statistically correlated with the two items taken from the Superintendent Questionnaire and the three items taken from the Teacher Questionnaire. (See Table 4.5.) The specific principal items are listed below with the results of the tests of significance. W. A significant relationship did occur at the .0541 level chi-square and the .0051 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principal s' membership within the informal organization and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of the princi pal's relationship to the informal leader of the informal organization. The more effective principals were members of the informal organization. and they had higher degrees of compatibility with the informal leaders than did the less effective principals. WWWM W. A significant relationship did occur at the .0000 level Pearson correlation coefficient between principal 5' member» ship within the informal organization and their compatibility with the informal organization. The more effective principals experienced 70 cohesiveness and compatibility within the informal organization. whereas the less effective principals did not. Table 4.5.--Membership with degree of compatibility with informal leader. Observed Pearson Observed Perception X2 df Signif. Correlation Signif. Variable Value Level Coefficient Level 5a. Principal rela- tionship to 5.8333 2 .0541* -.7638 .0051* informal leader 5b. Principal com— patibility within a a a -l.0000 .OOOO* informal organi- zation 5c. Principal as informal leader linked with 1.6667 3 .6444 -.3656 .1494 membership aWhen there were fewer than 21 observations for two variables each with two values. the statistical analysis depended entirely on the Pearson correlation coefficient. *Significant at the 0.10 level. W. A significant relationship did not occur at the .6444 level chi-square and the .1494 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the membership of the principal within the informal organization and the teachers' and prin- ci pals' perceptions of the principal as informal leader. Neither more 71 effective nor less effective principals were perceived as informal leaders of the informal organization. As tested for Hypothesis 5. two of the subhypotheses listed above had a significant relationship with principal membership at the 0.10 level. and the null hypothesis was rejected. One subhypothesis was not significantly related to principal membership within the informal organization as the observed level of significance was greater than the 0.10 level. The mean significance level for Hypothesis 5 was 0.0515. mm There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' percep- tions of principal membership in the informal organization. 1191:: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. mp: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal as peer with teachers. fl9_6_c: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of the principal/teacher relationship. fi9_§_d: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal closeness to the informal group. J:|_o_§_e: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal closeness to the teaching staff. 72 Hypothesis 6 was statistically tested using the following items. which were drawn from data taken from the Superintendent. Principal. and Teacher Questionnaires. Superintendent Questionnaire identified the more effective and the less effective principals: l. Superintendents' perceptions of principal as member of the informal organization. 2. Superintendents' perceptions of principal effectiveness. Principal Questionnaire included the following items Onade up from Items 6. 8. 9. l3. and 15 on the Principal Questionnaire): 1. Principal membership in the informal organization. 2. Principal as peer with teachers. 3. Principal/teacher relationship. 4. Principal's closeness to the informal group. 5. Principal's closeness to the teaching staff. Teacher Questionnaire included the following items (made up from Items 1. 2. 3. and 8 on the Teacher Questionnaire): 1. Teachers' perceptions of principal as member of the informal organization. 2. Teachers' perceptions of principal/teacher relationship. 3. Teachers' perceptions of principal's closeness to teachers. The five items listed above taken from the Principal Questionnaire were then statistically correlated with the two items taken from the Superintendent Questionnaire and the three items taken from the Teacher Questionnaire. (See Table 4.6.) The specific principal items are listed below with the results of the tests of significance. 73 Table 4.6.--Effectiveness with membership in the informal organization. Observed Pearson Observed Perception X2 df Signif. Correlation Signif. Variable Value Level Coefficient Level 6a. Principal mem- bership in the 6.6667 2 .0357* .7454 .0067 informal organization 6b. Principal as peer with 4.6667 3 .1979 .1204 .3702 teachers 6c. Principal/ teacher rela- 2.2000 2 .3329 O .5000 tionship 6d. Principal close- ness to the 3.2625 2 .1957 .1686 .3323 informal group 66. Principal close- ness to teachers 2.3333 3 .5062 -.1060 .3854 *Significant at the 0.10 level. .flxoothos1s_oar__Er1no1oa1_momoorsn1o_1n_tno.1ntormal_oroanizat1on. A significant relationship did occur at the .0357 level chi-square and the .0067 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effec- tive and the less effective principals and the teachers'land princi- pal s' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organiza- tion. The more effective principals were members of the informal organization. whereas the less effective principals were not. W A significant relationship did not occur as evidenced by the .1979 level chi-square 74 and the.3702 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principals and teachers'1and principal s' perceptions of principal as a peer among the teaching staff. However. concerning the relationships that did surface. which were taken from correlated data. the more effective principals were described as often part of the stafi"s peer group. while less effective principals were described as being seen less frequently as peers. fiuoothosJLMnsJoaJLtoaoboLroluflonshJo- A significant relationship did not occur as evidenced by the .3329 level chi-square and the.5000 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principals and the teachers'.and principals' perceptions regarding their closeness in relationship and kinship. The relationship that was evidenced from correlated data held that the more effective principals were viewed as warm and friendly by staff. while the less effective principals were viewed as merely pleasant. .flxoothosuaJuh._Er1no1oaluzuunuuaurdurdturdntorma1_grouo. A significant relationship did not occur. which was evidenced at the .1957 level chi-square and the .3323 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of closeness to the teaching staff as members of the informal organization. Despite the lack of statistical significance. the correlated data gave evidence of the fact that some of the principals felt that they were closer to the staff within the informal organization than to the formal structure 75 which the superintendent oversaw. But a majority of both the more effective and the less effective principals maintained equal feelings of closeness to both. NW. A significant relationship did not occur. which was evidenced by the .5062 level chi- square and the .3854 level Pearson correlation coefficient between the more effective and the less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of feelings of closeness. The relationship that was evidenced through correlated data held that the more effective principals were viewed as being somewhat closer to the staff than to the administrators. whereas a majority of the less effective principals were seen as in the middle between staff and administrators. As tested for Hypothesis 6. four subhypotheses were not sig- nificant at the 0.10 level. and the null hypothesis was accepted. One subhypothesis was significant at the 0.10 level. The mean significance level for Hypothesis 6 was 0.3189. Sumner! The statistical analysis for this study. which used the chi- square and Pearson correlation coefficient. resulted in significant relationships. Other associations were not statistically significant at the 0.10 level. Tables for each hypothesis were included within the chapter. Hypothesis 1. concerning the relationship between the effectiveness of principals and their perceptions of the informal 76 organization. was tested by eight variables. six of which were rejected as statistically significant and two of which were accepted. Table 4.1 illustrated these variables and their levels of significance in the following abbreviated manner: WWW-significant at the .0338 level Pearson correlation coefficient. War-51 gnificant at the .0743 level chi-square and the .0911 level Pearson correlation coefficient. W—mo significance at the .2898 level Pearson correlation coefficient. Wnsignificant at the .0970 level chi-square and the .0477 level Pearson correlation coeffi- cient. Wusignificant at the .0357 level chi-square and the .0067 level Pearson correlation coeffi- cient. WWW-- significant at the .0557 level Pearson correlation coefficient but no significance at the .2231 level chi-square. Wigwam-mo significance at the 1.0000 level chi-square or the .5000 level Pearson correlation coefficient. EtteotJttthnfotmaJJrouLotharLuorLoutoutusignificant at the .0472 level Pearson correlation coefficient but no significance at the .2077 level chi-square. 