' A than r5“... muffin. I :. .4 1‘ ,. w u 'l 2 x a: I'd-:11 g av", , . u... ,_ .., Uni l‘h HH 28773773 ITTTTTTTTTW‘TI L 3 1293 007 {c \ LIBRARY y Michigan State University a , This is to certify that the dissertation entitled CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS IN CHARGE OF INSTRUCTION: A STUDY OF LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS UNDERGOING RESTRUCTURING presented by Vickie L. Markavitch has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree”, Educational Administration A r 7 Q); A ‘L ' x , f ‘ \I W _ J ‘ W\, Major professor \ A 4‘ MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE JIM”! U 4 ti6 FEB 2 8 2004 MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution chS-pd CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS IN CHARGE OF INSTRUCTION: A STUDY OF LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS UNDERGOING RESTRUCTURING By Vickie L. Markavitch A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration l991 ABSTRACT CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS IN CHARGE OF INSTRUCTION: A STUDY OF LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS UNDERGOING RESTRUCTURING By Vickie L. Markavitch The researcher’s major purpose in this study was to identify and compare the perceived leadership behaviors of central Office administrators in charge of instruction, as expressed by the administrators themselves and by those principals who worked with them. The study' was designed to determine whether significant differences in the use of power and in decision-making style existed among central Office administrators and between the perceptions of the administrators and their principals. In addition, for administrators who had been in their positions two or more years, a measurement of perceived change in leadership behavior was taken. The study population comprised 18 mid-sized school districts in Michigan that participated in the Leadership for School Improvement Program (LSIP). Instruments used were the Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Style Inventory and the Power Perception Profile developed by Hersey, Blanchard, and Natemeyer as part of their situational leadership model. Combined, the instruments measured ll leader behaviors in the use of power and decision-making style. The Vickie L. Markavitch central Office administrators and principals were administered the same inventories with directions to respond with a view of the behaviors of the central Office administrators. Data were analyzed using the SPSS computer program. Frequencies, means, standard deviations, and ranges described the distribution of responses. .A MANOVA was used to determine whether significant differences existed within and between each group in terms of their responses to the power and decision-making scales. The Pearson product-moment correlation was used to test whether significant correlations existed among the perceptions relative to power and decision making. Results indicated that expert power and facilitative decision making were the favored leadership behaviors, whereas coercive power and authoritative decision making were the least favored. Behaviors reported as the most changed over recent years were increased facilitative decision making and increased use of expert power. Use of certain power bases was strongly correlated to certain decision- making styles. Implications for school districts undergoing improvement efforts included a suggestion for careful study Of central office administrators’ contributions before any reductions are made in this important role, which was seen as a ”linch pin" for innovation. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was undertaken to determine and describe the leadership behaviors of central Office administrators working in decentralizing districts actively involved in school-improvement efforts. To Dr. Lawrence Lezotte, who planted the seed Of this project, I express my gratitude. A special thank-you goes to Dr. Samuel Moore, whose friendship and counsel as chairman of my committee helped me through this effort, and tO my other committee members, Dr. Louis Romano, Dr. Charles Blackman, and Dr. Robert Poland, I extend my appreciation for their availability, support, and critical analysis. The fine editorial talents of Susan Cooley were greatly appreciated as she brought this document to completion. For their constant "nudging" and genuine concern, I must thank the Skokie School District 73.5 family, especially my Board of Education, whose continued encouragement kept me going. To my husband, Stan, and my daughters, Julianne and Jennifer, go my deepest affection and gratitude for their continuing faith and forbearance. To my sister Donna, her husband, Jim, and my Aunt Catherine I extend many thanks for listening to all my woes. Finally, but actually first in the general scheme of things, my greatest appreciation is for my parents, Victor and Irene Cech, who iv provided the inspiration and "can do" attitude that has evolved this achievement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ....................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ....................... xi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .................... 1 Theoretical Rationale ............... 4 Statement Of the Problem ............. ll Hypotheses .................... 12 Definition Of Terms ................ 13 Significance of the Study ............. 15 Limitations of the Study ............. 16 Overview ..................... 17 11. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............. 18 The Role Of the Central Office Administrator in Charge of Instruction and/or Curriculum ..... TB Leadership .................... 40 Power ....................... 51 Organizational Structure and Restructuring . . . . 60 Summary ...................... 80 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY ................. 83 Methodology .................... 83 The Site and Population .............. 85 The Instruments .................. 87 The Power Perception Profile (Self and Other) . . 88 Problem-Solving/Decision-Making Style Inventory . 90 The Personal/Demographic Data Form ....... 90 Procedures .................... 91 Statistical Treatment of the Data ......... 93 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA .................. 94 Personal/Demographic Information ......... 94 Results of Hypothesis Testing ........... 102 vi Page Hypothesis 1 .................. 102 Hypothesis 2 .................. 105 Hypothesis 3 .................. 108 Hypotheses 4 and 5 ............... 111 Hypothesis 6 .................. 119 Hypothesis 7 .................. 121 Hypotheses 8 and 9 ............... 124 Chapter Summary .................. 126 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ................... 129 Summary ...................... 129 Purpose of the Study .............. 129 Theoretical Rationale .............. 131 Design of the Study ............... 138 Instruments ................... 138 Procedures ................... 139 Statistical Treatment Of the Data ........ 141 Findings .................... 142 Conclusions .................... 147 Implications ................... 151 Recommendations for Future Study ......... 152 APPENDICES A. CORRESPONDENCE ................... 155 B. INSTRUMENTS ..................... 160 C. PARTICIPATING DISTRICTS ............... 169 D. LETTERS 0F APPROVAL ................. 170 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ 178 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Distribution of Districts by Type of School District . 94 2. Distribution of Districts by Size of Student Population ..................... 95 3. Distribution of Central Office Administrators and Principals by Gender ................ 95 4. Distribution of Central Office Administrators and Principals by Age .................. 96 5. Distribution of Central Office Administrators and Principals by Highest Degree Held .......... 96 6. Distribution of Central Office Administrators and Principals by Years in Position ........... 97 7. Distribution of Central Office Administrators by Line or Staff Position .................. 97 8. Distribution of Central Office Administrators by Prior Position Held ................. 98 9. Distribution of Central Office Administrators by Number of Effective Schools Training Activities . . . 99 10. Distribution of Central Office Administrators by Types of Effective Schools Training Activities . . . 99 11. Distribution of Principals by Years Spent With the Central Office Administrators ............ 100 12. Distribution Of Principals by Number Of School Improvements .................... 101 13. Distribution Of Principals by Types Of School Improvements Completed ............... 101 14. Means and Standard Deviations for Central Office Administrators’ Scores on the Power Variables . . . . 103 viii 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Means and Standard Deviations for Central Office Administrators’ Scores on the Decision-Making Variables ...................... Means and Standard Deviations for Principals’ Scores on the Power Variables ............ Means and Standard Deviations for Principals’ Scores on the Decision-Making Variables ....... Differences Between Mean Scores of Principals and Central Office Administrators on Power Variables Differences Between Mean Scores Of Principals and Central Office Administrators on Decision-Making Variables ...................... Relationship Of Gender of Principals to Power Variables ...................... Relationship of Prior Position Of Central Office Administrator to Power Variables .......... Relationship Of Years in Position of Principal to Power Variables ................... Relationship of Age of Principal and Degree of Central Office Administrator to Power Variable Relationship of Degree Held by Principal to Decision- Making Variables .................. Relationship of Age Of Central Office Administrator to Decision-Making Variables ............ Relationship of Prior Position of Central Office Administrator to Decision-Making Variable ...... Relationship of District Type Of Central Office Administrator to Decision-Making Variable ...... Means and Standard Deviations for Central Office Administrators’ Scores on the Change Variables Means and Standard Deviations for Principals’ Scores on the Change Variables ............... Differences Between Mean Scores of Principals and Central Office Administrators on Change Variables . . ix Page 105 107 108 109 110 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 121 122 123 Page 31. Correlation of Decision-Making and Power Variables for Central Office Administrators .......... 125 32. Correlation Of Decision-Making and Power Variables for Central Office Administrators, as Perceived by Principals .................... 126 Figure 1. LIST OF FIGURES Power Bases Necessary to Influence People at Specific Readiness Levels ............. xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The history of American education is, in large part, the history of recurring cycles of reform. From 1965, when Vice-Admiral Hyman G. Rickover Shared his belief that the American educational system was almost totally inadequate, to the publication of A Nation at_31§k in 1983 to the present, there has been a seemingly limitless supply of new ideas for how schools should be changed (Lewis, 1989). ”Reform" was the in-vogue word throughout most of the 19805, until an analysis of these early efforts indicated that the changes were too Slow and inadequate. Reformers then began to talk about more drastic measures--about restructuring. This time around, reform may take a stronger hold on the public schools. Restructuring is likely to become a reality. Today’s call for reform is based more on an economic argument. Schools are being mandated to attain excellence for the sake of the nation’s economic health. In his address to a 1987 symposium at Harvard University on Excellence and Equity in Education, Harold Howe II, former U.S. Commissioner of Education and currently a member of the faculty Of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, stated (Lewis, 1989): Undergirding today’ S school reform movement is a significant shift in the nature of job opportunities in this country. . . Apparently the change in the nature of new and well- rewarded jobs has taken place more rapidly than has the success of the schools in educating a larger portion of the population. . . . Hhen we add to this situation the further fact that a growing proportion of our public school population will be made up Of the children of poor, Black, Hispanic, and immigrant families it appears that our future supply of well- trained workers, upon whom our economic well- -being depends, is in turn dependent on our being much more successful with promoting not just equity, but also excellence among the children of poor and minority families. (pp. 31-33) Business and industry, courts of law, state departments, governors, and the public are calling for schools to be more successful in teaching children. In sometimes frantic attempts to meet this charge, schools are "restructuring." Such restructuring has called for changes in programs, curriculum, teacher preparation, student assessment, and more and more a change in the basic governance of schools themselves. Decentralizing the bureaucracy of schools seems to be a common theme. Building-based decision making, site-based management, and empowerment are key in this restructured governance. Countless researchers have sought to determine the most effective schools and the most effective ways tO improve the less effective schools. Still other investigators have looked at the roles personnel play in these restructured organizations. Principals, teachers, superintendents, site councils, and boards of education have been interviewed, surveyed, and "shadowed." Their leadership styles, power bases, problem-solving behavior, and attitudes toward shared decision making have been documented over the last decade. An area of little study, however, has been the role of the central office administrator during this period of change. Hith the move to decentralization, this position is likely to be affected greatly. Of specific interest is the central Office administrator in charge of instruction or curriculum. Persons in this position had been and probably still are very involved in program implementation, staff development, and carrying forth the district goals on behalf of the superintendent. From the study Of dissemination efforts supporting school improvement, Cox (1983) stated, We have learned that central Office personnel, . . . curriculum coordinators, program directors, and specialists have emerged as significant actors in the process Of' Change. In fact, central Office staff may well be the linch pins of school improvement efforts, linking together the external assisters and the building level administrators and teachers. They appear to be the most appropriate local sources Of assistance in actually using new practices. (p. 10) A review of the existing literature yielded little concrete information about the roles of district Office personnel, and in nearly all Of the few studies that exist, the lack Of data was stressed. Fullan (1982) attributed the paucity of research on second-level administrators and district support staff to the great diversity of roles and organizations and to the preoccupation of researchers with studying superintendents. As an integral member of the school team, the role of the central Office administrator in charge of instruction and curriculum needs to be studied in these current times. In addition to their role, those leadership styles that are prevalent in a decentralized setting where collaboration is emphasized also need to be studied. Also of interest is whether differences in progress with school- improvement efforts can be attributed to the leadership behaviors of this group of administrators. Theoretical Rationalg The literature abounds on reform and restructuring, for both education and business. Because much of educational reform has been tied to business reform, both were addressed in this study. TO begin, one must look at the basis from which the current change has sprung. Max Weber is responsible fOr introducing the concept Of bureaucracy to the political and social science literature. Bureaucracy is the mechanism, springing from the school of scientific management, that has been characteristic of many schools and businesses. Bureaucratic thought assumed that all aspects of the organization--from its mission, technical requirements, and work flow to the details Of its organizational structure--cou1d be defined into a permanent grand design. All that remained was to find people who could be programmed into this design and to turn the key (Sergiovanni, 1980). With the move to flatten the bureaucracies, one must also look at the open-system view of organizational theory; An open-system organization is characterized by a frequent but uncertain and unpredictable flow of interactions between the organization and its broader social system (Sergiovanni, 1980). This openness introduces demands and expectations into the system that are rapidly changing and Often in conflict. Demands made by the array Of community interest groups typically found in school communities are an example. The Open-system organization is becoming more prevalent in the business community, as well. In its 1984 bulletin, General Electric reported, "A company must change faster than the world around it. . . You are either the very best at what you do or you don’t do it for very long" (Pascarella, 1986). This statement could be aligned to the uncertainties Of today’s corporate environment. Restructuring of American business is being played out dramatically in the language of mergers and acquisitions, corporate raids, spin-offs, and buyouts, as well as massive layoffs and cost cutting. Since Ouchi’s Theory 2, describing the transition from a top- down power structure to a structure in which power is shared, many organizations have been changing their' culture toward team management, with employees being their own bosses (Meussling, 1987). According to a 1987 survey by the Hall Street Journal, three-fourths of the nation’s employers planned tO eliminate many managerial and administrative positions (Seigel & Smoley, 1988). Middle managers are being eliminated through automation or decentralization of their responsibilities. The parallel with education is evident: Middle management has its counterpart in school district central Office personnel. The Committee for Economic Development, an influential group of business and higher education leaders, began to focus on the individual school as the core of reform in its reports; the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy emphasized changes needed in the working environment of teachers; and the National Governors’ Association couched policy making in terms of empowering leadership at the school level. In an address to the Business Roundtable in Washington, D.C., in June 1989, Boyer included school-based management as one of five necessary strategies for national leadership in education. He called for the creation in the nation’s 83,000 schools, of what industry likes to call "circles of quality control," with teachers and principals creatively building schools that meet high academic standards and that meet the needs Of students. Bower suggested that, as a national strategy, every state should define its goals and then give freedom to the schools, focusing on outcomes, not procedures. He believed such restructuring would breathe new life into a suffocating system (Seigel & Smoley, 1988). The basic beliefs of school-based governance are that (a) those most closely affected by decisions ought to play a significant role in making those decisions, and that (b) educational reform efforts will be most effective and long lasting when carried out by people who feel a sense of ownership in and responsibility for the process. These beliefs are being played out in schools across the country. Two significant examples are the state of Kentucky and the city of Chicago. "Kentucky Starts from Scratch" highlighted the Kentucky Education Reform Act, all 945 pages and 20 pounds of it (Harrington-Lueker, 1990). "Chicago Decentralizes" is another example of mandated site-based management. In addition to the structural elements of restructured schools, the researcher addressed those aspects of leadership skills that are integral to school-improvement efforts. A review of the literature revealed that most management writers have agreed that leadership is the process of influencing the activities of an individual or a group in efforts toward goal achievement in a given situation. Tannenbaum, Heschler, and Massarik (1959) defined leadership as interpersonal influence exercised in a situation and directed, through the communication process, toward the attainment of a specialized goal or goals. An obvious aspect Of leadership is influencing others. Fundamental to administrative and supervisory action ‘hi any school is an understanding of the nature of authority--its origins, its forms, its Operational feasibility, and its acceptance. The literature on authority and power was reviewed in this study to achieve a better understanding Of how influence is exerted in a setting in which all are "empowered." It was necessary to go beyond Max Heber’s traditional, charismatic, and legal sources of authority. A review of the six bases of social power and influence (information power, referent power, expert power, legitimate power, reward power, and coercion), as proposed by French and Raven (1959), was integral to this study. New classifications Of power have been entering the literature, such as Boulding’s (1989) "threat power, economic power, and integrative power--the stick, the carrot, and the hug." Another aspect of leadership that was included 'hi this study was that of the "empowered manager," the current call to become a "leader of leaders." In flhv Leaders Can’t Lead, Bennis (1989) stated that "American organizations are underled and overmanaged." He claimed that "organizations do not pay enough attention to doing the right thing, while they pay too much attention to doing things right. Leaders are people who do the right things, while managers are people who merely do things right." Nowhere has change been more shattering than in the massacre of corporate middle management. TOO many chiefs and not enough Indians is not cost effective in today’s intensely competitive market. The future promises no respite in this economic and competitively stressful climate. Business is meeting the challenge by welcoming innovation with entrepreneurial participatory management styles. Kanter (1983) asserted that, above all other qualities, an entrepreneur must know how to organize others and delegate work. In the traditional sense, managers were present 'hi their Offices to solve short-term problems; now entrepreneurs work with the people, alter moods, and change the way people think about what is possible. If the middle manager of a school district is to be a viable part of a decentralized system, he/she must become an empowered manager and an entrepreneur. Agreement for several leadership concepts can be gained from the literature: (a) a call for democratic over authoritarian styles Of leadership, (b) a preference for facilitative guidance rather than specific directives, and (c) a favoring of more humanistic or people-based behaviors versus task- based behaviors. Finally, the literature was reviewed to gain insight into and knowledge about the role of the central office administrator in charge of instruction and/or curriculum. It has been claimed that little information exists in this area, but a thorough search was undertaken to glean what there was and bring it to light. In 1965, the ASCD Yearbook focused on the emerging role of the curriculum leader. A decade later, the ASCD conducted a survey in which respondents under the umbrella. of' curriculum leader reported 17 different titles for their jobs. The most frequently named were director or coordinator (35%) and assistant superintendent (29%); the others included consultant, specialist, supervisor, chairperson, or coordinator. In 1984, Costa and Guditus reported that the job titles Of people who responded to their study "covered the waterfront" and included consultant, coordinator, specialist, instructional leader, staff developer, subject matter specialist, director of curriculum, elementary or secondary director, and assistant superintendent. To add to the confusion, the term "supervisory personnel" includes the superintendent, supervisors, principals, assistant superintendents, and other administrative and Special service personnel giving leadership to supervisory activities regardless of their position, title, status, amount of responsibility, or formal authority (Glickman, 1981; Harris, 1963). 