77 Hypothesis 2 concerning the relationship between the effective- ness of principals and their control of the informal organization was tested by five variables. none of which was statistically significant. However. relationships were evident through correlated data and were discussed. Table 4.2 illustrated these variables and their levels of significance in the following manner: WWW-mo signifi- cance at the .2898 level Pearson correlation coefficient. WM—mo significance at the .2615 level chi-square or the .3854 level Pearson correlation coefficient. InfluonmndJLreottonoLaotiunuLintormaJJrouos-mo significance at the .2898 level Pearson correlation coefficient. BosoonsihiJJtLJLoororntnojtafi-mo significance at the .5000 level Pearson correlation coefficient. WW-mo significance at the .2035 level Pearson correlation coefficient but significant at the .0561 level chi-square. Hypothesis 3 concerning the relationship between the effec- tiveness of principals and the way they perceived themselves as members of the informal organization was statistically significant at the 0.10 level with the variable of principal membership. The variable concern- ing the principal s' feelings of closeness toward the teachers and superintendents was not statistically significant at the 0.10 level. 78 Table 4.3 illustrated these variables and their levels of significance as follows: NEW-'51 gnificant 9": the .0357 level chi-square and the .0067 level Pearson correlation coeffi- cient. WWW-no significance at the .1957 level chi-square or the .3323 level Pearson correlation coefficient. Hypothesis 4. concerning the relationship between principal effectiveness and the way they viewed themselves as informal leaders. was rejected. The variable regarding principal 5' personal influence with the informal organization was not statistically significant. The variable concerning principal as informal leader was significant. Table 4.4 illustrated these variables and their levels of significance in the following abbreviated manner: W—significant at the .0717 level Pearson correlation coefficient but not significant at the .4459 level chi-square. Wig-mo significance at the .2898 level Pearson correlation coefficient. Hypothesis 5 concerning the relationship between the princi- pal s' membership in the informal organization and compatibility with the informal leaders was tested by three variables. two of which were rejected and one accepted. However. relationships taken from corre- lated data did exist. which were examined in this chapter. Table 4.5 79 illustrated these variables and their levels of significance in the following manner: WWW-significant at the .0541 level chi-square and the .0051 level Pearson correlation coeffi- cient. WM-fiignifi- cant at the .0000 level Pearson correlation coefficient. WWW-“"0519“ nificance at the .6444 level chi-square or the .1494 level Pearson correl ation coefficient. Hypothesis 6. concerning the relationship between principal effectiveness and principal membership in the informal organization. was statistically tested using five variables. four of which were accepted. The one that tested principal membership in the informal organization was statistically significant. Table 4.6 illustrates these variables and their levels of significance in the following abbreviated manner. Whammnsignificant at the .0357 level chi-square and the .0067 level Pearson correlation coefficient. Wanna significance at the .1979 level chi-square or the .3702 level Pearson correlation coefficient. WWW-mo significance at the .3329 level chi-square or the .5000 level Pearson correlation coefficient. 80 WWW-no significance at the .1957 level chi-square or the .3323 level Pearson correlation coefficient. Wanna significance at the .5062 level chi-square or the .3854 level Pearson correlation coefficient. The last chapter of this study examines the total project. including a summary of the review of the literature and the study design. Findings and conclusions are also discussed in the final chapter. as well as recommendations based on this study and recommenda- tions for further research. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary This study sought to explore the relationship between public elementary school principals and their effectiveness as related to the informal organization that may exist among their teaching staffs. To achieve these perspectives. many aspects of effective leadership were studied. as well as the informal groupings that develop among classroom teachers. IbLLiteratumBoflmd The literature reviewed addressed informal organization and its relationship to the effectiveness of the principal. Studies relating to these concepts were cited in the areas of principal control. compati- bility. and cohesion among staff members. Also reviewed were studies in principal membership with the informal organization and principal leadership in relation to the infommal structure. Such researchers as Farris. Katz and Kahn. Likert. Carlisle. and Galbraith contributed to this review. Principal effectiveness was also examined through research and studies done by Mazzarella. Manasse. Fiedler. and Whyte and other theorists in the field. The research literature provided information related to principal effectiveness including the elements 81 82 of control. compatibility. cohesion. leadership. and membership within the infonmal organization. ItesJQLoLtnLStudLBoflored The study attempted to examine the relationship between the effectiveness of principals as leaders and their relationship to the informal organization that may exist among teaching staffs. The population of this study included school superintendents. elementary principals. and classroom teachers from three school districts within the Kent Intermediate School District. Kent County. Michigan. The total population included 3 superintendents. 10 elementary principals. and 92 classroom teachers. The instruments used were questionnaires designed for superin- tendents. principals. and classroom teachers. The Superintendent Ques- tionnaire comprised the ranking of their elementary principals in the areas of principal cohesiveness.lnembership within the informal organ- ization. and leadership qualities and effectiveness. The Principal Questionnaire contained 19 items related to their perceptions of them- selves and their staffs and their relationship to the informal organi- zation operative within their staff. The Teacher Questionnaire contained 13 items related to their relationship to their principals and other staff members within the informal organization. The statistical treatments used were chi-square and Pearson correlation coefficient which measured variables in all hypotheses. Data were obtained from the questionnaires. which were computer 83 scored. The statistical procedures were derived from the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). findingundionsjusdons 11112911131154: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and princi pal s' perceptions of the informal organization operative within their staff. lio_]_a: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of the informal groups' existence and strength. findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0338. Therefore. the null hypothesis was rejected. The more effective principals acknowledged the existence of the informal organization but felt they were not long-lived groups. The less effective principals felt that the informal organization was rare in existence and short-lived also. Conclusions. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis la was rejected. The more effective and the less effective principals acknowledged the existence of the informal organization. This finding was consistent with the literature cited in Chapter II. According to the literature. the informal organization does exist within the educa- tional setting. and its use can be a determining factor in principal effectiveness. iiile: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of staff having informal groups. findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0911. and the chi-square rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0743. Therefore. the null hypothesis was rejected. The more effective principals felt that there was a single informal group in existence within their staff. while the less effective principals felt that there was more than one informal group operative within their staff. Conclusions. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis lb was rejected. The more effective and the less effective principals perceived that their staffs maintained informal groups. This finding was consistent with the literature cited in Chapter II. According to the literature. informal groups have been identified by principals within the educational structure as existent among staffs. M: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of staff controllability through the use of informal organization and/or formal rules. findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of .2998. Therefore. the null hypothesis was accepted. The more effective and the less effective principals felt that the staff could not be controlled through the use of the informal orga ni zati on. Conclusions. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 1c was accepted. A significant relationship was not found between principal effectiveness and a principal's ability to control staff through the use of the informal organization. This finding was inconsistent with the literature cited in Chapter II. According to the literature. a principal's success depends in some degree on his 85 ability to control and influence his staff within the informal structure. fig_l_d: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal decisions concerning staff work assignments involving informal organization. findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0970. and the chi-square rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0477. Therefore. the null hypothesis was rejected. The more effective principals took the informal organization into consideration when making staff work assignments. whereas the less effective principals did not. anglusions. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 1d was rejected. The more effective and the less effective principals acknowledged the educational significance of the use of the informal organization when making staff work assignments. This finding was consistent with the literature cited in Chapter II. According to the literature. use of the informal organization when making leadership decisions contributes to principal effectiveness. jio_]_e: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and princi pal s' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0067. and the chi-square rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0357. Therefore. the null hypothesis was rejected. The more effective principals were members of the informal organiza- tion. whereas the less effective principals were not. 86 anglusions. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 1e was rejected. The more effective principals were members of the informal organization. and the less effective principals were not. This finding was consistent with the literature cited in Chapter II. According to the literature. principal membership within the informal organization was significant. as well as principal membership within the formal structure. .flg_1f: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal relationship to the infor- mal organization. .Eindings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0557. Therefore. the null hypothesis. was rejected. The more effective principals felt a positive relationship toward the informal organization. whereas the less effective principals were more varied in their feelings regarding the informal group. .Conglnsigns. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 1f was rejected. The more effective principals maintained positive attitudes toward the informal organization. while the less effective principals did not. This finding was consistent with the literature cited in Chapter II. According to the literature. principal effective- ness is enhanced by principal awareness and understanding of the infor- mal organization. .fln_1g: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of the contribution of the informal group toward group performance. 87 findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of 1.000. and the chi-square rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value cfi'.5000. Therefore. the null hypothesis was accepted. Both the more and the less effective principals perceived that the informal organization did not enhance group performance concerning educational goals. .anglgsigns. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis lg was accepted. There was no significant relationship between princi- pal effectiveness and the principals! perceptions of the informal organization enhancing staff's performance as educators. This finding was inconsistent with the literature cited in Chapter II. According to the literature. group performance was enhanced when principals played an active role within the informal organization. .flg_Ln: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of the effect of the informal group on staff work output. .Eindings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0472. Therefore. the null hypothesis was rejected. The more effective principals perceived the informal group as having greater strength and effect on staff work output than did the less effective principals. .anclnsigns. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 1h was rejected. The more effective principals felt that the use of the informal organization would increase staff work output. This finding was consistent with the literature cited in Chapter II. According to the literature. effective principals who acknowledged the 88 informal organization had a positive influence with work output by staff. fiyngtngsiiz: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of their ability to exert a high degree of control of the informal organization. Jig_2_a: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of controlling staff through informal organization. findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of .2898. Therefore. the null hypothesis was accepted. Neither the more effective nor the less effective principals used control of the informal organization when directing staff members toward goal achievement. anglgsjgns. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 2a was accepted. There was no significant relationship between princi- pal effectiveness and the use of the informal organization as a con- trolling measure over the staff when directing them toward educational goals. This finding was inconsistent with the literature cited in Chapter 11. According to the literature. principal control of the informal organization can play a major role in staff direction toward the completion of educational goals. Help: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of independent operation and control of staff. findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of .3854. and the chi-square rendered alpha > 0.10 89 with a value cfi’.2615. Therefore. the null hypothesis was accepted. Neither the more effective nor the less effective principals used the informal organization to control staff as individuals or in groups. ‘anginsigns. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 2b was accepted. Neither the more effective nor the less effective principals used the informal structure in the operation and control of staff. This finding was inconsistent with the literature cited in Chapter 11. According to the literature. control of staff through the informal organization was a factor in furthering educational pursuits. flg_2g: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of influence and direction of actions of informal groups within staff. IE1ndings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of .2898. Therefore. the null hypothesis was accepted. Neither the more effective nor the less effective principals were perceived as having influence and direction over the informal organization operative within their staff. anglgsigns. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 2c was accepted. A significant relationship did not occur between more effective and less effective principals and their influence over the informal organization operative within their staff. This finding was consistent with the literature cited in Chapter II. According to the literature. principal effectiveness can be affected by the influence a principal may exert over staff within the informal organization. flg_2d: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of responsibility in governing staff. 90 (findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of .5000. Therefore. the null hypothesis was accepted. Principals' feelings of responsibility toward staff and the control of the informal organization were not significant when corre— lated with principal effectiveness. .anglnsigns. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 2d was accepted. Neither more effective nor less effective principals' feelings of responsibility in controlling staff within the informal organization were significant. According to the literature. a leader of the organization must have the informal organization within his grasp in order to maintain control and authority in governing the staff. 11913: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers! and principals' perceptions of need to control with regard to leadership position within informal/formal groups. findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of .2035. and the chi-square rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0561. The null hypothesis was rejected according to the chi-square statistical treatment but accepted according to the Pearson correlation coefficient. The relationship that was evidenced held that the more effective principals wanted to hold a leadership position. while the less effective principals wanted to hold the top leadership position within groups formed among staff. .Qonolusions. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 2e was both rejected and accepted. depending on the statistical 91 treatment examined. According to the literature cited in Chapter II. leadership within an organization plays a key role in problem-solving activities and displays itself in strength in the formal or informal structure. W: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions and the way they perceive themselves as menbers of the informal organization. flg_3_a: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0067. and the chi-square rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0357. Therefore. the null hypothesis was rejected. The more effective principals were members of the informal organiza- tion. while the less effective principals were not. anansigns. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 3a was rejected. The more effective principals were shown to be mem- bers of the informal organization. This finding was consistent with the literature cited in Chapter II. According to the literature. principal membership within the informal organization is a significant factor in determining principal effectiveness. The literature also pointed out that principal membership in the formal organization plays an important role. as well. 1191i}: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal closeness of relationship to staff as menbers of the informal organization. 92 ‘Eindings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of .3323. and the chi-square rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value cfi'.1957. Therefore. the null hypothesis was accepted. Neither the more effective nor the less effective principals exhibited feelings of closeness to either the administrative staff or the teach- ing staff. ,anglusigns. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 3b was accepted. Principal effectiveness and feelings of closeness to the administrative staff or the teaching staff were not significantly related. According to the literature. however. a relationship must exist in order to secure cohesion and compatibility. which brings members of an organization toward a shared. common educational goal. .fiygginssis_i; There is no significant relationship between the inore effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and princi pal s' perceptions of the way the principals perceive them- selves as the informal leader in the informal organization. .Hg_ig: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of the principal as informal leader. .Eindings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0717. and the chi-square rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of.4459. The null hypothesis was rejected according to Pearson correlation coefficient but accepted according to chi-square statistical treatment. The relationship that was evidenced held that the more effective principals were perceived as being informal leaders among some teaching staffs within the informal organization. while the less effective principals were less likely to be seen as informal leaders. 93 .anglnsigns. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 4a was both rejected and accepted. depending on the statistical treatment examined. According to the literature cited in Chapter II. only rarely does a single individual possess all the leadership qualities needed to fill the various needs of the informal group. Leadership within the informal organization comes from several particular needs or goals relevant to their achievement. 1:19.312: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and princi pal s' perceptions of principal influence and leadership within the informal group. findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha 0.10 with a value of .2898. Therefore. the null hypothesis was accepted. Neither the more effective nor the less effective principals were perceived as possessing significant influence or leadership within the informal group. .anglgsigns. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 4b was accepted. thncipal effectiveness was not perceived as signifi- cantly related to the influence or leadership a principal possesses in relation to the informal structure. This finding was inconsistent with the literature cited in Chapter II. According to the literature. principal influence was seen to play a significant role in the forma- tion of the informal organization and its duration and strength. Wash-31.: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and princi pal s' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization and the degree of compatibility with the informal leaders. 94 119423: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal relationship to the infor- mal leader. findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0051. and the chi-square rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0541. Therefore. the null hypothesis was rejected. The more effective principals maintained high degrees of compatibility with the informal leaders. whereas the less effective principals did not. Conclusions. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 5a was rejected. Compatibility with the informal leaders of staff was significantly related to the more effective principals. while it was not significantly related to the less effective principals. This finding was consistent with the literature cited in Chapter 11. According to the literature. cohesiveness between the principal and leadership of the informal group increased positive attitudes among the rest of the membership by using the informal leader's power of influ- ence with the informal organization. flg_5_n: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal compatibility within the informal organization. findings. The Pearson coefficient rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0000. Therefore. the null hypothesis was rejected. The more effective principals experienced cohesiveness and compatibility within the informal organization. while the less effective principals did not. 95 Conglnsigns. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 5b was rejected. Cohesion with the informal organization was very significant for the more effective principals. while it was not for the less effective principals. This finding was consistent with the lit- erature cited Chapter II. According to the literature. cohesion is a key ingredient by which educational programs are implemented which result in learning and educational unity of staff. flg_5_c: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and princi pal s' perceptions of principal as informal leader linked with principal membership within the informal organization. findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha 0.10 with a value of .1494. and the chi-square rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of .6444. Therefore. the null hypothesis was accepted. Neither the more effective nor the less effective principals were perceived as informal leaders of the informal organization. Conglusjgns. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis So was accepted. The more effective and the less effective principals were not perceived as informal leaders among staff within the informal structure. According to the literature. informal leaders may. however. emerge from within the formal or informal structure and may be members of either organization or both. The informal leader emerges as the individual who best meets the staff's needs at a particular time involving a particular event. fiyoothgsisj: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and princi pal s' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. 