10 It is easy to see why the literature in this area is sparse because the position is idiosyncratic to the district and situation in which it exists. The researcher focused on the central Office administrator in charge of instruction and/or curriculum. She looked at those positions in districts that were restructuring in the direction of building-based decision making. In this time of change, the implications of this study insofar as extending a command of educational administration practices seem strong. In surveying what is happening in the field, the researcher sought to address the question Of what leadership role and behaviors central office administrators use to promote the kinds of staff relationships necessary for maximum attainment of organizational goals. Further, she addressed what kinds Of power bases are most often used by central Office administrators in influencing the behavior Of other staff. With such insights, the ability of an administrator to meet the needs Of his/her school during its restructuring efforts would be greatly enhanced. If central office supervisors are indeed critical "linch pins Of school improvement" (Cox, 1983), it is critical, in turn, that there be research on these personnel. Noting the need for such research, Fullan (1982) stated, "There is such limited research on the role Of district staff that almost anything would make a contribution. Conceptual and empirical work is needed on what characterizes these different roles." As the existing research in this area is limited, it is hoped that this study will Open the door 11 for other efforts, thereby expanding the base of information available on the topic. Statement of theiPrOblgm This study involved central Office administrators working in districts that had been involved in a school-improvement process leading to building-based decision making. 'The researcher’s major purpose in this study was to identify and compare the perceptions about the leadership behavior of central office administrators in charge Of instruction and/or curriculum, as expressed by the administrators themselves and by those principals who worked with them. The study' was designed to determine whether significant differences with regard to the use of power and in decision-making behavior existed among central Office administrators. Further, the study' was designed to determine whether significant differences existed between the perceptions of the administrators and those of their corresponding principals. Also, for those administrators who had been in their positions for more than two years, a measurement of perceived change in leadership behavior was identified. This was important because the schools in which these administrators worked had been involved in a change process for two or more years. The researcher also sought to determine whether a relationship existed between the administrator’s decision-making behavior and use of power, between the decision-making/power variables and the level of progress attained by the district in terms of its 12 school-improvement process, and between the decision-making/power variables and personal/demographic variables Of the administrator. Finally, the researcher described the central office adminis- trator with respect to demographic and personal characteristics in the sample group of school districts. Hypotheses Hypotheses were tested for retention or nonretention at the .05 level of significance. All of the hypotheses were stated in the null form for the purpose of statistical measurement. Hypothesis 1: There is no dominant style that emerges from the perceptions Of central Office administrators with respect to their decision-making behavior or power-base preference. Hypothesis 2: There is no dominant style that emerges from the perceptions of principals with respect to central Office admin- istrators’ decision-making behavior or power-base preference. Hypothesis 3: There are no significant differences between the perceptions of central office administrators and their corresponding principals with respect to decision-making behaviors and power—base preferences. Hypothesis 4: There are no significant relationships between the personal demographic variables and the decision-making behaviors or the power-base preferences of central office administrators, as perceived by themselves or their principals. Hypothesis 5: There is no significant relationship between leadership behaviors of central office administrators, as perceived by their principals, and the level of progress attained by schools in the school-improvement process. Hypothesis 6: There is no significant difference in the central Office administrator’s perceived leadership» behavior currently, as compared to his/her perceived leadership behavior Of two or more years ago. Hypothesis 7: There is no significant difference in the central office administrator’s leadership behavior currently, as compared to his/her leadership behavior of two or more years ago, as perceived by the principals with whom he/she works. 13 Hyppthgsis 8: There is no significant correlation between the central office administrator’s perceived decision-making behavior and his/her perceived power-base preference. Hypothesis 9: There is no significant correlation between the decision-making behavior and power-base preference Of the central Office administrator, as perceived by the building principals. Definition Of Term§ The following operational definitions were deemed essential to an understanding Of this study: Captyal Office administrator. Anyone assigned to the superin— tendent’s staff who is in charge Of instruction and/or curriculum and who may be designated as assistant superintendent, director, or administrative assistant, but who is evaluated by and reports directly to the superintendent. Both line and staff positions were studied. Dgcjsion-making behavior. The perceived behavior of central office administrators, as described by their principals and themselves, that centers on decision-making activity. This behavior was categorized using descriptors in the Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Styles Inventory, developed by Hersey and Natemeyer. Effgctive» Schools Netwprk school-improvement prpceas. That process for school improvement based on the correlates Of effective schools, for which training is provided by the Network for Effective Schools, headed by Lawrence Lezotte and located in Okemos, Michigan. This process includes seven components: general awareness training, district team for school improvement, building-level improvement 14 teams, mission statements for the district and buildings, disaggregation Of data, first-year action plans, and subsequent years’ action plans. Effective schools training. The type Of training the administrator has had in the area of effective schools and the school-improvement process: on the job, work with a consultant, university courses, independent reading, leadership academy program, seminars, and/or district-required team training program. Line position. A supervisory relationship exists between the central Office administrator and the principals, with the administrator being responsible for all or part Of the evaluation of those principals. Bower-base preference. The perceived behavior of central Office administrators, as described by their Indncipals and themselves, that centers on their use of power as they attempt to exert influence. This behavior was categorized using descriptors in the Power Perception Profile, developed by Hersey and Natemeyer. Prineipal. Anyone assigned as the administrative head Of an elementary, middle, junior high, or high school building who is designated as principal and is responsible for the organization, supervision, management, evaluation, and discipline of that building. Staff position. There is no supervisory relationship between the central office administrator and the principals, and the administrator has no responsibility for the evaluation of those principals. 15 Significanee Of the Study The nation’s schools have been the focus of much public and political concern. During the past decade, school personnel have been asked to restructure. Because the economic health of the nation has been tied to this school-improvement effort, it is not likely to vanish. This means that school personnel will need to be effective in a restructured educational organization. Middle managers, or central office personnel, are especially vulnerable during this change process. These administrators are key players who have not been the focus Of much thorough study, yet have been cited in the comprehensive DESSI study as the "linch pin to school improvement" (Cox, 1983). The present research is intended to contribute to an area in need of study (Fullan, 1982). In terms of the implications of this study and its value to the field Of administrative leadership, the findings Should be of critical significance. Looking at leadership from the point of view Of' decision making and use of power, greater insight into two important leader behaviors can be gained. From a descriptive point of view, this study will add content to an area largely lacking in the literature on administrative leadership. From an analytic point Of view, the researcher looked at relationships between personal/ demographic variables and central Office leader behaviors, relationships between behaviors themselves, and relationships between perceptions Of’ principals and administrators related to those leader behaviors. 16 Studies such as this would seem to be useful for the preparation of educational administrators in university settings and for staff development and inservice for administrators at the local school district level. From an informative point of view, studies such as this would also seem to be useful for those administrators currently holding positions in the central office Of school districts, especially those undergoing restructuring efforts. Limitations of the Study Conclusions drawn from this study are subject to the limitations inherent in its scope, subjects, instruments, and methodology. Limitations of scope relate to the consideration Of perceptions as they relate to decision-making behaviors and uses Of power. The study also was limited by the extent to which the introspection called for resulted in responses that were accurate expressions of what the subjects believed to be true at the time. The subjects involved in this study were limited to one central office administrator and his/her corresponding principals from each school district. School districts involved were only those, volunteering to participate, that also had been involved in the effective schools model for school improvement for at least two years. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations are limited by the extent to which the respondents were representative of the total population. The instruments used in this study were limited to measuring only those phenomena for which they were designed. The instruments 17 used to collect data from those participating in the study were ipsative in nature, which tended to depress reliability and validity scores (Delaney, 1980). Reliability for the instrument of leadership styles was found to be ”moderately strong" (r - .69 to .71), and validity measures indicated the instrument was “empirically sound” (r = .67) (Greene, 1980). Validity for the Power Perception Profile was found to be ”moderate," and overall the instrument had a reliability coefficient of .5185 (Delaney, 1980). Overview The theoretical rationale for the study was given in Chapter I. The problem and hypotheses were stated, important terms were defined, and the significance and limitations of the study were set forth. A review of literature on the central administrator’s role, leadership, power, and organizational structure/restructuring is presented in Chapter II. In Chapter III, the design of the study is explained. The methodology, site, and population are described, as are the instruments used in gathering data for the research. Procedures followed in gathering and analyzing the data are also explained. Results of the data analyses are presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V contains a summary of the study, conclusions based on the findings, recommendations, and implications. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter contains an overview of the body of literature relating to the role of central Office administrators in charge of instruction and/or' curriculum. The review also deals. with the literature relating to leadership and leadership behavior, with a focus on authority and power. The theory of organizational structures as it applies to the recent movement to restructure school organizations is also addressed. The Role of the Central Office Administrator in Change Of Instruction andZor Curriculum In defining the role of the central office administrator in charge of instruction, one immediately encounters the problem Of terminology. The individual who is assigned the broad responsibility of leadership in the instructional program is identified by many titles. In 1965, Robert R. Leeper, editor of the 1965 Yearbook Of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), entitled Role of SUOervieor and Curriculum DjLector in a Climate of game, listed those titles that were prevalent at the time: director or supervisor of curriculum and/or instruction; assistant, associate, or deputy superintendent in charge Of curriculum and/or instruction and/or research; director of 18 l9 elementary or secondary education; and supervisory specialists in content areas. The title is not particularly important; what is important is an understanding Of this administrator’s function in decision making and his/her relationships to other administrators. Almost all professional educators understand what a teacher, principal, or superintendent is, and almost all educators have ideas about what these roles should entail and how they relate to each other. The same cannot be said for the central office administrator in charge Of instruction, whose duties are almost as diverse as the title. That this administrator is a key gatekeeper in instruction and curriculum development, no one would deny. But concerning what he/she is, or does, or is becoming, no one picture emerges clearly (Shores, 1967). Babcock (1965) wrote about the emerging role of the curriculum director, stating: School people today, in the face of everchanging demands, are finding it increasingly necessary to turn to a curriculum specialist. . . . The need for defining the role Of this curriculum specialist, regardless of his title, in the functional organization Of the school system is imperative. His relationship with general administration, with the individual building principal and with the teaching corps as a whole is still in a state of confusion in many school systems. In. 50) As people work together in the instructional program, as in other cooperative enterprises, they need to have relatively common role expectations and need to feel free to perform the functions inherent in these roles. Unless roles are understood, conflict develops because individuals think that others are not concerned or are presumptuous, that they lack good will or common purpose (Wiles, 20 1963). If instructional Change is to progress smoothly, agreement on roles is essential. A review Of the literature yielded little concrete information about the roles of central Office administrators in charge of instruction; nearly all of the recent studies available have confirmed this lack of data. Fullan (1982) attributed the paucity of research on second-level administrators and district support staff to the great diversity Of roles and organizations, and to the preoccupation Of researchers with studying superintendents. A recent task force of the ASCD reached a similar conclusion. In 1982, this task force was commissioned to study the roles, functions, and impact. of“ districtwide supervisory personnel. A review of data already available revealed that there was little objective information about the role and importance of districtwide supervisory personnel (Costa & Guditus, 1984). In 1984, the 1982 ASCD task force called for research studies to be done on district Office personnel and Offered mini-grants to encourage and stimulate research in this area. Harris (1985), who agreed with the ASCD summary, suggested that existing information might be difficult to find because central office personnel are generally assigned multiple roles and the literature often masquerades under several different titles, such as supervision, supervisory practice, or clinical supervision. Although difficult, attempts at defining the role of the central Office administrator in charge of instruction have been 21 recurring for decades. Most of the role-definition literature is found under the heading of curriculum director, curriculum supervision, or supervision. Much has been accumulated by the ASCD. For this study, literature was reviewed under headings for central office personnel, assistant superintendent, educational supervisor, curriculum supervisor, curriculum director, and others. The information presented was deemed applicable to the study of the role of the central Office administrator in charge of instruction, regardless of that position’s specific title in the research. The ASCD presented its earliest effort at a role description for the educational supervisor in its 1946 yearbook, which closely paralleled the rhetoric of the human-relations movement of the 19405. In 1951, the ASCD Yearbook presented the tasks necessary for curriculum development, and in its 1960 Yearbook the ASCD reported on the applications Of leadership studies from sociology and management toward identifying role prescriptions for instructional leaders. In 1965, ASCD Yearbook contributors analyzed the role of instructional leadership in an era of curricular reform. At that time, several factors were important to the role (Leeper, 1965); First is that school people are aware of the tremendous increase in knowledge and Of the increasing importance to select that knowledge "which is of most worth." Second is the changing characteristics of students in the schools Of the 19605. . . . The slow-learners, the reluctant learners, the children with emotional and social problems, the children "whose ceiling of aspiration" is limited by living in culturally disadvantaged areas, and the physically and mentally handicapped are now part of the school’s responsibility. 22 Third is the changing concept Of teacher education. . . . More and more is it recognized that teacher education is a lifelong process . . . making inservice education a major role for the curriculum specialist. Fourth is the current introduction Of myriad proposals for curriculum change and for new organizational patterns in schools. (pp. 50-52) The factors relevant for this central office role of the 19605 appear to be the same ones that are relevant to the role today. The specifics. might have changed somewhat, but the general tone is reminiscent of the 19805. Leeper (1965) went on to describe the role, with the basic assumption that curriculum development and the instructional program were inseparable and that teaching-learning Opportunities in the classrooms were basic aspects of curriculum development. He saw supervision of curriculum development and instruction as fundamentally a service rather than an administrative function, supervision Of classroom instruction as a function of the building principal, and responsibility for initiating change with groups within the educational organization resting with the curriculum supervisor. The classic description of the role and activities of district office administrators in charge of instruction was well represented in the earlier work Of Harris (1963), in which he listed the tasks of supervision as developing curriculum, organizing for instruction, staffing, providing facilities, providing materials, arranging fOr inservice education, orienting new staff members, relating special services, developing public relations, and evaluating. These tasks, f.‘l.' I 51‘s.. ‘ 23 according to Harris, are implemented by supervisors through planning, organizing, leading, controlling, and assessing. Neagley and Evans (1980) presented a detailed description of the role of an assistant superintendent of instruction. This position, they said, should be directly responsible to the superintendent for the character and quality of the entire instructional program in the school district. It is this Official’s responsibility, according to Neagley and Evans, to provide quality leadership to a team of teachers, principals, supervisors, and other resource persons in order to build a superior instructional program. In accomplishing this, they called for the person in this role to be adept at discovering, developing, and coordinating the various abilities, competencies, energies, and efforts Of the instructional team. Neagley and Evans (1980) listed the responsibilities and duties of the assistant superintendent in charge of instruction under three categories: those related to the instructional program, those connected to staff members’ professional growth, and those related to Obtaining instructional resources and services. AS this position is of utmost relevance to the present study, the specific duties identified by Neagley and Evans are included here. For 'the instructional program, the assistant superintendent must: assist the superintendent in working with staff to formu- late a philosophy Of education; assume leadership in providing a continuous program Of curricular improvement; 24 work with the staff in developing instructional goals for the various levels and curriculum areas; work with the staff in developing a systemwide program of evaluation and appraisal; be responsible for developing and supervising programs for atypical children; work with the staff in formulating policies relative to pupil classification, marking, reporting, and promoting; assume responsibility for determining the need for instruc- tional staff specialists and supervise their work; and assume responsibility for adult education. For staff leadership, the assistant superintendent for instruc- tion must: assume joint responsibility for the recruitment, selection and assignment Of instructional personnel; assume responsibility for developing a comprehensive policy and program of in-service education; assume joint responsibility for establishing and applying policies Of promotion, transfer, and dismissal of instruc- tional personnel. assume joint responsibility for promoting and supervising experimentation with curriculum organization, instructional techniques, and instructional materials including designing and/or coordinating proposals for funded projects; assume responsibility for developing and Operating a districtwide orientation program for new instructional personnel; serve, by request, as a consultant to principals, their staff, and individual teachers; and keep up to date professionally by reading widely, attending professional meetings, visiting other school systems, etc. For the area of instructional materials, the assistant superin- tendent for instruction must: assume responsibility' for selecting, procuring, and distributing all categories of instructional resources; 25 assume responsibility for advising the superintendent on all budget items related to the instructional program; assume responsibility as a consultant in school plant design on all matters affecting curriculum and instruction; assume responsibility for establishing and operating a districtwide, curricular-materials, audio-visual, and pro- fessional library center; assume responsibility for editing and publishing curriculum bulletins, guides, courses Of study, pamphlets, and the like for staff and, with the superintendent’s approval, for the lay public; assume responsibility for preparing adequate reports and materials giving the superintendent and board of education summary information on the instructional personnel and program; and assume responsibility for identifying and using community, county, state, and national agencies and resources for improving the instructional program. (pp. 95-98) In the role~ defined above, the assistant superintendent in charge Of instruction is directly responsible and subordinate to the superintendent. As the superintendent’s aide in charge of instruction, this individual serves in a line relationship to other administrative and supervisory personnel in carrying out the responsibilities of the position. The assistant superintendent in charge Of instruction is the recognized official head of the instructional leadership team. However, in working with other officials, this person must respect their leadership role in improving the instructional program (Neagley & Evans, 1980). When there is no assistant superintendent, the district may have directors or coordinators or specialists of elementary and/or secondary education or of curriculum. 