96 hm: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal membership in the informal organization. findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0067. and the chi-square rendered alpha < 0.10 with a value of .0357. Therefore. the null hypothesis was rejected. The more effective principals were members of the informal organiza- tion. while the less effective principals were not. Conglusigns. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 6a was rejected. Principal membership within the informal organization was significantly related to the more effective principals. while it was not for the less effective principals. This finding was consistent with the literature cited in Chapter II. According to the literature. membership within the informal organization is essential for the effec- tive principal to implement his goals and objectives expediently. 119112: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principals' perceptions of principal as peer with teachers. findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of .3702. and the chi-square rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of .1979. Therefore. the null hypothesis was accepted. The more effective and the less effective principals were not perceived as being part of the teacher peer group to connote a significant rela- tionship. Conglnsions. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 6b was accepted. There was no significance to the relationship that 97 the more effective and the less effective principals maintained con- cerning a peer relationship with staff. According to the literature. however. principals may work toward staff acceptance as peers. which may enhance and enrich educational goals. flg_§_c: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers'iand principals' perceptions of the principal/teacher relationship. .findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of .5000. and the chi-square rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of .3329. Therefore. the null hypothesis was accepted. For both the more effective and the less effective principals. there was not a significant relationship between the closeness of relation- ship between principal and teacher. ,anolusions. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 6c was accepted. FNincipal effectiveness was not related to feelings of closeness between principal and teacher. According to the litera- ture. a positive relationship was stressed in order for more expedient adoption of new ideas and implementation of change. flo_6_d: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal closeness to the informal group. findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of .3323. and the chi-square rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value cj'.l957. Therefore. the null hypothesis was accepted. Neither the more effective nor the less effective principals maintained 98 feelings of closeness to the informal group as compared to feelings of closeness to the informal or the formal structure. .Conginsions. Based on the evidence cited above. Subhypothesis 6d was accepted. thncipal effectiveness was not significantly related to the principals' feelings of closeness to the informal group. According to the literature. however. principal effectiveness is accented and enhanced by positive working relationships with the staff. .flg_§s: There is no significant relationship between the more effective and less effective principals and the teachers' and principal s' perceptions of principal closeness to the teaching staff. findings. The Pearson correlation coefficient rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of .3854. and the chi-square rendered alpha > 0.10 with a value of .5062. Therefore. the null hypothesis was accepted. Neither the more effective nor the less effective principals maintained feelings of closeness to the teaching staff. According to the litera- ture. cohesion and compatibility between principal and staff promote the educational process toward positive achievement of goals. Booomondations As stated in the Findings and Conclusions sections of this chapter and within the confines of this study. it was established that an informal organization does exist within teaching staff and that there is a positive relationship between the more effective principals and the informal organization operative within the teaching unit. Because these basic precepts were evidenced in this study. the fol- lowing recommendations are offered: 99 1. Based on the findings of this study. it is recommended that considerable time and preparation be spent on the study of the informal organization in the educational setting within educational administra- tion training programs in our colleges and universities. Farris (1978) stated that the informal workings of an organization play a major role in the effects of task performance in a variety of group settings. which include the educational environment. It is for this reason that the above recommendation is offered. Some of the concepts to be incorporated within the administra- tive preparation program regarding informal organization should involve the importance of and the "how-to's" of membership within the informal organization and principal cohesion and compatibility with staff mem- bers. 2. Upon determining that the informal organization exists and based on the other findings of this study. it is recommended that principals take the informal organization into consideration when making work assignments among the teaching staff. The informal organization has both a covert and an overt effect on the formal process of task completion within the educational structure. 3. In consideration of the finding that effective principals are members of the informal organization. it is also recommended that school principals make an attempt to establish membership within the informal structure operative within their staffs. Cohesion and compatibility of principal attitude and actions toward staff may assist in gaining membership in the informal organization. Herbert 100 (1976) stated that cohesiveness between principal and staff will increase positive attitudes among grouplnembers and affect work output positively or negatively. This. he maintained. is a powerful and significant influence in any work setting. 4. Principals should take a positive attitude toward the informal organization and use its power and existence to further the educational goals and achievements of an organization. Baker (1981) pointed out that informal groups have a powerful influence on the effectiveness of the total organization. Through its power. the informal organization can influence the formal structure by the norms that the informal group sets. 5. It can be stressed that effective leadership outside the informal organization is very important within the educational environment. Informal leadership by staff members other than the principal enhances principal effectiveness. It is recommended that principals support the concept of key individuals as informal leaders among the staff. Farris (1971-72) upheld the concept of informal leaders as key persons who can stimulate and influence group members toward innovation. productivity. and usefulness for realization of informal goals as well as the goals of the formal organization. BosomendattonLtoLEurtneLBosoaroh The following suggestions are offered as areas in which further research could be conducted. 1. A comparison study of the informal organization operative in education and in the business world at the same work level may add 101 further definition to the field of informal structure within the organization. 2. An investigation of what stimulates informal organization and what behaviors of leaders and subordinates lead to the formation of the informal structure may add depth to this area of study. 3. An investigation of the personality profile and psychologi- cal participation as determinants of informal leaders may further clarify the study of informal organization. 4. It is possible that there are institutions in which no informal organization exists. A study of the reason for lack of existence may be significant. 5. Membership of a leader in the informal organization has been proven to be a significant aspect of this study. An investigation regarding the process of gaining membership into the informal organiza- tion may be another area of study to be considered. 6. A study regarding personality profiles and research regarding the psychological make-up and participation of leaders and subordinates which affect the informal organization may add depth to the study of organizational structure. 7. Replication of this study using control factors for areas such as unionization. principal/teacher age. previous experiences. or varied salaries may provide different conclusions. 8. Replication of this study using a different geographic metropolitan sample may provide other significant conclusions. 102 9. Replication of this study using secondary principals and teachers as samples rather than elementary staffs may provide other significant findings. APPENDICES 103 APPENDIX A SUPERINTENDENT QUESTIONNAIRE loll 105 SUPERINTENDENT'QUESTIONNAIRE The following questionnaire is part of a major study concerning small groups that is being conducted at the Michigan State Graduate School of Educational Administration. Your responses to this questionnaire are strictly confidential. The completed questionnaire should be returned directly to this interviewer in the stamped. addressed envelope supplied with the questionnaire. Your responses and your c00peration are vital to the success of this project. Thank you! Christine Larson Name of your school district 1i36 Please circle the most appropriate responses describing each of your principals (elemen- tary only). If they are principals of more than one building, list them separately If different rankings. Rank your principal's Do you perceive Rank your principal's cohesivenessa with your principal leadership qualities his/her staff. as a member of and effectivenessc as his/her staff's a principal. I - highly cohesive informal organi- 2 - moderately cohesive zationb? l - excellent 5:533:25; 3 ' 12.223228: .5 o. N. $217892“... 1 2 3 Yes No I 2 3 l 2 3 Yes No l 2 3 O I 2 3 Yes No I 2 3 I 2 3 Yes No I 2 3 I 2 3 Yes No l 2 3 I 2 3 Yes No I 2 3 I 2 3 Yes No I 2 3 l 2 3 Yes No I 2 3 I 2 3 Yes No I 2 3 I 2 3 Yes No I 2 3 I 2 3 Yes No l 2 3 I 2 3 Yes No I 2 3 l 2 3 Yes No I 2 3 l 2 3 Yes No l 2 3 l 2 3 Yes No I 2 3 aCohesivenessudeflnedes constant interaction between principal and staff, whose relationship cannot be fully examined apart from each other. bInformal organization-~deflned as the operating relationship and Interaction that Is not part of the formal structure that occurs between staff members, such as personal Influence, attitudes, habits, cliques, social Interaction, volunteer teamwork. cEffectiveness-~defined as job knowledge, sincerity, ImpartIaIIty, supportive atti- tude, appropriate style of Interaction with others, high degree of control over working environment. APPENDIX B PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE l07 108 PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE The following questionnaire is part of a major study concerning informal groups in the school setting that is being conducted at the Michigan State Graduate School of Educational Administration. The basic purpose of this study is to examine the professional staff's relationship to the informal aspects of interaction among its members. Your responses to this questionnaire are strictly confidential. The completed questionnaire should be returned directly to this interviewer in the stamped. addressed envelope supplied with this questionnaire. Your responses and your cooperation are vital to the success of this project. Thank you! Christine Larson Name of your school district 109 In the following questions. the term "informal groups" refers to the groups that people sometimes fornu The informal group would include members that seek each other out for advice. social inter- action. support. eating lunch together. having coffee together. etc. The term "staff" refers to the group of teachers that you personally supervise from your building. A "staff" may include yourself; A "staff" may contain no "informal groups." or it may contain many 'anormal grousz‘ Please answer the following questions. (Select only one answer unless otherwise stated.) I. How important is it for you to feel that you can do your Job without depending on other people? (Check one) Not at all Slightly Somewhat Very Extremely 2. I find that informal group(s) in my staff are: (Check one) Rare Not very long-lived Not unusual. but change often Strong determinants of the group's actions staff is best described as consisting of: (Check one) 5 No stable informal group(s) A single all-encompassing informal group A large number of informal groups A few informal groups Staff members that stick to themselves staff is best controlled through the use of: (Check one) 3 Informal groups and their leaders Informal groups and their formal rules Formal rules remembering the informal groups Formal rules since there are no informal groups Formal rules since the informal groups are hard to control 110 In decisions concerning the assignment of work for my staff: (Check one) always consider the informal groups frequently consider the informal groups rarely consider the informal groups never consider the informal groups HHHH Are you a member of an informal group that consists of members of your staff? (Check one) Yes. a strong member Usually I am a member Most times I am not a member No. never a member r -a. 1+ the first names only of the people that you feel are the leaders of the various informal groups that exist within your staff (include yourself as a possible leader of an informal group if appropriate). If no informal group(s) exist within your staff. please answer "none." Leader Group A Leader Group B Leader Group C Leader Group D Leader Group E If you are a member of an informal group. to which of the above groups do you belong. that is. Group A. Group B. etc.? How would you classify your relationship with the leaders of the above groups? (Check one for each group) E Warm and friendly Pleasant Limited strictly to the Job Unpleasant Antagonistic E Warm and friendly Pleasant Limited strictly to the Job Unpleasant Antagonistic IO. II. 12. 111 E Warm and friendly Pleasant _____ Limited strictly to the job Unpleasant Antagonistic E Warm and friendly Pleasant Limited strictly to the Job Unpleasant Antagonistic E Warm and friendly Pleasant Limited strictly to the job Unpleasant Antagonistic The informal group(s) in my staff: (Check one) Can always be made to help group performance Can usually be made to help group performance Can frequently be made to help group performance Can rarely be made to help group performance Can never be made to help group performance Cannot help group performance since they do not exist The most important informal group(s) (that is. Group A. Group B. etc.. as described in Question 12) in terms of helping me perform my Job better is (are): (Fill in) I consider myself to be influential in: (Check one) All actions of the informal groups of my staff Most actions of the informal groups of my staff Some actions of the informal groups of my staff Few actions of the informal groups of my staff None of the actions of the informal groups of my staff I3. I4. IS. 112 Informal groups: (Check one) Are important to the work of my staff Affect the work of my staff Rarely have an effect on the work of my staff Are not important to the work of my staff Do not exist within my staff In my present position. I feel that I have: (Check one) Too much responsibility About the right amount of responsibility Tbo little responsibility Place an "X" on this scale showing your feelings of closeness related to the superintendent and teachers. Superintendent Teachers Very Close Equal Close Very Close Feelings of Close Closeness to Both APPENDIX C TEAO-l ER QUESTIONNAIRE Il3 114 TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE The following questionnaire is part of a major study concerning informal groups in the school setting that is being conducted at the Michigan State Graduate School of Educational Administration. The basic purpose of this study is to examine the professional staff's relationship to the informal aspects of interaction among its members. Your responses to this questionnaire are strictly confidential. The completed questionnaire should be returned directly to this interviewer in the stamped. addressed envelope supplied with this questionnaire. Again. I repeat-~your administrator will NOT be getting ANY specific results. Please be honest and candid with your answers. Your responses and your cooperation are vital to the success of this project. Thank you! Christine Larson Name of your school district 115 Please answer the following questions: (Select only one answer unless otherwise stated.) I. 2. What is your relationship to your principal? (Check one) Warm and friendly Pleasant Limited strictly to the Job Unpleasant Antagonistic Do you consider your principal as part of your peer group? Examples: Does he interact with you in an informal way? Does he have coffee with you? Does he have lunch with you? Does he associate with you off the Job? (Check one) Very often he is part of the staff Frequently he is part of the staff Once in awhile he is part of the staff Rarely is he part of the staff Never is he part of the staff How close is your principal to the teachers he works with? (Check one) Much closer to the staff rather than the administrators Somewhat closer to the staff rather than the administrators About in the middle between the staff and the administrators Somewhat closer to the administrators rather than the staff Much closer to the administrators rather than the staff Do you feel that you are really a part of your staff? (Check one) Really a part of the staff Included in most ways Included in some but not in all ways Don't feel that I really belong If you had a chance to do the same type of work for the same pay in another building/district. how would you feel about moving? (Check one) Would want very much to move ____ Would rather move than stay where I am Would not make any difference Would rather stay where I am than move Would want very much to stay where I am 8. 