'These supervisory personnel assume the above-mentioned duties in the absence Of an assistant 26 superintendent. In larger districts with both an assistant superin- tendent and a director, the director functions as the right-hand aide of the assistant superintendent. As coordinators or directors or supervisors, these personnel may function in line positions on a districtwide basis, but they operate in only a staff relationship to principals when they work in individual buildings (Neagley & Evans, 1980). Results of an ASCD survey done in 1975 indicated that respondents had 17 'titles other than superintendent. The most frequently named title was director or coordinator, and the next most frequently named was assistant superintendent. The majority of these curriculum workers (55%) reported to the superintendent, whereas 18% reported to an assistant superintendent and 12% reported to a director. Tasks for this group seemed to fall into five categories: inservice programs, program evaluation, and staff meetings were the most frequent (80% to 90% involvement); developing standards, budgeting, community relations, and teacher supervision were the second most frequent (70% to 80% involvement); and federal programs, summer programs, and testing were the next most frequent, with more than 60% of the respondents indicating involvement in these areas (Speiker, 1976). Other researchers in the 19605 to early 19805 focused on instructional supervision and sought to identify the level of agreement among public school personnel regarding preferred activities of instructional supervisors (Beach, 1976; Boucree, 1979; 27 Brande, 1981; Cantrell, 1979; Cardenos, 1966; Carlton, 1970; Carmon, 1970; Colbert, 1966; Danley' & Burch, 1978; Hopkins, 1982; Kordomenos, 1981; Kyle, 1984; Lott, 1963; Lovell & Phelps, 1976; Marchak, 1969; Miller, 1959; Norman, 1978; Roberson, 1980; Spears, 1980). Many researchers included as instructional supervisors all professional personnel who served in any supervisory capacity, such as principals and subject-area specialists, whether at the central office or building level. Some of these investigators reported the supervisors’ actual and preferred activities as perceived by themselves, but it is difficult to extract the responses Of only central office administrators (Afifi, 1980; Anderson, 1979; Danley & Burch, 1978; Davis, 1979; Defeo, 1983; Douglass, 1979; Goslin, 1980; Holder, 1977; Rentz, 1969; Ross, 1968; Srisa, 1967; Thomas, 1981). Sullivan’s (1982) Observation Of instructional supervisors suggested that the actual day-tO-day activities of supervisors were incongruent with the classical description In: the role. A functional analysis of her data using Mintzberg’s categories showed that supervisory personnel primarily maintained the day-tO-day Operations of the school system and essentially functioned as do managers in industry. Sullivan wrote: Ninety-eight percent of their activities fell into the managerial categories defined by Mintzberg (1973) with especially high activity in three categories: resource allocator, monitor, and disseminator, which indicated that the supervisor acts as an insider, one who is primarily concerned with internal Operations. . . . The supervisor acted as an information broker and was literally a hub of communication. Sixty-one percent Of supervisors’ time was spent in brief contacts with one or two individuals that lasted usually five 28 minutes or less. The bulk Of the communication was lateral, a small amount (9%) was with superordinates, and only 14% was with teachers. Supervisors initiated 62% of all contacts. (pp. 448-451) Smith (1983) reported that, after having reviewed 21 research studies on instructional supervisors, she was not able to find a standard description of the position. She did report, however, an increased emphasis on administrative and personnel functions for instructional supervisors. According to the report Of the ASCD study, which included 75 central office supervisors (Blumberg, 1984), when respondents were asked what three functions seemed to consume the majority Of time during a typical work week, several categories predominated: meetings, paper work, planning, curriculum study, staff development, public relations, trouble shooting and reporting to the superintendent, and visitations to schools for Observations. The report also indicated that Idistrict Office supervisors were frustrated by not having enough time to do what needed to be done, and by having to wear too many hats. The job titles and role expectations Of the supervisors were idiosyncratic to their situations, and incumbents thought the efficacy Of their role was continually questioned. Reductions Of other central office positions resulted 'hi the central Office instructional supervisor having to assume more duties. The report concluded that central Office supervisors seem to be very busy people, involved in doing many things, some of which appear to be more symbolic than concrete (Blumberg, 1984). 29 The central office administrator in charge of instruction seems to be a generalist who is assigned the responsibility Of providing leadership for the improvement Of the total instructional program within the school system. Shafer and MacKenzie (1965) noted that the generalist Of the future was being thought of as a new breed. One description being used was that of the "perceptive generalist." They described such an instructional leader as one gifted in comprehending and making decisions about problems that are characterized by complexity and tangled relationships. Such an instructional leader helps identify the problems and assists in developing alternate strategies while using sensitivity and skills in human relations. The heart Of this endeavor was identified by Hass (1960) as "nurturing Classroom teacher effectiveness." Rutrough (1970) further developed this theme of central Office administrator as nurturer, describing the role as: Helping professional staff members to discover, to define, and to understand their tasks, their goals, and their purposes as they strive to implement curriculum change and to improve instruction. Helping professional staff‘ members to achieve their tasks, their goals, and their purposes as they go about their daily tasks of providing Opportunities for meaningful learning experiences for pupils. Helping the professional group to maintain itself and to improve its performance. The director of instruction as such may be characterized as a decision maker, a group leader, and a human relations engineer. (p. 72) 30 In a more recent study, Floyd (1987) attempted to describe the real world of instructional supervisors by identifying the subjective role conceptions and role statements shared by four central Office administrators who were recipients of the Outstanding Instructional Supervisor Of the Year award in Georgia. Data were collected from Open-ended, unstructured interviews. Results of this study indicated that credibility and flexibility seemed to be those attributes Of central Office administrators that enabled them to influence the instructional program and professional staff in a school system. Credibility referred to the earned professional respect and trust accorded to the administrators because of their demonstrated professional skills, experience, and leadership in instructional matters. Flexibility referred to their capacity to adapt and respond to the fragmented and ambiguous nature of their role. According to Floyd: The focus of central office supervisors’ time and energy is fragmented by the many diverse activities and programmatic responsibilities of the role. Participants in this study reported responsibility for coordination Of as many as 17 different programs. (p. 14) Central Office supervisors must demonstrate flexibility in relating to teachers, to administrators, to parents, to the community, to resources, and to information; while enacting a role that is characterized by invisibility in that they receive little credit and must pass it on to others, must be willing to accept criticism, experience few Objective rewards, and must find their rewards in primarily indirect ways. (p. 22) Ambiguity characterizes the role of the central office supervisor, in that the role calls for implementation of change in selected areas of the school program as well as preserving continuity in other areas. Also ambiguous is their authority, which at times stems from collaborative efforts, while at others, when dealing with mandated programs, their authority must be directive; and finally, their primary clients shift 31 between district management to building level management to teachers. (p. 27) Hall, Putman, and Hord (1985) looked at the role of central Office administrators in districts undergoing change. The findings from ‘their' data analyses indicated little had changed from the studies of the 19605 and 19705: A description of the jobs and roles Of district Office personnel indicates they are involved in a wide range Of administrative, evaluative, and facilitating activities and have many titles. Personnel in the district Office seem to have little clarity about the scope and primary purposes of their roles. There are different central missions for district office personnel. There is tremendous variation in how much time district Office personnel spend in schools. There is a dramatic difference in the amount of real authority and power personnel have that is related to whether they are line or staff positions. Central office administrators with staff positions often derive their power from someone with power. There is little congruence between what district office personnel say they do and what others perceive that they do. Teachers have little understanding Of what district persons do. District Office staff feel successful when they see teachers doing things that they have suggested, and they believe that much of what they do is based on teacher input. Once assigned to the district Office, most personnel do not wish to go back to their Classrooms, and appear to be successful in remaining "downtown." Teachers tend to link the credibility of district Office personnel to their teaching assignment prior to joining the district office, to how long the person has been away from the classroom, and to how much utility they perceive the position to have for their own needs. Teachers view central administrators in line positions as being remote from their classrooms. 32 It appears that line administrators in the district Office make the adoption decision and deal more directly with principals; and then it is the staff persons who plan and facilitate implementation at the school and classroom level. District Office personnel are providing the impetus as well as being the source of many innovations that are implemented in schools. A frequently Observed strategy for making the adoption decisions is down/up/down. The typical scenario begins with the district Office coming up with an idea for a needed change. It is then sent “down" to teachers and principals to get their initial reactions. Their recommendation is then sent "up" through the chain of command. With further refinement, through the superintendent to the board, there is a formal decision made, which is then sent "down" to the staff to implement. There is nearly unanimous agreement in the district Office that principals are responsible for Change within their building. (pp. 124-133) Although the 19805 did not produce as many studies related to central Office administrators as did the previous two decades, the few that have been cited still showed a lack Of role clarity. The position seems to be unique to the district in which it is held, at the time it is held. Still holding true is a conclusion made in a doctoral dissertation (Holmes, 1971) that focused on curriculum directors: Many unresolved issues face the curriculum director in his efforts to provide competent leadership for the development Of a professional teaching staff capable of implementing a quality educational program for the clients of his school district. As an agent for change, the perceptions of leader behavior held by the curriculum director are critical to his ability to develop and provide Opportunities that will release the growth potential of others. (p. 55) In periods Of little change, central office administrators have a better chance to have roles that can be designed and defined, even if they are complex and complicated. But when Old "truths" are 33 challenged, when "proven" methods are questioned, and when traditional content. is rapidly replaced by "new” programs, role expectations for supervisors and curriculum directors become vastly more complex and significant (Drummond, 1965). As schools have not had a period Of "little change" for nearly three decades, it is important to look at the change factor in this role. Williams (1972) considered change an important force in central Office supervision: Change has a greater Chance of success when those persons who will be affected by the change are involved in its planning and implementation. Throughout the process supervisors need to assist the group to state and restate their objectives, to Obtain the data or materials they need as they proceed, and to provide the leadership necessary to reach the conclusions and implementation of the projected change. As an agent of change, the supervisor should exploit his shared leadership role to the fullest so that educational practice will not seriously lag behind modern educational theory. (p. 160) Sergiovanni and Starratt (1971) discussed planned change and the central Office administrator’s role in change: One of the fundamental assumptions to this writing is that supervisory ways of behaving involve some aspects of change. . . The act Of supervision invariably involves a human interaction directed at improving (and thus changing) some aspect of professional performance. . . . Therefore, although a supervisor: may not be a full-time change agent, he indeed assumes the change posture, along with administrators, teachers, and others, when he behaves in a supervisory way. (p. 160) In his analysis Of the function of the curriculum director, Klohr (1965) made quite central his/her role as an inducer and coordinator of change. The designation "change agent,” perhaps more than any other, reflects this key responsibility. If the supervisor and curriculum worker are, indeed, change agents, it becomes a 34 matter of great importance that they be able to help chart the direction of change and to keep track of it (Leeper, 1965). Ohm (1977) condensed many of the pronouncements on Change strategies into one succinct law, which he admitted to having labeled brazenly Ohm’s Law of Institutional Change: "The success of a plan does not necessarily depend upon its merit, but rather upon the right combination of leadership, plus client and practitioner involvement." As scarce as literature (N1 the district Office administrator is, it does include references to district office responsibilities and involvement in change (Cox, 1983; Fullan, 1982; Harris, 1983). Huberman and Miles (1984) reported that district office administrators’ commitment is important to the success of an innovation and that pressure without district office support and commitment leads to teacher resistance and failure. They also reported that district Office administrators are most Often the early advocates of an innovation. According to Harris (1983), one Of the major responsibilities Of school supervisors is to stimulate change and to develop acceptance of the idea that continued change is inevitable and can be highly desirable. Fullan (1982) reported that some school districts establish effective change processes whereas others follow a disastrous pattern, and that the central administrator is the single most important individual for setting the expectations for and the tone of the pattern of change. Of recent concern is the indication that the number of central Office administrators has been slowly but steadily declining during 35 the last decade (Costa & Guditus, 1984). Approximately one-half of the respondents to the 1984 ASCD study indicated that central office supervisory positions in their district had been reduced and that they had to assume additional responsibilities, which reduced school visits and increased the number Of teachers they had to supervise (Blumberg, 1984). About one-third of the sample thought that if their jobs were eliminated the services they performed would no longer be available to the district. Blumberg further reported that the respondents, for the most part, seemed convinced of their worth to the school district. A5 convinced as they were of their worth, they received little formal credit (H‘ feedback about their accomplishments (Costa & Guditus, 1984). They seem to get a sense of their effectiveness or lack of it through informal means, such as casual comments and reactions from administrators and teachers, rather than from any systematic procedures (Blumberg, 1984). A few studies have been done that have spoken to the value of the central administrator’s role. Shinn (1969) reported that the curriculum director’s role was not only perceived as "greatest overall with the educational program" as compared to the role of superintendent and principals, but greatest as specifically perceived with respect to revision Of curriculum, selection of materials, articulation Of elementary and secondary programs, inservice education, and the scheduling of district equipment. Four other researchers have sought to determine supervisory effectiveness by conducting correlational studies. Capper (1981) 36 found a high degree of agreement between supervisory procedures and teacher morale. Cook (1981) reported an inverse relationship between supervisory consideration and teacher burnout. Fraser (1980) suggested that the two most important supervisory practices resulting in teacher satisfaction were a real concern for the teacher as a person and a collegial relationship between supervisors and teachers. Mayo (1983) reported that a reduction in role conflict between supervisors and teachers occurs in a participatory Climate. hi an article describing how principals, external assisters, and central Office administrators contributed to a change effort and the outcomes of their particular assistance, Cox (1983) reported that the central Office people contributed more to a school change effort than did any other single group Of assisters because they could perform critical functions that made school improvement work. Cox suggested that central office personnel have emerged as significant actors in the process Of Change and may well be the "linch pins of school improvement efforts." The research to which Cox referred is key to this study and is discussed with greater Specificity in the following paragraphs. From Volume II Of the ten-volume Study pf Dieeemjnatipp Effgrte Suppprting School Improvement (DESSI), Loucks et a1. (1982) reported that recent studies of school improvement have highlighted the roles of external linking agents and school principals, analyzing their contributions to successful Change (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978; Emrick & Peterson, 1978; Firestone & Corbett, 1981; Loucks & Hall, 37 1979; Louis & Kell, 1981; Royster & Madley, 1980). They went on to report that another set Of actors, whose role in the school- improvement process has been neglected in most research, are school- district—level facilitators, referred to as local facilitators in the DESSI document. Because these people have skills and information relevant to the implementation of a new practice and have proximity to teachers who need ongoing assistance and support, their role has the potential for significantly enhancing school- improvement efforts. In their paper, Loucks et a1. (1982) focused on individuals in this position: who they are, what roles they play, and how they contribute to various outcomes of school improvement. Her sample was from the DESSI study, a major national study that looked intensively at the effect Of four selected dissemination/school- improvement strategies on teachers and schools (Crandall, Bauchner, Loucks, & Schmidt, 1982). The study involved 146 school districts. In each district the individuals who had major responsibility for implementing the practice under study and who were located in the central office rather than in the school itself were identified. Seventy-eight administrators made up the sample of local facilitators. They had a wide variety Of positions in their school districts. Thirty-five were curriculum coordinators, 10 were other district personnel, 4 were assistant principals who had dual roles, 38 1 was a guidance staff member, 1 was an assistant superintendent, and 27 held other positions with varying titles. In the study, local facilitators were asked how much time they spent in a series of assistance activities involved in school improvement. Those activities in which 50% or more of the sample spent ”moderate" or ”a lot" of time were as follows (Loucks et al., 1982): Assistance in deciding on new practiees included seeking com- mitment from school administrators, seeking commitment from teachers, preparing a "case" for the decision to adopt, assess- ing needs, and building support among school personnel. Assistance in preparing for adoption included arranging train- ing, training users, providing detailed information, securing materials or other required resources, working with administra- tors, working with site contact, and maintaining support among school personnel. Aseistance in implementation included planning implementation schedules, providing technical assistance or follow-up train- ing, assisting teachers in working out procedural details, "putting out fires,“ and maintaining support among school personnel. Follow-up activities included collecting impact data, analyzing impact data, assisting local sites in evaluating the practice, and developing plans to support continuation of the new practice. (p. 7) According to Loucks et a1. (1982), these data described individuals who "got their hands dirty," worked in the school with teachers and administrators to find out what they needed, received or gave training, provided assistance and support after training, and helped to maintain the practice. They were cheerleaders, building and maintaining commitment and spirit; they were linkers, bringing new practices and skills to teachers; and they were trouble-shooters, providing help and support where needed. In the 39 building-focused model of school improvement, the local facilitator emerged as a likely influence on teacher commitment. Loucks and her fellow researchers were heartened to find an effect on school improvement that came from a source that could be influenced. A local facilitator can be designated or even hired to work on an improvement effort. Unlike such variables as size of district (which is impossible to influence) and principal leadership style (which is easier to influence but requires much time, resources, and politics with uncertain outcomes), local facilitator assistance can be applied to a school-improvement effort without much more than a few extra dollars and/or some rearrangement in staff assignments. It would appear from the literature that this role should be studied carefully by a local district before taking any action that could limit the contribution that might be made to a school- improvement effort. The call today is for participatory management, empowerment Of professional staff, increasing effectiveness of instructional practices, and accountability for improved student performance. 'The central office administrator in charge Of instruction has been the "specialist" in these domains for more than half a century--innovating, nurturing, training, and following up. Reform efforts designed to restructure educational institutions should look more closely at this instructional leader, who could be an essential aspect Of effective change. 4O Leaderahip Regardless Of title or role description, it is clear that the primary' goal of the central office administrator in charge of instruction is to improve instruction. To achieve that goal, the administrator needs to work with members Of the school team in some sort of leadership capacity. This portion of the review of the literature is an examination of the concept of leadership. As stated in Chapter I, a review of writers in the management field revealed that most have agreed that leadership is the process of influencing the activities Of an individual or a group in efforts toward goal achievement in a given situation. It is important to note that this definition makes no mention of any particular type Of organization. In any Situation where someone is trying to influence the behavior of another, leadership is being attempted. Thus, everyone attempts leadership at one time or another. Any time an individual is attempting to influence the behavior of someone else, that individual is the potential leader, and the person he/she is attempting to influence is the potential follower, no matter whether that person is ”boss," colleague, subordinate, friend, or relative (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). Leadership is an essential ingredient in the improvement of instruction and is defined as action that facilitates achievement of the objectives identified by the people involved (Saunders, Phillips, & Johnson, 1966). Acceptance of this point of view implies that leadership can be performed by the status leader, by any member of the group, or by the group as a whole. Consequently, 41 the responsibility for making decisions about instructional improvement should be extended to all persons affected by those decisions. Leadership has been called many things and has called for many more. The ASCD published an article titled "A Concept Of Educational Leadership," in which Ramseyer (1960) stated: The leadership action about which we are speaking is goal centered, value oriented, communicative, catalytic, energizing, initiatory and/or creative; the leader is understanding, perceptive, communicative and accepted; what he does or what happens within groups identified, strengthens, supports, suggests new alternatives, alters relationships and arrangements, provides new structures of means of Operation, creates new understandings, motivates, provides new perspectives and conceptualizations. (p. 26) Despite the abundance of writers claiming to have examined the concept of leadership, the literature indicated that a coherent theory concerning this historically elusive trait is still being articulated. The difficulties involved in achieving this coherence are not new and were noted by Bennis (1959): The issues involved in studies of leadership have plagued man since the beginnings Of intellectual discourse. The study of leadership raises the fundamental issues that every group, organization, nation, and group Of nations has to resolve or at least struggle with: Why do people subordinate themselves? What are the sources of power? How and why do leaders arise? Why do leaders lead? What is the function of the leader? Can all the various kinds of leaders be accounted fOr under one frame of reference? (p. 261) Most of the early notions regarding leadership centered on personal qualities. The earliest leaders were seen as having special powers viewed as supernatural circumstances, such as gifts Of the gods or of the devil. Today such claims are rare, but many 42 outstanding leaders have been known tO attribute their success to such powers as intuition, extraordinary perception, unusual abilities to forecast the future, or the ability to ”read other people and situations." Concern with leadership is as old as recorded history. In the Republic, Plato speculated about the proper education and training Of political leaders. He distinguished between two modes of action, leading and executing, and viewed the leader as one who does not have to act at all, but rules over those who are capable of execution. In other words, Plato drew the dividing line between thought and action with the general idea that he who "knows” does not have to "do," and he who "does" does not have to "know." Jennings (1960) compared Plato and Machiavelli. Whereas Plato believed in the omniscient lawgiver who formulated the character and direction Of the ideal City-state, Machiavelli believed in the omnipotent. great. man. In his volume De Principipatibue, often referred to as The Prince, Machiavelli noted that a powerful leader was needed in two major instances: at the birth of an organization and at times Of severe crisis. Through his description of how a prince should behave under given circumstances, Machiavelli helped form much of the basis of modern political science. Leadership is still generally thought of in terms of personal abilities, but now the assumption seems to be that the abilities in question are the same as those possessed by all persons; those who become leaders are presumed to have them to a greater degree than others. 43 In 1940, Bird conducted one of the earliest investigations into studies of leadership, in which he attempted to characterize leaders in terms of specific traits or attributes. His findings revealed 79 traits emerging from 20 different studies; of these, only 5% were common to four or more investigations. Stogdill’s (1948) survey indicated that the most commonly identified so-called leadership traits were the following: (a) physical and constitutional factors--height, weight, physique, and appearance; (b) intelligence; (c) self-confidence; (d) sociability; (e) wi11--initiative, persistence, and ambition; (f) dominance; and (g) surgency--ta1kativeness, enthusiasm, alertness, and originality. Out of the 124 studies he reviewed, Stogdill found two conclusions supported in at least 15 Of the studies: 1. The person who occupies a position of leadership exceeds the average member of the group in the following ways: scholarship, intelligence, activity and social participa- tion; dependability in exercising responsibilities; and sociO-economic status. 2. The qualities, skills, and characteristics are determined to a great extent by the situation in which the leader is to function. (pp. 35-36) Although there was some predictive value in Stogdill’s study, the low correlation between traits and leadership makes it Of little value in assessing the leadership potential of an individual. Gibb (1954) gave the following account: Reviews such as that of Stogdill reveal that numerous studies of the personalities of leaders have failed to find any consistent pattern of traits which characterize leaders. ‘The traits of leadership are any or all of those personality traits which, in any particular situation, enable an individual to (1) contribute significantly to a group locomotion in the direction 44 of a recognized goal, and (2) be perceived as doing so by fellow members. (p. 889) Jennings (1961) agreed with Gibb, concluding that "fifty years of study have failed to produce one personality trait or set of qualities that can be used to discriminate leaders and nonleaders.” The concept of leadership was elusive, but the job needed to get done and theorists were diligent in proposing the best management methods for getting it done. The early 19005 was the age Of scientific management, with Frederick Taylor the most widely read theorist of the time. Proponents of this technological approach proposed that the best way to increase output was to improve the techniques or methods used by workers. Time and motion studies were prevalent in this effort. The human relations movement, initiated by Elton Mayo in the late 19205, argued that, in addition to finding the best technologi- cal methods tO improve output, it was beneficial for management to look into human affairs. Claims were made that the real power centers within an organization were the interpersonal relations that developed within the working unit. Theorists have contended that a concern for tasks (scientific management) tends to be represented by authoritarian ‘leader behavior, whereas a concern for relationships (human relations) is represented by democratic leader behavior. The difference in the two styles of leader behavior is based on the assumptions leaders make about the source of their power or authority and human nature. Hersey and Blanchard (1988) noted that the authoritarian style of 45 leader behavior is Often based on the assumption that leaders derive power from the position they occupy and that people are innately lazy and unreliable (Theory X, McGregor, 1960). The democratic style assumes that leaders’ power is granted by the group they are to lead and that people can be basically self-directed and creative if they are properly motivated (Theory Y, McGregor, 1960). The Ohio State leadership studies, initiated in 1945 by the Bureau Of Business Research at The Ohio State University, were conducted in an attempt to identify various dimensions of leader behavior (Stogdill & Coons, 1957). The researchers narrowed the description Of leader behavior to two dimensions: initiating structure and consideration. Initiating structure refers to the establishment of well-defined patterns of organization, channels of communication, and methods of procedure (tasks). Consideration refers to friendship, mutual trust, respect, and warmth in relationships (relations). Blake and Mouton (1964) popularized these concepts in their Hapagerial Grid and used them extensively in organization and management-development programs. Bennis (1969) called theorists who express concern for both tasks and relationships "revisionists." Revisionists believe that a successful leader "must contribute to both major group Objectives: goal achievement and group maintenance” (Cartwright & lander, 1960) or, in Barnard’s (1938) terms, must ”facilitate cooperative action that is both effective and efficient." Adherents of the leadership contingency model use the concept of adaptive leader behavior and question the existence of a 'best" 46 style of leadership. According to this model, it is not a matter of the best style, but of the most effective style for a particular situation. Successful leaders adapt their behavior to meet the needs of the group with whom they are working and the environment in which they are working (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). This growing recognition Of the specialized demands made on leaders dependent on the nature of the group, the task, and other aspects Of the situation, gave credence to the shift during the 19405 toward the "situational approach." By focusing on the Situational aspects Of leadership, it theoretically became possible to increase leadership effectiveness through education and training. The situational approach afforded an opportunity for training individuals in adapting their style to the situation. Hemphill (1949) viewed leadership as a dynamic process, varying from situation to situation with changes in leaders, followers, and situations. Hall and Lindzey (1957) commented: Leadership does not reside in a person, it resides in the situation. Groups do not act because they have leaders. They select leaders to help them act. ‘The most effective help a leader can give a group is to help it help itself. (p. 29) With the emphasis shifting to situation, the emergence of descriptive situational dimensions was inevitable. With reference to variables of situations for leadership styles, Fiedler (1967) described the position power of the leader, task structure, and leader-member personal relationship. Hersey and Blanchard (1988) developed a tri-dimensional model of leader behavior using four quadrants Of high/low task and 47 high/low relationship behavior. Built into this model is an effectiveness component. Any combination of high to low task or relationship pairs might be appropriate for a given situation, a given task, and with a given group of workers. An important variable in this model is the maturity of the workers--maturity regarding their willingness and aptitude for the job at hand. The basic premise is that the more mature the worker, the more low task/high relationship can be the leader behavior. The quadrants of this model are high task/low relationship (telling), high task/high relationship (selling), low task/high relationship (participating), and low task/low relationship (delegating). According to Hersey and Blanchard, no quadrant is right or wrong. Each of the combinations of leader behaviors may be effective, depending on the task and the workers. This model has been extended to incorporate decision- making behavior and power-base preferences. Because this model of situational leadership constituted the theoretical base for the leader behavior components of this study, it is reviewed more thoroughly in Chapter V. Although the situational model of leadership was the chosen framework for this study, the researcher does not want to convey the impression that the trait method of studying leadership has been completely supplanted by the situational approach. Today’s trend in leadership research seems to be a blend of findings from both areas. Sergiovanni (1990) blended these concepts and used the transactional and transformative theories of leadership proposed by 48 Burns in 1978 as a base for four developmental stages of leadership for school improvement, which he called bartering, building, bonding, and banking. Leadership by bartering (transactional leadership) responds to physical, security, social and ego needs. Here the leader and the led exchange needs and services to accomplish independent goals. Leadership by building (initial transformative leadership) responds to human needs of esteem, achievement, competence, autonomy, and self-actualization. It unites leader and led in the pursuit of high-level goals common to both. Leadership by bonding (second level of transformative leadership) responds to such human needs as the desire for purpose, meaning, and significance in what one does. It results in goals and purposes becoming a shared covenant that bonds together leader and follower in a moral commitment. Leadership by banking seeks to routinize school improvements, thus conserving human energy and effort for new projects and initiatives. (p. 24) In terms of school improvement, bartering provides the push needed to get things started, building provides the support needed to deal with uncertainty and to respond to higher levels of need fulfillment, bonding provides the inspiration needed for performance and commitment beyond expectations, and banking institutionalizes the improvement. Trait, task, and human relations have been mixed into this moral dimension of management. Etzioni (1988) made a case for moral authority as a source of motivation and a basis for management in his ground-breaking examination. He acknowledged the importance of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, but he went further. Ultimately, Etzioni contended that what counts most to people is what they believe, how 49 they feel, and the shared norms and cultural messages that emerge from groups and communities with which they identify. 0f the four approaches presented by Sergiovanni (1990), bonding is the cornerstone of an effective long-term leadership strategy for schools because it has the power to help schools transcend competence for excellence by inspiring extraordinary commitment and performance. Leadership by bonding helps move people from being subordinates to followers. Subordinates merely do what they are supposed to do, whereas followers think for themselves, exercise self-control, are able to accept responsibility and obligation, believe in and care about what they are doing, and are self- motivated. Subordinates respond to authority; followers respond to ideas (Sergiovanni, 1990). The concept of followership proposes a paradox: Effective following is really a form of leadership (Kelly, 1988). The successful leader, then, is one who builds up leaders. The successful leader is also a good follower, one who is committed to ideas, values, and beliefs. Mintzberg (1973) listed eight prime leadership skills, which blend personal traits, task behaviors, and human relations (Bennis, 1989): Peer Skills--an ability to establish and maintain a network of contact with equals; Leadership Skills-~the ability to deal with subordinates and all the complications that come with power, authority, and dependence; Conflict Resolution Skills--the ability to mediate conflict, to handle disturbances under psychological stress; 50 Information Processing Skills--the ability to build networks, extract and validate information, and disseminate information effectively; ‘ Skills in Unstructured Decision Making--the ability to find problems and solutions when alternatives, information, and objectives are ambiguous; Resource Allocation Skills--the ability to decide among alternative uses of time and other scarce organizational resources; Entrepreneurial Skills--the ability to take sensible risks and implement innovations; Skills of Introspection--the ability to understand the position of a leader and his or her impact on the organization. (p. 159) In his book; yhv Leaders Can’t Lead, Bennis (1989) said of Mintzberg’s list: "That’s good, but there’s more--an "X" factor that’s quintessential. The leader knows what we want and what we need before we do and expresses these unspoken dreams for us in everything he or she says and does." Bennis detailed four traits of competence that all the great leaders he had met held in common: Management of Attention was the first trait apparent in leaders. That is their ability to draw others to them, not just because they have a vision, but because they communicate an extraordinary focus of commitment. Leaders manage attention through a compelling vision that brings others to a place they have not been before. Management of Meaning is how leaders make dreams apparent to others and align people with them. Leaders make ideas tangible and real to others so they can support them. For no matter how marvelous the vision, the effective leader must use a metaphor, or a word or a model to make that vision clear to others. The leader’s goal is not mere explanation or clarification but the creation of meaning. Management of Trust is essential to all organizations. The main determinant of trust is reliability, what Bennis calls constancy. A recent study showed that people would much rather follow individuals they can count on, even when they disagree with their viewpoint, than people they agree with but who shift positions frequently. 51 The fourth management component is Management of Self, knowing one’s skills and deploying them effectively. Leaders know themselves, they know their strengths and nurture them. These leaders seemed unacquainted with the concept of failure. That that doesn’t go well is not a failure but simply the next step. Bennis observed that leadership can be "felt" through an organization. He stated, "It gives pace and energy to the work and empowers the work force." In organizations with effective leaders, empowerment is most evident in four themes (Bennis, 1989): People feel significant. Everyone feels that he or she makes a difference to the success of the organization. Learning and competence matter. Leaders value learning and mastery, and so do people who work for leaders. People are part of a community. Where there is leadership, there is a team, a family, a unity. Work is exciting. Where there are leaders work is stimulating, challenging, fascinating and fun. An essential ingredient in organizational leadership is pulling rather than pushing people toward a goal. It motivates through identification, rather than through rewards and punishments. A basic component of leadership in all the literature is influence: toward a goal, toward garnering resources, through building moral commitment, by empowering others, and by building lasting bonds. Influence is power, and, as stated above, it must go beyond rewards and punishments. One of the questions by Bennis (1959) at the beginning of this section on leadership was "What are the sources of power?" Power For human beings, power is the ability to get what one wants. The term "power" has also been used to describe the ability to 52 achieve common ends for families, groups, and organizations of all kinds (Champlin, 1979). The general concept of power is often confused with the idea of force, which is a much narrower concept and is only one aspect of power, not the most important one (Barry, 1976). Power is an individual’s ability to influence another person to carry out his/her directives. Power positions are those whose incumbents regularly have access to means of power (material and symbolic rewards and deprivations). Power differs according to the means employed to make other people comply (Etzioni, 1975). Compliance is universal, existing in all social units. It is a major element of the relationship between those who have power and those over whom power is exercised (Simmel, 1986). Fundamental to administrative and supervisory action in any school is an understanding of the nature of authority or power--its many origins, its many forms, its operational feasibility, and its acceptance. As schools have become more complex professional organizations, newer forms of power have emerged, which challenge traditional power sources. The one-man show, hierarchical authority that rests largely in the position one occupies, and the "tyranny of bureaucratic rules" are being challenged by professional authority, ability authority, and other sources of power (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1971). It is apparent to the casual observer that schools are shifting from bureaucratic orientations to a professional orientation. Professionally oriented organizations tend to differ from others 53 primarily in the nature of their authority and power systems. This type of organization is characterized by the development and application of a pluralistic power structure that is (a) dispersed throughout the organization on the basis of ability and competence, (b) dynamic in the sense that it shifts from person to person and from time to time on the basis of task, (c) interdependent in that coalitions of individuals usually are needed to marshal sufficient competence to command authority at a given time, and (d) functional in that it tends not to keep well in storage but needs to be constantly examined for "goodness of fit" in terms of competence and task (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1971). The professionally oriented organization tends to rely on task-oriented power rather than people-oriented power bases. In summarizing the work of Weber, Urwich, Simon, Bennis, and Presthus, Peabody (1962) identified four broad categories of authority: (a) authority of legitimacy; (b) authority of position, including the sanctions inherent in position; (c) authority of competence, including both technical skills and experience; and (d) authority of person, including leadership and human relations skills. According to this formulation, bases of formal authority (hierarchical authority, legitimacy, position, and office) are distinguished from sources of functional authority (professional competence, experience, and human relations skills). Peabody examined and compared perceptions about these bases for authority in three public service organizations: a police department, a welfare office, and an elementary school. An overview of this study 54 indicates that teachers seemed to value authority of competence over authority of person, position, or legitimacy. Hornstein et a1. (1968) examined the relationship between influence and satisfaction 'Hl school organizations. 'Their* data suggested that the effects of superior-subordinate relations in schools were very much like those of various industrial, sales, and voluntary organizations. Teachers reported greatest satisfaction with their principal and school system when they perceived their principal’s power to influence as emanating from their perception of him/her as an expert. Moreover, this same principal-teacher relationship related significantly to a perception of higher student satisfaction. It seems apparent that supervisory behavior that relies on functional authority and on expert and referent power bases has positive effects on the human organization of the school. Whereas Peabody identified dimensions of authority, French and Raven (1959) focused on the reasons for accepting authority. This framework was the base for the leader behavior survey completed in the present study and also was used in this research as a framework for other theorists’ conceptualizations of power. French and Raven proposed six bases of power: information, reference, expert, legitimacy, reward, and coercion. Information power is based on the possession of or access to information that is perceived as valuable to others. Referent power is based on the personal traits of a leader who is generally liked and admired by others because of personality. Expert power is based on the possession of expertise, skill, and knowledge which, tnrough respect, influences others. 55 Legitimate power is based on the position held. Normally, the higher the position, the higher the legitimate power tends to be. Reward power is based on the ability to provide rewards for other people. Coercive power is based on fear and induces compliance because failure to comply leads to punishment. (French & Krieglanski, 1970, p. 70) Informational influence is an effective means of achieving change and reducing conflict because it rapidly becomes independent of the influencer and thus does not require surveillance for its effectiveness. However, for informational influence» to be effective, the content must tie into an existing value system of the recipient (French & Krieglanski, 1970). An emphasis on mutual attraction is key to referent power influencing the behavior of others or resolving conflict. Referent power assumes a positive identification or desire for identification. Negative reference may operate as well. A history of continued conflict or disagreement would make referent influence particularly unlikely (French & Krieglanski, 1970). Legitimate power is normally discussed in terms of a formal organization, such that the supervisor is seen as having the right to prescribe work behavior for a subordinate. Legitimate power can be an effective means of influencing and forestalling conflict. It has the advantage of externalizing the basis for the influence. Legitimate influence will not ordinarily lead to negative personal feelings toward the source of influence and also has the advantage of not requiring surveillance (French & Krieglanski, 1970). 56 Expert power can be an effective means of influencing others and reducing conflict, provided there is a high degree of trust. Unfortunately, in most conflict situations trust is reduced. Reward power and coercive power deal with concrete and physical rewards and punishments-~bonuses, fines, promotions, and dismissals. However, under some circumstances, approval, love, and affection can serve as effective rewards, just as disapproval, hate, and dislike can be highly effective punishments. Reward is more likely to lead to a more positive attitude and increase the possibility of later use of personal reward and referent power. Coercive power will likely lead to an abandonment of any social relationship, and the initial introduction of coercion will tend to necessitate continuing coercion. In looking at responses to power, Horney (1945) suggested that an individual might "move toward," "move away from," or "move against" the power source. Raven and Krieglanski further differentiated this between movement in public, movement in private, and identification with the power source. In various papers, the distinction between public and private change has been discussed (Cartwright, 1965; Collins & Raven, 1969; Festinger, 1953; French & Raven, 1959; Kelman, 1958; Raven, 1965). Raven and French (1958) pointed out that coercion by a supervisor leads to "movement toward" in public behavior, and "movement against” in private opinion and identification. Legitimate power, on the other hand, leads to 57 "movement toward" in public behavior, private belief, and identification with the supervisor. Further analysis of this shows reward power leading to public behavior "moving toward," private opinion and identification "moving against"; expert power leading to public behavior and private opinion "moving toward," while identification "moves against"; information power leading to public behavior and private opinion that "moves toward," with identification possibly "moving against"; and referent power leading to "moving toward" in public behavior, private opinion, and identification. Other theorists have proposed power frameworks that have much in common with French and Raven’s. Etzioni spoke of compliance as a universal, existing in all social units within the relationship between those who have power and those over whom they exercise it. The means that one uses to reach this compliance depend on three conditions: the nature of the goals to be achieved, the kind of involvement one wishes from those who are to do the work, and the nature of the tasks that define this work. Etzioni proposed that, if the primary goal of the organization is order and tasks are largely routine, the most effective means to compliance are coercive. The price one pays fOr this efficiency, however, is the alienation of participants (Sergiovanni, 1980). If the goal of the organization is primarily economic and the tasks are seen as largely instrumental means to this end, the most effective means to compliance are utilitarian--that is, to purchase participation (reward power). If the goals of the organization are 58 cultural and the tasks expressive, a moral commitment from participants is required, which calls for normative compliance strategies. Normative power is based on manipulation of esteem and prestige, acceptance and positive response; it calls for people to engage in activities because they are "good," make sense, are professionally sound, and can be rationally defended, rather than because one is commanded or paid to engage (combines legitimate, expert, and referent powers). School goals are generally seen to be cultural and schools to be normative organizations. Boulding (1989) distinguished three major categories of power: threat, economic, and integrative. His major thesis was that integrative power is the most dominant and significant form of power, in the sense that neither threat power nor economic power can achieve very much in the absence of legitimacy, which is one of the more important aspects of integrative power. Boulding’s classification of power was divided into three constructs: destructive power, productive power, and integrative power. Behavior that is particularly associated with destructive power is threat. There are several possible responses to threat, according to Boulding. One is submission, another is defiance, and still another is counterthreat or flight. Another possible response is "disarming behavior," which is the "soft answer that turns away wrath." Boulding’s "threat power" falls within French and Raven’s category of coercive power. 