9. I0. 116 How would you compare your staff with other staffs that you've worked with in each of the following areas? (CHeck one for each area) Better Than About the Same Not as Good Most as Most as Most The way they get along together The way they stick together The way they help each other on the job Are there one or two members of your staff that tend to set the example for the others? (Include yourself in answering) Yes No If yes. what are their first names only? What influence do you have with your staff? (Check one) ____ Staff members always follow my example _____ Staff members frequently ask me for advice ____ Sometimes I set the example and sometimes I don't ____ I always wait for someone else to make the first move Whichlnembers of your staff do you work with most often? (List in order of frequent contact. that is. the person that you work with most often first. etc.. listing first names only.) (If you require more space. please use the back of this page.) Which staff members do you associate with often 91: the job? (List in order of frequent contact. first names only.) 117 ll. My staff is best described as consisting of: (Check one) Members that work as a team Members that mostly work as a team but sometimes work alone Members that sometimes work as a team Members that mostly work alone 12. The thing that I like best about my staff is: (Check one) The feeling of a team spirit That the staff works well together except for a few members That I don't have to depend on the others to do my job That I am able to work alone 13. If you had a choice. which staff member would you most like to see as its leader? (First name only. please.) APPENDIX D FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SURVEY SAMPLES ll8 ll9 2200 Forest Hill Ave. S.E. Kentwood, Michigan #9506 Dear Classroom Teacher, I want to thank you for your participation in my study concerning informal groups in the school setting. I have received many responses. This is a follow-up letter for those of you who have not as yet completed your questionnaires. Enclosed you will find a question— naire and addressed, stamped envelope. If you have not returned the questionnaire previously, please fill out this questionnaire now and return it to me. If you have already done so, again, I thank you for your time and cooperation, and please disregard the enclosed questionnaire. Your participation is greatly appreciated, and your contribution will determine the success of this project. Sincerely yours, Christine Larson BIBLIOGRAPHY IZO BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport. Floyd. Insatias of. 119.129.221.193 and the 9.9mm of W- New York: John Wiley. 1955. Argyris. Chris. Laaaansblp and Intamecsanal Dalmatian. Edited by Luigi Petrullo and Bernard Bass. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. I961. Baker. H. Kent. "Tapping Into the Power of Informal Groups." Super: .ylsgzy Management 26 (February 1981): 18-25. Barnard. Chester. ,1he.£un§tign.gf the Executixe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1958. Baskin. Otis. and Aronoff. Craig E. .lntenpensgnal Communication in .Qrganlzatigns. Santa Monica. Calif.: Goodyear. l980. Belasco. James A. "Organizational Control Strategies and the Emerg- ence of Trust." laumal of Educational Administration 10 (May 1972): 34-45. Bennis. Warren. "The Four Cempetencies of Leadership." .Iralnlng and Development Journal 38 (August 1984): 14-19. Berg. Robert C.. and Landreth. Garry L. "Maintaining a Group: Process and Problems." leaas Eacsaenal and Gamansalaunnal 7 (Fall 1979): 101-107. Blalock. Hubert M. .59g1a1.§1a11§t1g§. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1960. Bochner. Arthur. "A Computer-Assisted Analysis of Small Group Process: An Investigation of Two Machiavellian Groups." .Small.fingnp ,Bgnaylgn 6 (May I975): I87-202. Bogue. E. G.. and Saunders. Robert L. .Ihe Educational Manager. Belmont. Calif.: Wadsworth. I976. Bowers. D. G.. and Seashore. S. E. "Predicting Organizational Effec- tiveness With a Four-Factor Theory of Leadership." .Admlnistra: tive Science annually ll (September 1966): 238-63. I2l 122 Carlisle. Howard M. .Situatlonal Management. New York: AMACOM. 1973. Carter. Launor. “Some Research on Leadership in Small Groups." limos. toadonsblo and Man. Edited by Harold Guetzkow. New York: Russell and Russell. 1963. Chowdry. Kamla. and Newcomb. Theodore M. "The Relative Abilities of Leaders and Non-Leaders to Estimate Opinions of Their Groups.” In.§ma11.§noup§. Edited by A. Paul Hare et al. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1955. Cohen. Michael. and Manasse. A. Lori. "Effective Principals." School AdmdnlstnatoriBO (November l982): 14-16. Cox. Allan J. "The Corporate Management Trap--Beware of the Hidden Agenda." .Adxentlslng Age 47 (December 1976): 33-36. Crockett. William J. "The Emerging World of the Manager." Iralning .Wonld.o£.tbo.Manaoat 35 (April 1981): 76-78. Downey. Gregg W. "One Hundred Top Executive Educators: How-4and Why-- We Did It." .Exgggtixe,fidugatg£ 6 (February I984): 15-39. Doyle. Wayne J. "The Effects of Leader Achieved Status on Hierarchi- cally Differentiated Group Perfonmance." ,AgmlnistnatoLLS Note: ,book 18 (September 1969): 1-4. DuBr‘In. Wayne .1. Eunoamontals of Organizational flotation. New York: Pergamon Press. I974. Elboim—Dror. Rachel. "The Management System in Education and Staff Relations." Joutnal of Educational Administration and Elston: 4 (June 1972): 47-56. Ends. Earl J.. and Page. Curtis W. .Qnganizational loam Eu11d1ng. Cambridge. Mass.: Winthrop. 1977. Farace. Richard; Monge. Peter; and Russell. Hamish. .Commnnioating yand.QLganlzjng. Philippines: Addison-Wesley. 1977. Farris. George F. "Groups and the Informal Organization." In Groups .at Wonk. Edited by R. Payne and C. Cooper. New York: John Wiley. 1981. . "Informal Organizations in Research and Development." Paper presented at the Joint National Meeting of the Institute of Management Sciences and Operations Research Society of America. New York. 1978. 123 . "The Informal Organization in Strategic Decision-Making." Intonnattonalfitudtasoiflanaoolnantandflndanization9 (Winter 1979-80): 37-62. . "Organizational Climate and Individual Performance in Research and Development: Some Next Steps for Research and Prac- tice." Unpublished paper. Rutgers University. September 1985. . "Organizing Your Informal Organization." .Innouation. no. 25 (I97I-72): I-II. . "The Technical Supervisor: Beyond the Peter Principle." Ifighnglggy.3§11§u 75 (March-April 1973): l-8. Fassenmyer. Sharon A.. and Mamara. Joseph. "How to Add the Human Dimension for More Effective Schools: Tips for Principals From NASSP." national Institutoof Education (May 1985): 2'56- Faulkner. Marion E. "The Supervisor--A Functioning Manager." .Inaining and Donelopmont Joumal 29 (February 1975): 10-14. Feitler. Fred C. "A Study of Principal Leader Behavior and Contrasting Organizational Environments." U.S. Departnent of Health. Educa- tion. and Welfare. Office of Education. Elmira. N.Y.: April 1972. Fiedler. Fred. .GLQMD.Dxnamicst.Bo§oanch and Iheony. Edited by Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander. New York: Harper 5 Row. I960. _____.__. A Ihoolzx of. Laadocsbio Etiectixonoss. New York: McGraw- H11]! 1%70 Fordyce. Jack. and Weil. Raymond. .Manadind.Witb.anolo. Reading. Mass.: Addison-Wesley. 1971. Froland. Charles. et al. "Professional Partnerships With Informal HelperS: Emerging Forms." National Institute of Education (September 1979): 1-28. Galbraith. Jay R. .Qnganization Design. Reading. Mass.: Addison- Wesley. 1977. Garland. Parnell. and O'Reilly. Robert R. "The Effect of Leader-Member Interaction on Organizational Effectiveness." .Educational .Admlnlstnatlon.Quantenly 12 (February 1976): 9-30. Genck. Fredric H. "Better Schools Through Better Management." .School Amnugifitnatg: 41 (March 1984): 16-18. 124 Gerler. Edwin R. "The Interpersonal Domain in Multimodal Teacher GPOUPs." .LolLLnal .foi: .Soecialdsts in finouo lock 5 (May 1980): 107-12. Gerloff. Edwin A.. et al. "The Effects of Managerial Behavior on Organization Information-Sharing Norms and Communication)‘ loutnal of. Audited Communication Bosoancb 6 (November 1978): 73- 83. Ghazzali. A. "The Leadership of Human Resources--A Framework Managers Can Use." .11a1n1ng.Q££1;a: 14 (January 1978): 8-12. Goode. William. and Matt. Paul K. .Methods in Social Basaanch. New York: McGraw—Hill. 1952. Gordon. Judith P. A Diagnostic Anomacb to organizational Bohaxior. Newton. Mass.: Allyn and Bacon. 