59 Another major type of behavior involves exchange, which covers a range of activities from formal and contractual trade to informal reciprocity. The dynamics of exchange are much simpler than those of threat. If the proposal of exchange is accepted, the exchange takes place; if not, the exchange does not take place. Exchange is closely related to productive power simply because if there is no production there is nothing to exchange. Exchange has an integrative component because without some kind of trust and courtesy, exchange is very difficult (reward and information power). Beyond threats and exchange, there are relationships that can be identified by the words "love" or "respect." This is integrative power (referent, expert, and legitimate power). .All organizations must have integrative power or they could not survive. But as an organization grows, it becomes increasingly difficult to sustain equality in power relationships, simply because of the difficulty in communication (Boulding, 1989). As groups grow in size, therefore, they tend to become organizations in which power takes the form of some sort of hierarchy of role structure and leadership. (Just as instructions are filtered down the hierarchy, information is filtered up the hierarchy. Power in the hierarchy is always limited by knowledge, and the degree to which that knowledge is corrupted by the organization itself. Hierarchies are strongly subject to evasion in the middle and lower levels. Hierarchical power cannot survive unless it can be legitimized (Boulding, 1989). 60 Hierarchies exhibit different degrees of tightness or looseness. A. tight hierarchy involves considerable exercise of power by members higher in the hierarchy over members lower in the hierarchy. In a loose hierarchy, the higher echelons of the hierarchy exercise much less power over the lower echelons. Organizations themselves are complex structures, and so are their power systems. It is not only that they involve all the major categories of power, but they have internal power structures closely related to the nature of the hierarchical relationships within them and the external power structures outside them. Boulding (1989) summed up his thoughts, stating that the stick, the carrot, and the hug may all be necessary, but the greatest of these power sources is the hug. (Organizational Structure and Restructuring School organizations are no less complex than corporate worlds. The effect of the economy, demographic trends, societal demands, and diminishing resources are factors held in common. More now than ever before, schools and corporations are looking at their operational structures, what they have been and what they need to become, in order to be more successful in an ever more complex world. "Restructuring" has become the catchword of the decade. In their book Restructuring America’s Schools, the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) reviewed what this phenomenon means to organizations and the people they serve by asking local school 61 leaders, prominent reformers, and representatives of state and national organizations to share their opinions and experiences (Lewis, 1989). Findings were as follows: “Restructuring means changing the nature of schools from the interior," says Frank Newman, President of the Education Commission of the States, so that students ”become active learners, partners in the learning process. The only way to do that is to empower teachers to also become involved in decisions about what they do and to develop leadership that can empower teachers and students." "Most. school reforms," says .American Federation of 'Teachers ‘President, Albert Shanker, "try to improve the system without changing the basic structure. They usually involve doing more of the same--longer day or school year, better books and materials, more homework, more requirements of all kinds." But "restructuring is different," he says. "It seeks to create new relationships for children and teachers." (p. 3) Owen Butler, retired chairman of the Proctor & Gamble Company and chairperson of the Committee for Economic Development--a major influence on developing public awareness of the need for massive changes in schooling--describes the effort from a businessman’s viewpoint: "We are trying to change the way we go about educating our young," he says. "We are trying to change from a system in which teachers are regarded as almost assemblyline classroom production workers to a system in which teachers are free to innovate and experiment and use creativity to improve teaching. We are trying to deregulate, to move the control of the schools from top-down to bottom-up. We are trying to provide better financing and attract better people into the profession. This requires a total change in ’corporate culture.’" (p. 5) In terms of corporate culture, companies are becoming more aware that they are human institutions, not mechanical systems. For a company to change, its members must develop new skills, assumptions, and values (Kilmann et al., 1985). The significance of modern times suggests that the work system must shift to a more participatory, innovative managerial system in which the managers 62 switch from status decision makers to contributing coaches who place the ball in the hands of the workers (Kanter, 1986). An argument for restructuring schools along with corporations centers on the heightened educational background needed by employees for the workplace of today and in the future. A vision embedded in the speeches and proposals of business leaders to change schools is drawn from their own experiences in remaking the American workplace. Both the private sector and education face parallel issues, more complex than comparing schools to companies, principals to unit managers, and superintendents to chief executive officers. Just how similar these issues are and how alike their proposed solutions were topics of a paper presented by Siegel and Smoley (1988) to the National Governors Association. Both sectors face three challenges: (a) rethinking mission, (b) doing more with less, and (c) doing things better. Concerning these three issues, Siegel and Smoley pointed out the following: On rethinking mission--Companies that fail to define their central purpose and act on that knowledge may not survive in an increasingly competitive environment. A firm’s decision to restructure needs to be made in the context of what is happening to the nature of the business it is in. For education, the link between mission and organization is equally critical, with the education sector required to serve the needs of an increasingly diverse student population. On doing more with 1ess--Restructuring of American business is being played out dramatically in the language of mergers and acquisitions, corporate raids, spinoffs, and buyouts, as well as massive layoffs and cost cutting. According to a 1987 survey by the Wall Street Journal, three-fourths of the nation’s employers may eliminate many managerial and administrative positions. Middle managers are being eliminated through automation or decentralizing of their responsibilities. The parallels with education are evident. Middle management 63 has its counterpart in school district central office personnel. On doing better-~Companies are looking for ways to place responsibility closer to the activity, deciding which functions can be decentralized and giving autonomy to units while also incorporating them into the overall operation. Just as lines of demarcation between labor and management are blurring, so too are the lines of authority between central administration and the local office or operating unit. Decisions about whether and what to decentralize are not easy--most companies are seeking a balance between the two forms of organization. For companies and schools, decisions on which functions should be decentralized should be made on a case-by-case basis. Some school districts are delegating to the schools responsibility for supervising instruction as well as developing and evaluating major aspects of the curriculum, with principals held accountable for demonstrating improvements. Other school districts are breaking down the "functional barriers" between grade levels and subject areas. One of the most perplexing problems in educational theory, research, and practice is that of centralization/decentralization (Schlechty & Joslin, 1988). Some have argued for decentralization because empirical realities of schools suggest such a strategy to be appropriate. The effective schools literature has suggested that the building-level units and principal characteristics are critical to school effectiveness. Goodlad (1983) suggested that school policy should be developed to foster the "inventive genius of building-level units.” On the surface, these seem to be good arguments, but Schlechty and Joslin (1988) contended that the idea of a school system suggests that there should be some unifying quality among the school 64 buildings that are a part of that system. Concepts of equity would suggest that the quality of education children receive should not be determined by the "luck of the draw" or the unique characteristics of 'the faculty and principal of 'the school to which they are assigned. These authors argued that some functions should be decentralized and others should not, depending on conditions. Schlechty and Joslin said there are two elements that should never be decentralized and one that cannot be centralized: The establishment and articulation of superordinate goals and binding myths is necessarily a function of the top administration of the organization. Articulation of the unique values and commitments and reinforcement of these values and commitments in behavior as well as words must flow from the top. What the school system is about, where the school system is going, and what problems must be given priority must be preached from the superintendent’s office. A second responsibility that cannot be delegated is responsibility for bottom-line results. In the end, the quality of performance of the work force in schools as well as the quality of the work force at IBM is the responsibility of the chief executive officer. The one element that cannot be centralized regardless of strenuous effort to do so is problem-solving capacity. Problems cannot be solved from the top-down. They must be solved from the bottom-up. But the problems that are to be solved and are worth being solved can only be decided from the top with suggestions, directions, and advocacy for this or that problem as a priority item coming from the bottom to the top. The function of the central office is problem identification, not problem solving. Problem solving is best left to those whose hands-on experience and expertise provide them with the advanced knowledge to invent novel solutions. (p. 159) The above conclusions were drawn by the researchers, who proposed a new metaphor for school operations: the ”knowledge work organization." They believed that such a metaphor for schools was supported by Ouchi’s Theory 2, The Art of Japanese Management by 65 Pascale and Athos, In Search of Excellence by Peters and Waterman, and High Output Management by Grove. In this metaphor, students would be the primary workers, working on knowledge. The teachers would assume the role of the first-line supervisor or executive. Principals would then become managers of managers, similar to directors of research-and-development components of corporations. School systems then would be organizations that commit a substantial portion of their energy to creating novel responses to market conditions, operating as somewhat open systems. Theoretically speaking, the question of bureaucratic (closed) or open systems of operation is at the center of the centralization/ decentralization question. Weber’s (1947) bureaucracy has moved forward in most organizations, including schools, because it is believed to be technically superior to other forms of organization. Weber’s ideal bureaucracy is characterized as follows: The use of a division of labor and specific allocation of responsibility; Reliance on fairly exact hierarchical levels of graded authority; Administrative thought and action based on written policies, rules and regulations; An impersonal, universalistic application of the bureaucratic environment to all inhabitants; and The development and longevity of administrative careers. (pp. 333-336) The American public schools have been particularly receptive to the bureaucratic ideology, albeit perhaps unwittingly (Sergiovanni G Carver, 1980). The extent to which schools follow the bureaucratic 66 model varies from school to school. Yet all schools exhibit some bureaucratic tendencies. .As school administrators, teachers, and others with supervisory responsibility attempt to increase control over ‘the school’s. goals as they perceive them, they frequently attempt to increase reliability in decision-making processes and in behavior by teachers and students. This is often accomplished by instituting and implementing policies, standard operating procedures, rules, and regulations to guide behavior within the human organization. On the one hand, this meets the demand for regularized, predictable large-group functioning, while on the other hand it inhibits attention to individual needs and restricts professional autonomy. The greater the bureaucratic tendencies, the more the system becomes "closed" to the external society. The other extreme to the bureaucracy is an open-system organization, which is characterized by frequent and unpredictable flow of interaction with the larger social system. The openness introduces demands and expectations into the organization that are rapidly changing and often in conflict. The sheer volume‘ of unpredictable input introduces more variables than can be handled by conventional rational strategies. Certainty does not exist in fixing goals and objectives, and planning is seen as unrealistic. In open-system thinking, the organization is seen as constantly seeking a level of accomodation with its external environment. Often this means the organization compromises itself and "satisfices" rather than "maximizes" its goals and processes (March & Simon, 1958). 67 Political thinking represents a recent development in the literature on educational administration. According to this view, schools are seen as open rather than closed systems as they receive inputs from their larger community, process them, and return outputs to their environments. Political views consider the goals of the school to be highly unstable and constantly changing. The emphasis in political views is on policy formulation, which in turn requires debate over appropriate goals, values, and strategies. Conflict is considered a natural outgrowth of the process and indeed is seen by advocates of this model as a sign of organizational health (Baldridge, 1971). In the 19705, March and his colleagues characterized educational organizations as "organized anarchies," identifying three distinct, important, and troublesome features that seem to justify the anarchy label (Cohen, March, & Olson, 1972): First, their goals are problematic. . . . Goals seem to shift over time; they seem to vary from one part of the school to another; they are stated in terms that are hard to translate into action; and there is conflict over goals which is not resolved easily. Second, their technologies are unclear. Although we know how to create a school, staff it, and specify an educational program for it, we do not know much about the process by which it works. Third, participation in the organization is fluid. Students, teachers, and administrators move in and out. . . . Parents are erratic in their involvement; governmental agencies are active, then passive; leaders sometimes ignore the schools, sometimes devote considerable time to them. (p. 710) This description of schools challenges conceptions implicit in the more traditional theories of organization. As a political 68 coalition, the school’s form, shape, and structure as well as its goals and missions are negotiated. Schools, according to this view, are concerned with a set of potential and actual participants who make demands on the system. The system must maintain the coalition in order to carry on an acceptable pattern of interaction; thus, those demands must be successfully negotiated. Demands take the form of money, attention, involvement, personal treatment, and other resources deemed important by coalition members. Sometimes they are complementary and sometimes contradictory (Sergiovanni, Burlingame, Coombs, & Thurston, 1987). Which of the systems, open or closed, rational (H' political, best fits the school? Is there a time when a school would best fit in one system over the other? Can features of one system be effectively combined with those of other systems? These are the sorts of questions asked by contingency theorists. Contingency theory is concerned with organizational and situational differences. Rather than specifying one best way to operate, this approach assumes that appropriate organizational structure, leadership, planning, staffing, decision making, and controlling are contingent on the unique nature of a given organization’s external environment, task or technology, and characteristics of organization members. By way of example, Burns and Stalker (1961) found that highly programmed ”mechanistic” organization structures were more effective for organizations with relatively stable and predictable environ- ments and that highly flexible "organic" organizational structures 69 were more effective for organizations whose environments were characterized by uncertainty and rapid changes in technology. Vroom (1983) found that participative styles of administrators had positive effects on employees who had a high need for independence and strong nonauthoritarian values, but employees with a high desire for structure and low needs for independence did not react favorably to participative styles. Discussions of organizational culture, schools as cultures, and corporate cultures reached a high point in the mid-19805. Theorists who apply the cultural perspective to the analysis of educational organizations work from the assumption that schools are loosely structured or coupled (Weick, 1976). In tightly coupled organizations, administrators gain control using traditional management strategies: planning, organizing, directing, control- ling, motivating, rewarding, and evaluating. In loosely coupled organizations, administrators must rely on ”cultural cement" constructed from norms and values, beliefs, and purposes that result in providing the necessary "connection" or bonding of commitment of people to organizational goals. The cultural perspective emphasizes leadership by purpose. ”Purposing," according to Vaill (1984) and Bennis (1984), derives its power from people’s need to have a sense of what is important, some signal of what is of value. Schools have traditionally functioned as loosely coupled systems. Accumulating evidence is now suggesting that instructional effectiveness may be enhanced by tightening the organizational coupling, especially in the area of curriculum and instruction. 70 Murphy and Hallinger (1986) found this to hold true in 12 instructionally effective school districts. Effective schools were found to be tightly coupled, in that they promoted clear goals and were data driven in their monitoring and accountability of outcomes. They remained loosely coupled to the extent that they supported active participation and collaboration among staff and administra- tors in the process of building-level improvements. Researchers studying successful schools' have suggested that these organizations have central zones composed of values and beliefs that take on sacred characteristics (Lipsitz, 1984). The concept of central zones suggests that successful schools and other organizations are tightly structured in at least one dimension. That is, they are closely organized in a highly disciplined fashion around a set of core ideas that spell out the way of life for people and govern the way in which people should behave. Although loosely structured in function, they are nonetheless tightly structured with regard to their purposes and beliefs. This blend of tight and loose structure provides schools with a sense of order and discipline, although individuals and groups are free to behave in fairly autono- mous ways, given that what they decide to do typically depends on the values found in the organization’s central zone (Sergiovanni et al., 1987). Leadership activities associated with the cultural view include articulating school purposes and mission; socializing new members to the school; telling stories and maintaining or reinforcing myths, traditions, and beliefs; explaining "the way things operate around 71 here"; developing and displaying a system of symbols; and rewarding those who reflect the school’s culture (Sergiovanni, Burlingame, Coombs, & Thurston, 1987). Such leadership is designed to bond students, teachers, and others to the work of the school as believers. The school and its purposes become revered. It is believed that, as persons become members of this strong and binding culture, their work and their lives take on a new importance, richer meaning, expanded sense of identity, and a feeling of belonging to something specia1--all of which are considered to be highly motivating conditions (Peters & Waterman, 1982). This focus of cultural leadership shares with leadership in the other models of organizations a strong commonality. In all cases, the emphasis is on how administrators can gain more control over the achievement of school goals and objectives and obtain greater compliance from teachers to ensure that their efforts are sufficiently motivated and coordinated to that end. Another study that pointed to the important role administrators play and cautioned reformers against jumping too quickly into restructuring schools resulted from the DESSI study, in which data were collected over a five-year period on 45 innovative programs in 146 schools in ten states. Huberman and Miles (1986) collected data related to the role of central office personnel in these innovations. One of the propositions derived from the study was that "administrative decisiveness, bordering on coercion, but intelligently and supportively exercised, may be the surest path to significant school improvement." This proposed that organizational change occurs in a 72 complex, continuously negotiated power field, in which some parties wield more influence than others, but the others are never powerless. Central administrators in a school system generally have the power to: adopt innovations, to mandate them, to finance and backstop them, and even to institutionalize them. This goes a long way toward actually delivering an innovation. But managers do not execute innovations, teachers do; and if teachers decide not to execute the innovations, managers will find themselves "institutionalizing placebos." Sustained assistance and resources make the difference in terms of teacher participation. Of the programs studied in DESSI, those that achieved the highest level of implementation (technical mastery, high percentage of use, improved user competence, student impact, and institutional- ization) were those that fit the following scenario (Huberman & Miles, 1986): A powerful central office administrator, working from a centralized power base, put considerable pressure on users to implement the new program. Initially this lowered users’ commitment, they resented and feared the pressure. But substantial assistance was supplied which increased users’ mastery and student impact, and subsequently teacher commit- ment. User mastery and stabilized use led to institutionaliza- tion. (p. 72) A nagging question surrounding this finding is whether it took administrative push to adopt the innovation because that is the nature of the teachers, or whether teachers have been removed from the "adopter” role by the systems in which they work, making such behavior alien to them. Because a major rationale for the surge of interest in restructuring schools concerns the public’s and policy 73 makers’ change in attitude about teachers and the importance of classroom effects, it is a question that seems to call for further review. For more than two decades, concerned individuals in public education have looked outside of the classroom for answers to improving education--to the development of specialists, to the support of categorical programs, to teacher-proof materials, to just about everything except teaching itself (Lewis, 1989). The two foundation-supported research projects that contributed greatly to the understanding of the current focus on the school and teaching were those of Goodlad (1973) and of the Comprehensive School Improvement Program sponsored by the Ford Foundation in the 19605. Investing $30 million in about 25 projects, the Ford program introduced a broad range of innovations into a variety of school systems. Each project was different and spanned curriculum, staffing, technology, teaching methods, and uses of time and space (Lewis, 1989). In a post-mortem report on the effort, "A Foundation Goes to School," both successes and failures were discussed, seeking lessons that could be learned from a sustained, well-funded, and thoughtful effort. Meade (1979) said that "basically, these diverse efforts underestimated the complexity of improving schools." He went on to say: The Ford Foundation learned that the ultimate innovator in schools is the teacher. A major result of the study was that lasting and significant changes would not occur unless teachers were directly and actively involved in the planning and development of the desired changes. Further, the importance of 74 the individual school itself--rather than the school system-- emerged as the proper focus for efforts to improve the quality of teaching and learning. It was the school not the school system, the teacher not all teachers, the pupil not all pupils, and the teaching unit not the packaged curriculum--the "micro" and not the ”macro" perspective--that most critically affected the success of most ventures to improve quality of teaching and learning. (p. 30) Meade’s summary of the lessons learned was made in 1979, five years before innovation and change became bywords of policy makers in education and five years before the rash of reforms instituted largely by state governments, which generally ignored the knowledge gained through the Comprehensive School Improvement Program. Timar and Kirp (1987) counted more than 7,000 statutes enacted nationwide between 1985 and 1987 that affected the teaching profession. Timar and Kirp (1987), in an article in the Harvard Educational Review, stated that: Reforms will fail if they do not prompt schools to forge for themselves an organizational identity. As long as teachers think of themselves as bureaucrats, and if they simply put in their hours with no thought or definition of what it is they are trying to achieve, schools will not change. . . . Schools need an organizational focus; teachers, parents, and administrators must decide on that focus and define it as the daily life of the school. This cannot be done through directives and regulations from state legislatures and centralized bureaucracies. As the Ford Foundation program ended, Goodlad began his analy- sis of public schools, published as A Plaee Qalled §chee|: 5 ct or t e (1983). The underlying precept of his study was that an understanding of schools must precede attempts to improve them. The study encompassed 13 school districts; 38 schools; intensive classroom observations; central data gathering; 75 and interviews or surveys with 27,000 teachers, parents, and students. "One of the major messages of this report,” Goodlad wrote in the introduction, "is that improvement is essentially a school- by-school process, enlightened by the degree to which those associated with each school and trying to improve it have the data required for building a useful agenda." In his recommendations for changing schools, Goodlad first used that now-familiar word: "restructuring." In November 1989, The Executive Educator published the opinions from its nationwide survey of school administrators regarding restructuring schools toward school-based management. According to the results, the closer the administrator was to the building in terms of position, the more feasible he/she considered the idea and the greater the feeling that more authority should be given to people 'hi individual schools. Eighty-seven percent of ‘the administrators surveyed said they thought school decisions were best made at the building level (96% of the principals and 80% of the superintendents). In the study, central office administrators were cited as being unwilling to relinquish their authority for fear of losing power (Heller et al., 1989). A Natjpp Prepared, a report on teaching by the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, caused great defensiveness among school administrators because of a one-line suggestion that schools could be run by a committee of teachers instead of principals. That sentence detracted from a more salient argument of the report, which was its steering of reform efforts toward the issue of teacher 76 quality. This report led to the establishment of a center in Rochester, New York, to stimulate restructuring of education. In terms of restructuring, A Nation Preoated called for ”restructuring schools to provide professional environments for teaching, freeing teachers to decide how best to meet state and local goals for children while holding them accountable for student progress” (Lewis, 1989). A few months after the release of the report in June 1986, one school system, Rochester, stepped forward and negotiated plans to institute many of the changes proposed. Teachers in the Rochester system who accepted greater responsibilities and leadership roles received considerable pay increases. The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy agreed to establish a national center at Rochester to work on three reform goals: (a) another look at the federal role in education, (b) strategies to link education and the economy through restructured school and job-training systems, and (c) support and expansion of the redesign of the Rochester school system along the lines described in A Nation Prepared. The restructuring movement spread. "Kentucky Starts From Scratch“ highlighted the Kentucky Education Reform Act (Harrington- Lueker, 1990). It has influenced virtually every part of the school power structure in Kentucky. In Kentucky, on June 30, 1991, all positions in the state’s existing Department of Education will be abolished. A reconstituted department will serve a different function. It will stop regulating and start providing technical assistance. 77 Over the next five years, every school in Kentucky will have to move to site-based management. By July 1, 1996, every school in Kentucky must have in place a site-based council consisting of two parents, three teachers, and a principal. (p. 17) "Chicago Decentralizes" is another example of mandated site- based management. If site-based governance can rocket the failure- plagued Chicago Public Schools, with 541 schools, 410,000 students, and competing ethnic and interest groups, to new levels of achievement and success, the concept stands a good chance of working anywhere (Rist, 1990). Decentralization is not a new concept in school governance, but Chicago’s approach to school reform is more than just decentralization. This is not power wrested from the central board and given to community boards. This is school-site governance, and a mandate to improve what goes on in each classroom, . . . delivered into the hands of parents, teachers, and principals. (p. 21) As restructuring efforts move to the site-based model, administrators are being asked to use skills they were not taught in college. One administrator, writing in The School Administrator, lamented, "The educational system had taught us decision-making from an autocratic approach, not to be sitting down with other people as a team in the decision-making process" (Mitchell, 1990). Forming new alliances with the community, teachers, and other staff members means giving up some of that power to which administrators have been accustomed. Change can be difficult. To ask people to take part in a new process of shared decision making is to ask them to form new relationships, to learn how to compromise and reach consensus, and to team build, and to facilitate change. 78 In Rochester, New York, where the ground-breaking contract for teachers called for new roles and responsibilities for them as well as higher salaries, the role of administrators changed as well. A preliminary study of their attitudes, as the new plan went into effect, revealed a consensus about their new responsibilities and general agreement with them. Writing about the research in Educational Leadership, Linda Shiever, Chairperson of the Department of Educational Administration at the State University of New York/ Oswego, found many of the administrators using the term "facilitator" to describe a new view of their authority. By this, she said, the administrators tended to "persuade, explain, assist, convince, monitor, model, develop, redefine, and encourage." In her article "Personal Reflections of Shared Decision-Making: A. Central Office View," Delehant (1990) wrote of her Rochester experience as follows: It is complicated to be in Rochester-~cha11enging, frustrating, overwhelming, and exciting--while it is in the process of restructuring its 49 schools to a school-based planning model. The traditional, centralized district organization is being replaced with a structure that directs all resources that bear upon student performance to be the work of the schools. The responsibility and accountability for decisions that affect student performance are shifting from central management to the schools. In this new central office design it is sometimes difficult to decide when to play the role of initiator and when to play the role of responder. Although both roles are important, it can be difficult for central administrators to find the appropriate balance between them. Many discover that they are so busy managing daily operations associated with responding that they do not make time to act as leaders and initiators. As a result of school-based planning, this central office administrator has developed a greater tolerance for ambiguity 79 and has learned that efficiency isn’t the bottom line in a decentralized environment. The changes here have required me to be a creative problem- solver, a coalition builder, and an entrepreneur. Whether I’m leading, participating, following, or watching, it’s exciting and challenging. (pp. 14-20) Traditional leadership styles cannot develop the kind of teamwork needed in this decentralized setting of shared decision making. The entrepreneurial manager needs to believe his/her company is number one and manage his/her team by walking among them, listening, teaching, innovating, empathizing, and facilitating (Kantor, 1983). Throughout much of the literature about new leadership skills runs the word "empower." James Heald, former chairman of the Department of Educational Administration at the University of Florida, and his faculty surveyed the literature on leadership to articulate specific skills and/or characteristics needed. They found that a manager’s skills included: . . monitoring people and resources; using time effectively; evaluating; delegating; communicating; securing and allocating resources; relating, reporting, and involving people; influencing the political environment; and using technology effectively. When they looked at the skills required to fulfill the role of ”empowerer," the list grew much longer and more complex: . . motivating; structuring organizations; team building; interacting; influencing; decision-making; communicating; leading; monitoring; facilitating; managing conflict; coaching; mentoring; assessing; providing feedback; tolerating ambiguity; diagramming; utilizing knowledge of cultures, norms, and mores. What has really changed fbr central office administrators in charge of instruction in this restructured organization? Going back to the beginning of this chapter and reviewing those skills and 80 characteristics that were attached to effective central office administrators who were the "gatekeepers of instruction” since the 19605, there appears to be more in common with the ”empowerer” list than is not: initiating change, organizing instruction, orienting, evaluating, planning, decision-making, leading, discovering and developing talents in others, monitoring, allocating, disseminating, communicating, trouble shooting, reporting, coordinating, building commitment, being sensitive, being flexible, cheerleading, linking, training, supervising, nurturing, tolerating ambiguity, facilitating, and providing service. Summary The review of literature covered four main areas: the role of the central office administrator in charge of instruction, the theory of leadership, sources of power and authority, and organizational theory as it relates to the recent trend to restructure schools. The literature on central office administrators in charge of instruction displayed a diversity of titles and roles for this position. Research in this field has been limited, and what there is appears under many different headings. There was agreement that ambiguity is inherent in the role. It was also clear that the person in this role has been the gatekeeper of instruction since the inception of the position; also clear was the evidence that the incumbent of this role is still a significant actor in the process of change. Caution was advised for those involved in restructuring 81 efforts that this valuable, but vulnerable, position is run: cast aside without careful study of what would be lost. The review of leadership and leadership behavior began early in history with Plato and Machiavelli and moved through the stages of trait theory, scientific management, the human relations movement, and the situational model. Taylor, Mayo, Hersey, Blanchard, Sergiovanni, Mintzberg, and Bennis provided much of the literature reviewed. Most recent leadership theories seem to blend traits with a situational approach. Varying tasks and human needs in diverse settings seem to be the driving force behind effectiveness of leader behavior. The Hersey and Blanchard model of situational leadership served as the basis for the examination of decision-making styles and use of power in this study. Influence was a common theme in all leadership views, so the sources of power and authority also were reviewed. As organizations move from a bureaucracy to a professionally oriented organization, old power forms are challenged by new forms. Schools were seen as normative organizations with cultural goals calling for more integrative power bases. French and Raven’s framework for power (coercive, reward, legitimate, information, expert, and ‘referent) and the likely responses to each were central to the review and were the base for this study of leader behavior in the area of power preference. Sergiovanni’s look at Etzioni’s moral motivation was presented, along with his proposed developmental stages for building school improvement: bartering, building, bonding, and banking. This section was summed up by Boulding’s proposed classes of power-- 82 the stick, the carrot, and the hug--and his description of how these powers work in complex hierarchies. Because central office administrators have a role in which leadership and power are not the only factors influencing that role, organizational structures and the current movement to change those structures were reviewed. Restructuring was linked to the corporate movement to do the same based on today’s need in the work force. Centralization and decentralization were debated, as were bureaucracies (closed systems) and open systems in terms of schools. The cultures approach was reviewed as schools were described as loosely and tightly coupled organizations, and a new metaphor was proposed for the school setting: the work-knowledge organization. This section also contained a discussion of the crucial role played by central office administrators in restructuring. Some views regarding the teacher’s role in the restructured school were considered. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY In this chapter, four principal topics are addressed. Significant information regarding the methods that were used to carry out the study is presented. The site and population included in the study are described, as are the materials and procedures that were used. Also specified are the research procedures and statisti- cal techniques employed in analyzing the data. Methodology After the proposal for this study was accepted by the doctoral guidance committee, permission to conduct the study was sought from and granted by the Michigan State University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). Concurrently, permission was sought from and granted by Leadership Studies, Incorporated, to use two of their instruments in this study (Appendix D). A meeting was then held with Lawrence Lezotte of the Network for Effective Schools to select the districts to be used in this study, their corresponding central office administrators in charge of instruction and/or curriculum, and the principals with whom the central office administrators worked. The reasons for using Dr. Lezotte as a resource are explained in the Site and Sample section of this chapter. 83 84 Letters were then sent to each district superintendent responsible for the school districts in the sample, explaining the purpose of the study and assuring the anonymity of the respondents. Their approval for participation was sought. After receiving approval to conduct the study from the district superintendents involved, one central office administrator responsible for overseeing instruction and/or curriculum for the district was contacted through a mailing similar to that sent to the superintendent, but more detailed in nature, including copies of the questionnaires. Again confidentiality of the data and anonymity of the respondents were stressed. In like manner, principals from each district were contacted (Appendix A). The 27 central office administrators and their 164 principals were asked to complete a personal data sheet and two questionnaires and to return them directly to the researcher in the stamped, addressed envelopes provided (Appendix 8). Approximately one week after the central office administrators and their principals had received the questionnaires, the researcher personally called each central office administrator to verify receipt of materials, answer any questions that might have arisen, and request a timely return of the completed surveys. Three to four weeks after initial receipt of the surveys by the districts, the researcher sent a reminder to each participant, again asking for a timely return. Completed surveys were received from 18 of the districts, representing 18 central office administrators and 80 principals. 85 All scoring of the questionnaires was done by the researcher. The instruments were altered slightly to eliminate their provisions for self-scoring. The Site_and Population It was decided to invite 27 of the school districts involved in Michigan’s Leadership for School Improvement Project (LSIP) to participate in the study. LSIP is a statewide project funded by a grant from the U.S. Office of Education and sponsored by the Michigan Institute of Educational Management and the National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development. The districts selected had been a part of LSIP for at least two years. These school districts represented rural, urban, and suburban communities throughout Michigan, as well as different socioeconomic levels, racial backgrounds, and sizes. Lawrence Lezotte of the National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development assisted in identifying and accessing these districts and provided information relative to the processes in which they had been involved. The 18 districts that agreed to participate in this study and submitted all materials required for the study are listed in Appendix C. The model for school improvement used by LSIP was especially appealing for this study because it focuses on site-based management, teacher empowerment, participative decision making, and other processes that are assumed to be causative in moving toward decentralization. The goals of the LSIP program are (a) to develop leadership skills in individuals while assisting them as a 86 collaborative team and (b) to develop and implement a district plan for school improvement. Three regional LSIP technical assistance centers served participating districts. The project training included three statewide meetings (seven days), followed by regionally organized meetings and opportunities for district-based visits by regional assistance staff. The project began training its teams in November 1987. The LSIP model for school improvement was built on the following nine assumptions: All schools were expected to focus on teaching and learning as their primary mission. All schools were held even more accountable for measurable results or outcomes. Equity received increasing attention as the population of poor and minority students was increasing. Decision making was to become more decentralized, and the individual school was to be recognized as the production center of education and the strategic unit for planned change. Models of collaboration and empowerment were to increase teachers’ and building-level administrators’ involvement in the planning, problem solving, and evaluation of school programs. Approaches to school improvement were to emphasize the use of research as a basis for school change. Instructional monitoring systems were to incorporate computers to accelerate the feedback loops used by teachers and administrators. School administrators were expected to demonstrate skills as both managers and visionary leaders. The emphasis on results or outcomes was intended to loosen the emphasis on process, thus leading the school to restructuring. (Lezotte, 1988) 87 Of the 18 central office administrators who participated in this study, 12 were assistant/associate/deputy superintendents (3 female and 9 male), 5 were directors of instruction or curriculum (4 female and 1 male), and 1 was a superintendent in a small district with no central office staff save himseTf. The 80 principals who participated in this study were LSIP trained, were at various stages of the school-improvement effort in their buildings, and reported to the central office administrator involved in this study in either a staff or line relationship. The school districts in the study served a total student population of 87,867 and ranged in size from 1,400 students to 9,933 students. Three were described as urban districts, ll suburban, and 4 rural. A total of 166 school buildings were housed in the 18 districts. Eighty of these buildings were represented in the respondent group. Reasons for buildings not being represented were that the building principal chose not to participate, the building principal did not report to the central office administrator involved in the study, or the building principal was in charge of more than one building in the sample group. The Instruments Data for this study were derived from the use of two instruments and a personal data questionnaire (Appendix B). One of the instruments used was the Power Perception Profile (Self) and the Power Perception Profile (Other), developed by Hersey, Blanchard, and Natemeyer (1988). The second instrument was the Problem-Solving 88 and Decision-Making Style Inventory (Self) and the Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Style Inventory (Other), also developed by Hersey et a1. These instruments have been widely used in the study of leadership behaviors. Reliability and validity coefficients for these instruments were found to be "moderate" to "moderately strong," with the "styles" inventories having reliability coefficients of .69 to .71 and a validity coefficient of .69 (Greene, 1980). The "power" inventories had a reliability coefficient of .5185 (Delaney, 1980). The ipsative nature of these instruments did depress their reliability and validity coefficients. Researchers have found them to be "empirically sound" (Delaney, 1980; Greene, 1980). The Power Perception Profile (Self and Other) The Power Perception Profile (PPP) has been used to provide information about a persons’ perceived use of power as the basis of leadership attempts. Two forms provide for the collection of perceptions about self and perceptions of others as to a manager’s use of power. Choices made on the items contained in the instrument lead to measures of seven different power bases: 1. geereiye ppwer, based on fear. 2. Eonneetipn power, based on "connections" with influential persons in or out of the organization. 3. Expert pnwer, based on expertise, skill, and knowledge. 4. Information ppwer, based on access to information. 5. Legitimate power, based on position held by the leader. 89 6. Referent power, based on personal traits. 