1983. Graham. Gerald H. "Interpersonal Attraction as a Basis of Informal Organization." .Acadomu.ManagomonI.lounnal 14 (December 1971): 483. Gynther. Malcolm D. "A Technique for Assessing Covert Interpersonal Perceptions.” Bensonalitya An Intocnational Eomontion Joucnal 2 (Winter 1971): 299-304. Halloran. Jack. .Appliod.fluman,Ba1ations. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1978. Hal pi n. Andrew W.. and Croft. Don 8. lbs Organizational Climate of yfichools. St. Louis: Washington University. 1962. Harris. Ben M.. et a1. £onsonno1Admini§tLationinEducation Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 1979. Harris. 0. Jeff. Jr. .flow to Managa Beagle at Work. New York: John Helwig. Carl. "Authenticity and Individual Teacher Interpersonal Needs." Joutnal ofEducational Administnation 11 (Ma)! I973): . "Organizational Climate and Frequency of Principal-Teacher Communications in Selected Ohio Elementary Schools." .lounnal of ExooLimontalEducation 39 (Sumner 1971): 52-55. Henphill: John K. .GnouoDimonsionsaAManualtothoitMaasumant. Columbus: Ohio State University. 1956. 125 Herbert. Theodore T. Dimensions of .Qrganizational Bonaiior. New York: Macmillan. 1976. Hicks. Herbert G. Ibo Management of organizations: A Sisters and fiMman.Besources.npproacn. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1972. Hollingsworth. A. Thomas. "Perceptual Accuracy of the Informal Organi- zation as a Determinant of the Effectiveness of Formal Leaders." .loucnal of Economics and Business 27 (Fall 1974): 75-78. . "Relationship Between the Informal Organization and the Effectiveness of Formal Leaders." Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University. 1969. Houlihan. G. Thomas. "Using the Right Variables in Measuring School Effectiveness." .NASSE Bulletin 67 (October 1983): 9-15. Isaac. Stephen. handbook in Bosoarob and Eialuation. San Diego: Johnston. H. Russell. "A New Conceptualization of Source of Organi- zational Climate." Administratixe Science Quantanly 21 (March 1976): 95-103. Kahn. Robert L.. et al. "The Relationship Between Liking and Per- ceived Self-Disclosure in Small Groups." .Jounna1.oI.Esxcholog¥ 78 (May 1971): 81-85. Katz. Daniel. and Kahn. Robert L. .Ihe Social Psychology of Organi: zations. New York: John Wiley. 1966. Kennedy. Marilyn Moats. .Qfiico EQLLUQEI 5.9111119 £91911; molding .Qlout. Chicago: Follett. 1980. Mela/16h: Stephen .1. Administration of Eubiic Education. New York: Harper & Row. 1975. . "Evol uti on of Faculty-Princi pal Relations: A Look at What's Happening From the National Perspective." .Educationa1.§eryices Bullshit! 53 (June 1980): 2-20. Knowles. Malcolm. "The Process of Defining a Role in an Organiza- tion." InternationaldoucnaloiflontinuinoEducationand ,Iralning 3 (Summer 1973): 27-29. Knox. Alan 8.. ed. "Leadership Strategies for Meeting New Chal- lengeS: Decision-Making." New Directions for Continuing Educa: tion 13 (March 1982): 3-9. 126 Koehler. Jerry W.; Anatol. Karl W. E.: and Applebaum. Ronald L. Qrganizationalgomnunication. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. 1976. Kruegar. Jack P.. and Parish. Ralph. .Managing Group and lntergnoup .Belatlons. Homewood. 111.: Richard D. Irwin. 1972. . ”We're Making the Same Mistakes: Myth and Legend in School Dmprovement." .Elannlng.and.§hanglng 13 (Fall 1982): 131-40. Leithwood. K. A.. and Montgomery. Deborah J. "The Role of the Ele- mentary Principal in Program Implementation." .Bexiew.of .EnncatlnnalIBeseancn (Fall 1982): 309-39. Likert. Rensis. .Ine.fluman.QLganlzatlon. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1967. _______. flex Eattsrns at Management. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1961. ._______ . and Likert. Jane Gibson. .fleu Hays of Managing Canfllct. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1976. Lippert. Fred G. "Cliques--Good or Bad." ,Synenxlslcn 44 (August 1982): 16-17. Litterer. Joseph A. 1119 Analysis at Organizations. New York: John Wiley. 1973. Locke. Don. EorcootionandfluriSnowlodgoofthaEatornaliiorld. New York: Humanities Press. 1967. Manasse. A. Lori. "Improving Conditions for Principal Effectiveness: Policy Implications of Research on Effective PrincipalsJ‘ Institute e1 Education (November 1984): 2-50. Marcus. Philip M.. and House. James S. "Exchange Between Superiors and Subordinates in Large Organizations." .Admlnlstratixe.§c1ence .Quanterly 18 (June 1973): 209-22. Mazzarella. JoAnn. "Leadership Effectiveness." .ACSA.Scnool Management .Dlgest 1 (February 1980): 2-53. McCoy. Susan S.. and Shreve. Geralyn R. "Principals--Why Are Some More Successful Than Others in Implementing Change?" ,flASSE.Bnllet1n 67 (September 1983): 96-103. McKenna. R. F. "A Description of the Organizational Interfaces of the Formal and Informal Systans." Industnjal Management 17 (Novanber 1975): 1-7. 127 Mehrabian. Albert. and Ksionzky. Sheldon. "Factors of Interpersonal Behavior and Judgnent in Social Groups." Esychalagjcal Regents 28 (April 1971): 483-92. Michelon. L. C. "Leadership--The Secret of Making Things Happen." Journal of Eosilon El Ian 3 (Spring 1977): 31-37. Milton. Charles R. .fluman.Benaylo:.1n.Qnganlzatlgn. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1981. Nie. Norman H.. et al. Statisticalflaclsagaiortnaomialficioncos. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1975. Patz. A. L. "Who Are Your Real Politicians." .Managen1a1.Elann1ng 24 (January-February 1976): 31-37. Pearce. W. Barnett. "Trust in Interpersonal Communication." .Sgeech .Mgnegnanns 41 (August 1974): 236-44. Reif. William E.; Monczka. Robert: and Newstrom. John W. "Perceptions of the Fonnal and the Informal Organization: Objective Measurement Through the Semantic Differential Technique." .Academy cf Manage: .ment Journal 16 (September 1973): 389-403. Roethlisberger. F. J.. and Dickson. W. J. .Management and the locker. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1989. Schein. E. Erocossgonsultationsltsfioloinnrganizationnexaloo: .ment. Reading. Mass.: Addison-Wesley. 1956. Schmuck. Richard A. "Humanizing the School Organization." .Catalyst .I9£.§hange 2 (Spring 1973): 26-27. "School Effectiveness: Identifying the Specific Practices. Behaviors for Principals." .NASSE Bulletin 67 (May 1983): 83-91. Seashore. Stanley. .Groun .Qonosiienass in tho IndustLial Hort .Grouo. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research. University of Michigan. I954. Sedwick. Robert C. .Interactlon. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice- Selltiz. Claire. et al. BosonrcbflatbodsinSmialBelations. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. 1959. Sergiovanni. Thomas J. "Leadership and Excellence in Schooling." 'Eguggilgnil.Lfiaflfififih1n 41 (February 1984): 6-13. 128 Sharma. M. L. "Organizational Climate of Schools: A Comparative Study." .Ieacner.Ieday 14 (January-March 1972): 74-86. Siegel. Sidney. Nonnacamstnic Statistics tor the muoral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1956. Sisco. John I. "Interpersonal Small-Group Communication." .NASSE .Bullotin 54 (December 1970): 77-85. Smith. Edward 8. "Chester Barnard's Concept of Authority." fiance: tional Administration Ouartorlx 11 (Winter 1975): 21-37. Smyth. W. John. "Educational Leadership and Staff Development: Stop the Train(ing). I Want to Get Off." NASSE Bulletin 67 (March 1983): 60-67. ________, "New Direction in the Study of the Principalship." .Canaaian .Administnator 22 (November 1982): 1-4. Sprinthall. Richard C. .Basic Statistical Analysis. Reading. Mass.: Addi son-Wesl ey. 1982. 5 Stout. Russell. Jr. "Fonmal Theory and the Flexible Organization." .Adxanced.Management.loucnal 46 (Winter 1981): 44-52. _________. ,Management an Cantrell Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1980. Strother. Deborah Burnett. "The Many Roles of the Effective Princi- pal." .Ehl Delta Keenan 65 (December 1983): 291-94. Sweeney. Jim. and Pinckney. Robert. "Faculty Management: The Princi- pal's Most Important Role." .Spectnmm 1 (Fall 1983): 3-6. Titchener. Chris. .Beadings.in.Eencentiens. Edited by David Beardslee and Michael Wertheimer. New York: Van Nostrand. 1958. Tye. Kenneth A. "The Times They Are a Changin' for School Princi- Pals." Inrust to: Educational Loadersnin 7 (October 1977): 44- Vecchio. Robert P. "A Test Based on the Contingency Model of Leader- ship." .Small.Gnoup.Benaxiec 12 (February 1981): 107-15. Von Helmholtz. Chris. .Beadings in Eencenticns. Edited by David Beardslee and Michael Wertheimer. New York: Van Nostrand. 1958. Warner. Donald I. "Variations on the Theme of Primary Groups: Forms of Social Control Within School Staffs." .Sociology.oi Education 43 (Summer 1970): 288-310. 129 Whyte. William F. Mon at .liorls. Homewood. 111.: Richard D. Irwin and Dorsey Press. 1961. . Studies in Leadensnie. Edited by Alvin Gouldner. New York: Harper and Brothers. 1950. Yukl. Gary. "Managerial Leadership and Effective Principal." National InstitutsofEducation (May 1983): 2-69.