7. Reward power, based on ability to provide rewards. Five of these descriptions of power bases (coercive, expert, legitimate, referent, and reward) were adapted from the work of French and Raven (1959). One power base (information) was introduced by Raven and Kruglanski (1975). Hersey et a1. (1988) added a seventh power base (connection power) in their paper ”Situational Leadership, Perception, and the Impact of Power." The PPP contains 21 forced-choice pairs of reasons people often give when asked why they do things that a leader suggests or wants them to do. Each statement reflects one of the seven sources of power discussed earlier. In the following pair of statements, referent power is represented by the first statement, and reward power is depicted by the second statement: 2 I like this person and want to do things that will please. 1 This person can provide rewards to those who cooperate. Respondents are asked to allocate three points between the two alternative choices in each set. They are asked to base their judgments on the relative importance of each alternative, judging either their perception of why people comply with their wishes (self) or why they comply with a particular leader’s wishes (other). After the PPP was completed, a score of relative strength for each of the seven bases of power was obtained, as perceived by ”self" (the central office administrator) or "other” (the building 90 principal working with the administrator in question). The "self" score represented the central office administrator’s perception of his/her own preferred power base, whereas the ”other" score represented their corresponding principals’ views of the adminis- trator’s power base. Eroplem-SelvingZQecision-Making Style Inventory The Problem-Solving/Decision—Making Style Inventory (PS/DM) is designed to provide feedback on an individual’s problem-solving and decision-making styles. Two forms allow perceptions to be collected from self and others. Responses measure factors of directive behavior (solves problems; makes decisions; spells out duties of others; tells others what to do and how, when, where, and who is to do it) and supportive behavior (engages in two-way communication regarding problem or decision and provides socioemotional support and facilitative behavior). Each of the PS/DM forms contains 12 items with which each respondent describes the decision-making and problem-solving behaviors of the individual in question. Categories of leader behaviors in this area might fall under authoritative, consultive, facilitative, or delegative. One can also compute whether most decisions are leader made, follower made, or collaborative. ers na mo r hi t F0 The Personal/Demographic Data Form was designed to obtain the following normative information on 'the study' participants. For central office administrators: 91 Sex Date of birth Highest degree held Line or staff status Years in present position Prior position Training in effective schools process VO‘U'I-DNN-H For the building principals: 1. Sex 2. Date of birth 3. Highest degree held 4. Years in present position 5. Years working with central office administrator For the school district: 1. Type (rural, suburban, urban) 2. Student population 3. Level within the school-improvement process Summaries of the data collected from the Personal/Demographic Data Form are presented in Chapter IV. Procedures The procedures involved in 'this study' were primarily those centering on planning the proposal, selecting the instruments, collecting the data, and statistically analyzing the data. Planning took place over a lZ-month period, during which current issues in education, the researcher’s new role as a small- district superintendent, and her former role as an assistant superintendent of a larger district melded into more questions than answers. The area of school improvement and site-based management had long been the chosen field for this study. Narrowing that field to the central office administrative role in a school-improvement effort came from the researcher’s experience in having been one and from her more recent experience in having to do without one. 92 Concern also was generated by a sense that school districts were casting these positions in an "expendable" category when actions had to be ‘taken to balance budgets. Of greater significance, this seemed to be happening without a great deal of forethought. Of all the current literature on school-improvement efforts and their needs, most writings had centered on superintendents, boards of education, teachers, and parents. Very little existed with a focus on this important educational leader. All considered, the position of central office administrators in charge of instruction and their role in educational change today appeared to be worthy of study. Much of the literature on school reform, and reform in general, concerns the leadership skills required for organizations to run effectively. Rather than look at what central office administrators were doing, it was decided to look at how they did what they did. An examination of their leader behaviors and their working relationships with others was proposed. The selection of instruments came next. Several inventories of leadership behavior were reviewed. The Power Perception Profile and the Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Styles Inventory were selected because (a) they dealt with what are considered to be two of the more important leader behaviors, (b) they afforded a ”self" and an "other" view to be collected, (c) they were based on the Situational Leadership Model, which takes situational aspects into account and has been widely used in measuring leader behavior; and (d) they were not cumbersome for participants to complete. 93 Data were collected by the end of June 1990. Completed inventories were returned directly to the researcher for scoring and tabulation. Data were recorded on a floppy disc using Word Perfect software and were then transferred to a mainframe computer for data analysis with the SPSS system. Specific SPSS operations that were used were frequencies, cross-tabs, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), and correlations. WW Nine null hypotheses were tested for retention or nonretention using an alpha of .05. Means, standard deviations, ranges, modes, and other frequency information were calculated on each variable for power, decision making, change, and personal/demographic responses. A multivariate analysis of variance was done on the power, decision-making, and change variables to test for significant differences in the means both between the two administrative groups (principals and central administrators) and within each group. Personal and demographic variables were cross-tabulated with power' and decision-making variables. Chi-square tests of significance were performed. When significance was found, Cramer’s V or gamma was used to test the strength of the association and, if applicable, its direction. Pearson product-moment coefficients of correlation were also used to test the correlation of power variables with decision-making variables. The results of the data analyses are reported in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The data presented in this chapter were gathered from April to June 1990 from central office administrators and their principals in 18 school districts in Michigan. These school districts also were participants in the Leadership for School Improvement Project (LSIP) conducted in Michigan and made available through a Federal Leadership for Educational Administration Development grant. Personal/Demographic Infernation Of the 18 districts included in this study, 22% were rural, 61% were suburban, and 17% were urban (see Table 1). In terms of student population, 17% of the districts served fewer than 3,000 students, 50%» served between 3,000 and 5,000 students, and 33% served more than 5,000 students (see Table 2). Table l.--Distribution of districts by type of school district (n = 18). Self-Reported District Type No. of Districts % of Districts Suburban 11 44 Rural 4 22 Urban 3 17 94 95 Table 2.--Distribution of districts by size of student population (n = 18). Student Population No. of Districts % of Districts Fewer than 3,000 3 17 3,000 to 5,000 9 50 More than 5,000 6 33 Group mean = 4,882 Group range = 1,400 to 9,933 Of the central office administrators from these districts, 39% were female and 61% were male (see Table 3). Eleven percent were 40 years of age or younger, 61% were between 41 and 50 years of age, and 28% were 51 years of age or older (see Table 4). All of the central office administrators held academic degrees higher than a bachelor’s degree; 33% held master’s degrees, 17% had specialist degrees, and 50% held doctoral degrees (see Table 5). Table 3.--Distribution of central office administrators and princi- pals by gender. Central Office Administrators Principals Gender (n = 18) (n . 75)a No. % No. % Female 7 39 22 29 Male 11 61 53 71 aThere were five missing cases. 96 Table 4.--Distribution of central office administrators and princi- pals by age. Central Office Administrators Principals Age (n = 18) (n = 71)a No. % No. % 40 and below 2 11 10 ll 41 to 50 ll 61 48 7O 51 and over 5 28 13 19 Group mean 47 46 Group range 37-58 32-62 aThere were 9 missing cases. Table 5.-—Distribution of central office administrators and princi- pals by highest degree held. Central Office Administrators Principals Highest Degree Held (n = 18) (n = 74)a No. % No. % Bachelor’s O 0 2 3 Master’s 6 33 49 66 Specialist 3 17 13 18 Doctorate 9 50 10 13 aThere were six missing cases. Eighty-two percent of these administrators had been in their present positions for 5 years or less, 12% for 6 to 10 years, and 6% for 16 to 20 years (see Table 6). Eighty-three percent of these 97 positions were considered ”line," and 17% were considered "staff" (see Table 7). Table 6.--Distribution of central office administrators and princi- pals by years in position. Central Office Administrators Principals Years in Position (n - 18) (n - 75)a No. % No. % 5 or fewer 14 82 38 51 6 to 10 2 12 ll 14 11 to 15 O O 5 7 16 to 20 l 6 14 19 21 or more 0 O 7 9 Group mean 4.5 9 5 Group range 1-14 1-30 aThere were five missing cases. Table 7.--Distribution of central office administrators by line or staff position (n = 18). No. of Central % of Central Position Office Admin. Office Admin. Line 15 83 Staff 3 l9 In terms of positions held just before the present one, administrators reported the following: 22% of prior positions were also central administrative, 68% were building principalships, 5% 98 were some other administrative position, and 5% were nonadministra- tive positions (see Table 8). Table 8.--Distribution of central office administrators by prior position held (n - l8). No. of Central % of Central Prior Position Office Admin. Office Admin. Building principal 12 68 Central administrator 4 22 Other administrator 1 5 Nonadministrative 1 5 Because the project of school improvement in which these administrators were involved (LSIP) used the effective schools school-improvement model, they were asked the number and types of effective schools inservice or training sessions in which they had participated. Twenty-eight percent reported participation in three activities, 28% in four, 11% in five, and 16.5% each in six or seven activities (see Table 9). This participation was in the following activities: 88% for administrative academy programs, 82% for on- the-job training, 82% for independent reading, 71% for work with a consultant, 65% for seminars, 41% for district team training, and 23% from university classes (see Table 10). 99 Table 9.--Distribution of central office administrators by number of effective schools training activities (n . 18). No. of Central % of Central No. of Activities Office Admin. Office Admin. Three 5 28.0 Four 5 28.0 Five 2 11.0 Six 3 16.5 Seven 3 16.5 Table 10.--Distribution of central office administrators by types of effective schools training activities (n - l8). Effective Schools No. of Central % of Central Training Activity Office Admin. Office Admin. Administrators academy program 15 82 On-the-job training 14 82 Independent reading 14 82 Work with consultant 12 71 Seminar 11 65 District team training project 7 41 University class 4 23 Eighty principals participated in this study. Of these principals, 29% were female and 71% male (see Table 3). Eleven percent were age 40 or younger, 70% were between the ages of 41 and 50, and 19% were age 51 or older (see Table 4). Three percent held bachelor’s degrees, 66% had master’s degrees, 18% held specialist degrees, and 13% had doctoral degrees (see Table 5). 100 Fifty-one percent of the principals had been in their current positions for 5 years or less, 14% for 6 to 10 years, 7% for 11 to 15 years, 19% for 16 to 20 years, and 9% and spent more than 20 years in their current position (Table 6). Principals were asked how many years they had spent working with the central office administrator who was taking part in this study. Sixty-nine percent of the principals had worked with their administrators for 5 years or less, 20% for 6 to 10 years, 8% for 11 to 20 years, and 3% for more than 21 years (see Table 11). Table 11.--Distribution of principals by years spent with the central office administrators (n = 74). Years Spent With Central No. of % of Office Administrator Principals Principals 5 or fewer 51 69 6 to 10 15 20 11 to 20 6 8 21 or more 2 3 Group mean = 5.4 Group range = l to 26 Because their schools were involved in a school-improvement effort, principals also were asked how many of the school- improvement steps they had completed. Twenty-eight principals had completed all seven steps, 18% had completed six, 17% had completed five, 12%» had completed four, 7% had completed three, 7%, had completed two, and 11% had completed only one of the components of the school-improvement process (see Table 12). 101 Table 12.--Distribution of principals by number of school improve- ments (n a 75). Number of No. of % of School Improvements Principals Principals One 8 11 Two 5 7 Three 5 7 Four 9 12 Five l3 17 Six l4 18 Seven 21 28 With regard to specific components, all of the principals had had general awareness training in the effective schools school- improvement model, 89% had completed their mission statement, 82% had formed a district-level school-improvement team, 75% had formed building-level school-improvement teams, 63% had written their first-year action plan, 46% had disaggregated their data, and 28% had written their subsequent action plan (see Table 13). Table 13.--Distribution of principals by types of school improve- ments completed. Type of School- No. of % of Improvement Activity Principals Principals General inservice 75 100 Mission statement developed 67 89 District team formed 62 82 Building team formed 57 75 First plan written 48 63 Data disaggregated 35 46 Subsequent plans written 21 28 102 Results pf Hypothesis Testing The researcher’s purpose in this study was to describe the preferred mode of influence (power) and the preferred decision- making style reported by the central office administrators and to describe their mode of influencing (use of power) and decision- making behavior, as perceived by the principals with whom they worked. The researcher also sought to describe any changes in those preferences or perceptions over a time span of two or more years. Finally, relationships between these preferred IN" perceived leader behaviors and the personal/demographic variables included in this study were tested for significance. Nine hypotheses were tested for retention or nonretention, using an alpha of .05. All of the hypotheses were stated in the null form for the purpose of statistical analysis. In the following pages, each hypothesis is restated, followed by the results for that hypothesis. Hypothesis 1 There is no dominant style that emerges from the perceptions of central office administrators with respect to their decision- making behavior or power-base preference. This hypothesis was addressed by examining the mean scores of the central administrative group on each of the subsections of the two surveys used in the study: The Power Profile Perception (Self) and the Problem-Solving/Decision-Making Inventory (Self). Mean scores for the seven power variables (Table 14) indicate that expert and information power were the means by which the 103 central office administrators saw themselves most often influencing others (means a 12.722 and 10.278, respectively). Legitimate (mean - 9.889), referent (mean . 9.278), and reward (mean = 9.556) power were the next most frequent means of influencing, according to the central administrators’ view, whereas connective and coercive were viewed to be the least frequently used means of influencing others (means = 6.389 and 4.889, respectively). Table l4.--Means and standard deviations for central office adminis- trators’ scores on the power variables (n = 18). Central Office Administrator Scores Power Variable Mean SD Range Expert 12.722 1.487 10-15 Information 10.278 1.776 6-13 Legitimate 9.889 2.471 3-14 Reward 9.556 1.338 7-12 Referent 9.278 2.445 6-13 Connective 6.389 2.893 l-ll Coercive 4.889 2.805 0-10 F-value = 12.0 Significance of F = .0005 To determine whether the differences in these mean scores were statistically significant, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used. This analysis resulted in an F>value of 12.0, which was statistically significant at the .0005 level (Table 14). The hypothesis presumed no difference, but it would appear that the differences in mean scores did not occur by chance and were significant. 104 In attempting to find a pattern for this difference, the means were reviewed. The instruments used in this study converted participants’ responses to an lB-point scale for each power variable. The low end of these scales was represented by scores between 0 and 5, the mid-range by scores between 6 and 11, and the high end by scores between 12 and 18. Expert power had a mean that was quite a bit higher than the other means and fell within the high end of the expert power scale. Information, referent, legitimate, and reward power had means that seemed to cluster together in the mid-range of the scale. Coercive and connective power were paired with means somewhat lower than the others, with coercive falling in the low end of the scale and connective in the lower mid-range (Table 14). Mean scores for the decision-making-style variables indicated that facilitative decisions (mean = 12.833) were viewed to be made most often by central office administrators (see Table 15). Consultative (mean = 9.944) and delegative (mean = 8.222) decisions were the next most frequently made, according to the central administrators’ view, whereas authoritative decisions (mean - 4.944) were seen by this group to be infrequently made. Again, to determine whether the differences in these mean scores were statistically significant, a MANOVA was used. This analysis resulted in an F-value of 14.0, which was statistically significant at the .0005 level (see Table 15). The hypothesis again presumed no difference, but it would appear that the differences in mean scores were significant. 105 Table 15.--Means and standard deviations for central office admin- istrators’ scores on the decision-making variables. Central Office Administrator Scores Decision-Making Variable Mean SD Range Facilitative 12.833 1.689 11-17 Consultative 9.944 1.305 8-13 Delegative 8.222 1.734 6-11 Authoritative 4.944 2.838 0-9 F-value = 14.0 Significance of F = .0005 In attempting to find a pattern for this difference, the means were reviewed. The same 18-point scale was involved in the decision-making part of the instrument. Facilitative decision making had a mean that was quite a bit higher than the other means and fell within the high end of the decision-making scale for facilitation. Consultative and delegative decision making had means that seemed to cluster together in the mid-range of the scale. Authoritative decision making had a mean somewhat lower than_the others; it fell in the low end of the scale (see Table 15). flyppthesis 2 There is no dominant style that emerges from the perceptions of principals with respect to central office administrators’ decision-making behavior or power-base preference. This hypothesis was addressed by examining the mean scores of the building principals on each of the subsections of the two surveys used in this study: the Power Profile Perception (Other) and the Problem-Solving/Decision-Making Inventory (Other). 106 Mean scores for the seven power variables indicated that expert, legitimate, and informative power were the means by which the principals viewed the central office administrators as most often influencing others (means - 12.150, 10.700, and 10.475, respectively) (see Table 16). Referent (mean . 8.200) and reward (mean . 8.975) power were the next most frequent means of central administrators’ influencing, according to the principals’ view, whereas connective and coercive were viewed to be the least frequently used means of influencing others (means .. 6.813 and 5.837, respectively). To determine whether the differences in these mean scores were statistically significant, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used. This analysis resulted in an F>va1ue of 73.0, which was statistically significant at the .0005 level (Table 16). The hypothesis presumed no difference, but it would appear that the differences in mean scores did not occur by chance and were significant. In attempting to find a pattern for this difference, the means were reviewed as they were with the group of central office administrators. The principals’ mean scores were distributed much like the central administrators’ means: Expert power had a mean that was quite a bit higher than the other means, falling within the high end of the expert power scale. Infbrmation, referent, legitimate, and reward power had means that seemed to cluster together in the mid—range of the scale. Coercive and connective power were paired with means somewhat lower than the others, with 107 coercive falling in the low end of the scale and connective in the lower mid-range (see Table 16). Table 16.--Means and standard deviations for principals’ scores on the power variables. Principal Scores Power Variable Mean SD Range Expert 12.150 3.643 0-18 Legitimate 10.700 2.528 3-17 Information 10.475 2.916 3-16 Reward 8.975 2.434 4-18 Referent 8.200 3.184 1-14 Connective 6.813 2.668 1-13 Coercive 5.837 3.847 0-15 F-value = 73.0 Significance of F . .0005 Mean scores for the decision—making-style variables indicated that principals viewed facilitative decisions (mean = 10.688) to be made most often by central office administrators (see Table 17). Consultative (mean . 9.900) decisions were the next most frequently made by central office administrators, according to the principals’ view, whereas delegative (mean . 7.675) and authoritative decisions (mean = 7.725) were seen by principals to be made less frequently by central office administrators. Again, to determine whether the differences in these mean scores were statistically significant, a MANOVA was used. This analysis resulted in an F-value of 76.0, which was statistically significant at the .0005 level (see Table 17). The hypothesis, 108 which presumed no difference, could not be retained in light of the significance found here. Table l7.--Means and standard deviations for principals’ scores on the decision-making variables. Principal Scores Decision-Making Variable Mean SD Range Facilitative 10.688 2.800 4-17 Consultative 9.900 1.747 5-14 Authoritative 7.725 4.091 0-18 Delegative 7.675 3.275 1-18 F-value = 76.0 Significance of F = .0005 In attempting to find a pattern for this difference, the means were reviewed as before. Similarity to the central administrators’ means was again apparent (see Table 17). Facilitative decision making had a mean that was quite a bit higher than the other means, falling within the high end of the decision-making scale. Consultative, authoritative, and delegative decision making had means that seemed to cluster together in the mid-range of the scale. Authoritative decision making received higher mean scores from principals than from administrators. Hypothesia 3 There are no significant differences between the perceptions of central office administrators and their corresponding principals with respect to decision-making behaviors and power- base preferences. 109 This hypothesis was addressed in two parts, by using another MANOVA. Means of both groups, principals and central administra- tors, were tested for differences between the groups on each of the power variables. An F-value was obtained for each power variable. Significance levels of these F-values are shown in Table 18. There were no significant differences in the mean scores of principals and central office administrators related to the power variables. Thus, the hypothesis was retained for the power—variables section. In reviewing the means, one can see the strong similarity in mean scores for each variable between the two groups. Table 18.--Differences between mean scores of principals and central office administrators on power variables. Power F- Signif. Variable Group n Mean SD Value Level :22- :: 2:222 2:222 2:29;: :2 22:22 2:22 :22:- :: 22:22:: 22:: :22- :2 22:22:: :22: 22:?- :: 22:2: 22:: :22?- 2: 222:: 2:22: :2:- 2: 2222: :22: 110 The second part of this hypothesis dealing with decision-making variables was addressed in the same way with a MANOVA. Means of both groups, principals and central administrators, were tested for differences on each of the four decision-making variables. An F-value was obtained for each variable. Significance levels of these F-values are shown in Table 19. There was a significant difference in the mean scores of principals and central office administrators related to the facilitative decision-making variable. The administrators’ mean for facilitation was higher than the principals’ mean. The reverse of this occurred for authoritative decision making, with the mean scores also significantly different. The hypothesis of no difference was not retained for the decision- making portion. Table l9.--Differences between mean scores of principals and central office administrators on decision-making variables. Decision- F- Signif. Making Group n Mean SD Value Level Variable Authoritative Admin. 18 4.9444 2.838 * Prin. 80 7.7259 4.091 7'48 '0074 Consultative Admin. 18 9.9444 1.305 Prin. 80 9.9000 1.747 0'0] '9198 Facilitative Admin. 18 12.8333 1.689 * Prin. 80 10.6875 2.800 9'73 '0024 Delegative Admin. 18 8.2222 1.734 Prin. 80 7.6750 3.275 0'69 '4950 *Significant at the .05 level. 111 flypothesee 4 and 5 There are no significant relationships between the personal demographic variables and the decision-making behaviors or the power-base preferences of central office administrators, as perceived by themselves or their principals. There is no significant relationship between leadership behaviors of central office administrators, as perceived by their principals, and the level of progress attained by schools in the school-improvement process. The significant relationships between personal and demographic variables of the central office administrators and principals and their ratings on the leadership subscales for power preferences and decision-making behavior are summarized in Tables 20 through 27. The cross-tabulation process of SPSS was used with a chi-square statistic to test for significance. In addition, where significance was found, Cramer’s V for nominal variables and gamma for ordinal variables were used to test the strength of the relationship, as well as its direction. A caution is extended in interpreting the significance levels found. Because of the sparsity of data, especially with the small administrator group (n - 18), some of the dependent variable cells were empty. The significance levels were high enough to include them in consideration, so as to avoid a Type 11 error, but due consideration must be given each one in order to avoid a Type I error. The variable of gender of the principal seemed to play a role in scores for coercive, expert, and legitimate power. Gender and coercive power had a significance level of .0328. There were 22 females in the group, and 68% of them saw their central office administrators as low in coercive power, whereas 51% of the 53 males 112 in the group saw the central office administrator as mid-range in coercive power (Table 20). No respondents saw their administrators as high in coercive power. For expert power, 91% of the females saw their' central administrators as high, and no female rated her administrator as low in this area. In comparison, only 53% of the males rated their central administrators as high in expert power. Most of the males rated their central administrators as high in legitimate power, and no male rated his administrator as low in this area. Most of the females, however, rated their central administra- tors as mid-range in legitimate power. Table 20.--Relationship of gender of principals to power variables. Coercive Power Expert Power Legitimate Power Gender of Principal Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High Female (n = 22) 68% 32% 0 O 9% 91% 9% 77% 14% Male (n - 53) 38% 51% 11% 6% 41% 53% O 47% 53% Sig. Level .0328 .0072 .0014 Cramer’s V 0.30184 0.36283 0.41812 Table 21 shows that prior position of the central office administrator and the variables of coercive and expert power related significantly (significance = .0308 and .0229, respectively). For these relationships, the Cramer’s V scores were quite high (Cramer’s 113 V - .70267 and .77460). Most of these central administrators had been principals before their current positions (n - 12). Seventy- five percent of those from the prior principals group perceived themselves as low on coercive power, and 100% viewed themselves as high on expert power. Those who had come from other central office positions (n = 4) saw themselves as mid-range on coercive power (100%) and mid-range to high on expert power (50% and 50%). Table 21.--Relationship of prior position of central office adminis- trator to power variables. Coercive Power Expert Power Prior Position Low Mid High Low Mid High Central admin. (n = 4) 0 100% O 0 50% 50% Principal (n . 12) 75% 25% 0 O O 100% Other admin. (n = l) 100% 0 O O 100% 0 Nonadmin. (n = l) 0 100% 0 O O 100% Sig. level .0308 .0229 Cramer’s V 0.70267 0.77460 The significant relationship between the principals’ years in the position and how they perceived the expert power' of their central administrators, and the significant relationship between the 114 central administrators’ years in position and their perception of their own use of legitimate power, are summarized in Table 22. Years in position of the principals and their views of the central administrators’ expert power seemed to be negatively related (gama - -0.52269). Conversely, years in position of the central administrators and legitimate power seemed to be positively related (gama - 0.8333). Caution needs to be taken in the case of the central administrators’ perceptions, however, because of the small number of respondents in the categories of 5 to 10 and 11 or more years in position. Five or fewer years in position was by far the larger group (n - 27), and they tended to score in the mid-range of legitimate power. Table 22.--Relationship of years in position of principal to power variables. Expert Power Legitimate Power Years in Position Low Mid High Low Mid High QF PRINCIPAL OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATOR Fewer than 5 (n=27) O 26% 74% (n=l3) 8% 85% 7% 5 to 10 (n-ZZ) 0 23% 77% (n=3) 0 100% 0 11 or more (n-3l) 10% 52% 38% (n=2) 0 O 100% Sig. level .0113 .0200 Gamma -0.52269 0.83333 115 The significant relationships between referent power and age of the principal, as well as academic degree of the central office administrator, are summarized in Table 23. A gamma of -O.20958 showed a small association in a negative direction. Those who were younger seemed to score their administrators slightly higher in referent power than did those who were older. Although there were no empty cells in this calculation, caution is still advised as the significance was slight (significance - .0405). A small significance was found between central office administrators’ degree and referent power, as well. Here, the higher the degree the higher the referent power, but the association was not strong (gamma 2 0.13043). Table 23.—~Relationship of age of principal and degree of central office administrator to power variable. Age of Principal Degree of Central Admin. Power Variable < 40 40—50 50+ M.A. Spec. Ph.D. (n=13) (n=49) (n=18) (n=6) (n=3) (n=9) Re erent Low 23% 46% 31% O 0 0 Mid 12% 80% 8% 67% 33% 100% High 33% 50% 17% 33% 67% 0 Sig. level 0.0405 0.0402 Gamma -0.20958 0.13043 116 Degrees held by principals seemed to be a greater factor related to power variables. Degree was found to relate significantly to three of the four decision-making variables (see Table 24). The significance levels were high, but the strength of the associations was small. In these calculations there also were empty cells in some of the dependent variables due to sparsity in some groups. For instance, there were only two principals with just B.A. degrees. This could have influenced the results. The bulk of this group had M.A. degrees (n = 49) and saw their central office administrators as mid-range in authoritative decisions, mid-range in consultative decisions, and split between mid-range and high in facilitative decisions. Table 24.--Relationship of degree held by principal to decision- making variables. Authoritative Consultative Facilitative Degree of Principal Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High B.A. (n=2) 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 50% 50% 0 M.A. (n-49) 29% 57% 14% 2% 92% 6% 2% 53% 45% Specialist (n=13) 23% 77% O 0 69% 31% 0 62% 38% Ph.D. (n-lO) 20% 60% 20% 0 80% 20% 10% 60% 30% Sig. level .0235 .0074 .0317 Gamma -0.16433 0.25000 -0.01192 117 A stronger relationship was found between the age of the central office administrators and their views of themselves as authoritative and facilitative decision makers. A significance level of .0201 was found for age and authoritative decisions, with a gamma of -1.000. Those central administrators who were under 40 saw themselves as more authoritative than those between 40 and 50, and the two administrators above 50. Conversely, those administrators who were under 40 saw themselves as less prone to facilitative decisions than did those who were over 40 (see Table 25). Table 25.--Relationship of age of central office administrator to decision-making variables. Authoritative Facilitative Age of Administrator Low Mid High Low Mid High Less than 40 (n-S) 0 100% O 0 80% 20% 40 to 50 . (n-ll) 64% 36% O 0 9% 91% Above 50 (n-2) 100% 0 O 0 0 100% Sig. level .0201 .0087 Gamma -1.0000 0.96078 Tables 26 and 27 show that the central office administrators’ view of their own consultative decision making related significantly to their prior position and to the type of district in which they 118 worked. Because none of this group saw themselves as low in consultative decisions, there were empty cells for these variables in both cases. For prior position, the sparsity of data (n - 1) in two categories would cause one to question the significance value. For district type, sparsity of data again would cause one to question the significance of the relationship. Table 26.--Relationship of prior position of central office admin- istrator to decision-making variable. Consultative Prior Position Low Mid High Central administrator (n=4) 0 100% 0 Principal (n-12) O 92% 8% Other administrative (n=1) 0 0 100% Nonadministrative (n=1) 0 100% 0 Sig. level .0333 Cramer’s V 0.69597 119 Table 27.--Relationship of district type of central office adminis- trator to decision-making variable. Consultative Low Mid High District Type Rural (n-4) 0 100% 0 Suburban (n=ll) 0 100% 0 Urban (n-3) O 33% 67% Sig. level .0036 Cramer’s V 0.79057 Regarding Hypothesis 5, there was no significant relationship between the leadership behaviors of the central administrators, as perceived by themselves or their principals, and the level of progress attained within the school-improvement process. Hypothesis 5 was retained. Hypothesis 6 There is no significant difference in the central office administrator’s perceived leadership behavior currently, as compared to his/her perceived leadership behavior of two or more years ago. Hypothesis 6 was addressed by examining the mean scores of the central administrators on each of the items in the comparison-for- change part of the questionnaire. Response categories fell into a Likert scale, with l = significantly less now than before, 2 a somewhat less than before, 3 2 same as before, 4 - somewhat more than before, and 5 a significantly more than before. In analyzing 120 the responses, these five categories were collapsed into three: 1 - less than before, 2 - same as before, and 3 - more than before. Mean scores of the central office administrators for the change variables shown in Table 28 indicated that the areas of expert power and facilitative decision making achieved the highest mean scores (2.571 and 2.571) of the central office administrators indicating they perceived some movement toward change that was more than before. The mode score for these two areas was 3.0, which represented the more-than-before category of change. A MANOVA was performed to test for significant differences of these mean scores. The F-value derived was 9.0, with a significance level of .002. A review of the means showed that connective and legitimate power, along with authoritative and delegative decision making, clustered closest to 2.0, or staying the same as before. Coercive and referent power, along with consultative decision making, moved a little further toward more than before. As stated before, expert power and facilitative decision making, with means of 2.571, moved the closest to the 3.0 score of more now than before. 121 Table 28.--Means and standard deviations for central office adminis- trators’ scores on the change variables (n = 14). Central Office Administrator Scores Change Variable Mean SD Mode Expert change 2.571 .514 3.0 Facilitative change 2.571 .646 3.0 Consultative change 2.357 .633 2.0 Coercive change 2.214 .579 2.0 Referent change 2.214 .699 2.0 Authoritative change 2.143 .663 2.0 Legitimate change 2.071 .730 2.0 Delegative change 2.071 .730 2.0 Connective change 1.929 .616 2.0 F-value = 9.0 Significance of F . .002 Note: Change code: 1 = Less than before 2 a Same as before 3 . More than before Hypothesis 7 There is no significant difference in the central office administrator’s leadership behavior currently, as compared to his/her leadership behavior of two or more years ago, as perceived by the principals with whom he/she works. Hypothesis 7 was addressed by examining the mean scores of the principals on each of the items of the comparison-for—change part of the questionnaire. Response categories were the same as for central office administrators and were to be considered as the principal saw his/her central office administrator’s leader behavior change in the categories included. Mean scores of the principals for the change variables shown in Table 29 indicated that the areas of expert power and consultative 122 decision making had the highest mean scores (2.407 and 2.305), paralleling the means of the central office administrators. However, legitimate power and facilitative» decision making were closely clustered to these, as well (2.322 and 2.254). There was less difference in the other means as they all fell within the range of 1.983 to 2.085. Table 29.--Means and standard deviations for principals’ scores on the change variables (n = 14). Principal Scores Change Variable Mean SD Mode Expert change 2.407 .561 2.0 Legitimate change 2.322 .681 2.0 Consultative change 2.305 .701 3.0 Facilitative change 2.254 .733 3.0 Connective change 2.085 .596 2.0 Coercive change 2.068 .487 2.0 Referent change 2.051 .753 2.0 Delegative change 2.000 .616 2.0 Authoritative change 1.983 .682 2.0 F-value - 71.0 Significance of F = .0005 Note: Change code: 1 - Less than before 2 - Same as before 3 - More than before Further analyses of Hypotheses 6 and 7 were conducted in terms of analyzing the differences in mean scores between the principal group and the central office administrators. This was done using MANOVA. Means of both groups, principals and central 123 administrators, were tested for differences between the groups on each of the change variables. An F-value was obtained for each change variable. Table 30. Significance levels of these F-values are shown in There were no significant differences in the mean scores of’ principals and central office administrators related to the one can see the change variables. In reviewing the means, similarity of their responses. Table 30.--Differences between mean scores of principals and central office administrators on change variables. Change F- Signif. Variable Group n Mean 50 Value Level 2222:: :22:- :: 2:222: 2:222 222222“: 22;?- 22 222:: 2:22: 22:2: :22? :2 222:: 22:: tfiglélma“ 9321'.“ 2:3 3:132? 8:322 0-43 2157 2:222“ :22 2: 22:2 22:2 2:22:22“: :22:- :: 2:222: 2:222 2:222:22": 22::- :: 222:: 2222 2:22:er 222.1: :2 22:2: 22:: 3532”“ 3329?." 23 223313 3:522 W m 124 hes There is no significant correlation between the central office administrator’s perceived decision-making behavior and his/her perceived power-base preference. There is no significant correlation between the decision-making behavior and power-base preference of the central office administrator, as perceived by the building principals. To examine these hypotheses, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between the central office administrators’ mean scores on the seven power variables and the four decision-making variables (Table 31) and between the principals’ mean scores on the power and decision—making variables (Table 32). Table 31 shows those pairs of variables for central office administrators that were significantly correlated and the direction of the correlation. Reward power was negatively correlated to authoritative» decision making, with an r of -.6109, which was significant at the .01 level. As the mean for reward power went down, the mean for authoritative decision making went up. Expert power and consultative decision making were correlated in the same way, as were coercive power and reward power related to delegative decision making. 125 Table 31.--Correlation of decision-making and power variables for central office administrators (n - 18). Pearson Correlation Coefficients Power Variable Authoritative Consultative Facilitative Delegative Decisions Decisions Decisions Decisions Coercive .3760 .2553 -.2648 -.5630* Connective -.2193 .3489 -.0943 .1694 Expert -.0735 -.5843* .2615 .3447 Information -.l368 .0324 .0556 .1698 Legitimate .2843 -.3305 .0658 -.2410 Referent .0193 -.1977 .0546 .0262 Reward -.6109* .2882 .1735 .6028* *Significant at the .01 level. Table 32 shows the pairs of principal variables with means that were significantly correlated and the direction of the correlation. There were more significant correlations between the principal scores than there were for the central office administrator group. Authoritative decision making was positively correlated to coercive power and negatively correlated to expert power. It was also correlated negatively to information power. Facilitative decision making was significantly correlated to most of the power bases: negatively to coercive and legitimate power, and positively to expert, information, and referent power. Delegative decision making was related only to legitimate power, and that was a negative correlation. 126 Table 32.--Corre1ation of decision-making and power variables for central office administrators, as perceived by principals (n . 80). Pearson Correlation Coefficients Power Variable Authoritative Consultative Facilitative Delegative Decisions Decisions Decisions Decisions Coercive .4476*** .0352 -.5337*** -.1248 Connective -.1312 .1208 .0090 .0914 Expert -.4313*** .0103 .4453*** .1537 Information -.2513* -.0651 .2231* .1635 Legitimate .4057*** -.0269 -.2746** -.2581** Referent -.1503 -.0737 .2698** -.0010 Reward .0794 .0024 -.1219 .0006 *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. Qhapter Summary The major findings that emerged from the data analyses are summarized below: 1. Differences in how administrators viewed themselves using power were significant. Most administrators viewed a use of expert power as most frequent and coercive power as least frequent. 2. Administrators’ view of their decision-making behavior was also significant. Administrators most preferred the facilitative approach and least preferred the authoritative approach. 3. Principals tended to agree with their administrators in terms of how they perceived the central administrators’ behavior with power and decision making. The only area of significant 127 disagreement was authoritative and facilitative decision making, and it was one of degree, not kind. Principals saw their administrators as somewhat more authoritative and less facilitative than the administrators saw themselves. 4. The sparsity of data made it difficult to place too much faith in the relationships that emerged between personal variables and those of power and decision making. However, gender, age, and years in position of the principal seemed most likely related to their perception of the power and decision making of their administrators. 5. There was no relationship between perceived leader behavior of the central administrators and level of progress within the school-improvement process. 6. Administrators saw themselves as making the most change in expert power and facilitative decisions with doing "more of such than before." 7. Principals agreed that central administrators made the most change in increased use of expert power, but they thought consulta- tive decisions increased more than did facilitative decisions. 8. How administrators viewed themselves in terms of power was correlated to how they viewed their decision making. Using rewards was negatively correlated with being authoritative, being an expert was negatively correlated with being consultative, being coercive worked against delegation, and using rewards positively correlated with delegation. 128 9. How principals viewed their central administrators’ power being correlated to their decision-making style had several areas of significance. Expert power and authoritative decisions did not go together well, whereas coercive power and authoritative decisions did. Coercive and legitimate power detracted from facilitative decisions, whereas expert, information, and referent power enhanced such. Legitimate power was correlated negatively with delegative decisions. Chapter V contains a summary of the study, conclusions drawn from the findings, recommendations for further study, and implications. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS In this chapter, the summary of the investigation, its theoretical rationale, the conclusions based (Hi the findings, the recommendations, and the implications are included. Summary Purpose of the Study The researcher’s purpose in this study was largely exploratory. The foci were on: 1. The identification and description of leader behaviors of central office administrators in charge of instruction, working in a school that was moving toward decentralization, as perceived by the administrators themselves and by their principals. 2. The relationship between power and decision making as used by central office administrators in a time of restructuring. 3. The relationship between the perceptions of central office administrators and their principals regarding the administrators’ use of power and decision-making style. Specifically, the researcher sought answers to the following research questions: 129 130 1. Will a dominant style emerge from the perceptions of central office administrators with respect to their decision-making behavior or power preference? 2. Will a dominant style emerge from the perceptions of principals with respect to the central office administrators’ decision-making style or power preference? 3. Are there significant differences between the perceptions of central office administrators and their principals with respect to decision-making behaviors and power preferences? 4. Are there significant relationships between the personal or demographic variables and the power preferences or decision-making behaviors of' central office administrators, as perceived by the administrators themselves or by their principals? 5. Is there a significant relationship between the leadership behaviors. of' central office administrators, as perceived by the administrators themselves and by their principals, and the level of progress attained by schools in the school-improvement process? 6. Is there a significant difference in the central office administrators’ perceived leadership behavior currently, as compared to their perceived leadership behavior of two or more years ago? 7. Is there a significant difference in the central office administrators’ leadership behavior currently, as compared to their leadership behavior of two or more years ago, as perceived by the principals with whom they work? 131 8. Are there significant correlations between the central office administrators’ perceived decision-making behavior and their perceived power preferences? 9. Are there significant correlations between the decision- making behavior and power preferences of the central office administrators, as perceived by their principals? [nearetjcal Rationale The theoretical framework for this study generally lies with Hersey and Blanchard’s (1982) tri-dimensional leader effectiveness model, more generically known as situational leadership. This model incorporates Fiedler’s leadership contingency model of task-oriented and relationship-oriented leader behavior with Reddin’s (1967) effectiveness dimension. The model was developed while Hersey and Blanchard were at The Ohio State University Center for Leadership Studies and expands on the Center’s model originated by Hemphill (1949) and revised by Stogdill (1962), in which leader behavior is classified into the dimensions of consideration (relationship oriented) and initiation of structure (task oriented). Because the power and decision-making variables used in this study were grounded in Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership model, it is important to understand the components of task behavior and relationship behavior (Stogdill & Coons, 1957): Task behavior is the extent to which leaders are likely to organize and define the roles of the members of their group; to explain what activities each is to do and when, where, and how tasks are to be accomplished; and is characterized by efforts to establish well-defined patterns of organization, channels of communication, and ways of getting jobs accomplished. 132 Relationship behavior is the extent to which leaders are likely to maintain personal relationships between themselves and members of their group by opening up channels of communication, providing socioemotional support, ”psychological strokes," and facilitating behaviors. By adding an effectiveness dimension to the task-behavior and relationship-behavior dimensions of the earlier Ohio State leadership model, Hersey and Blanchard integrated the concepts of leader style with situational demands. Korman (1966), in his extensive review of studies examining the Ohio State model, concluded that what is needed is not just recognition of this factor of situational determinants but, rather, a systematic conceptualiza- tion of situational variance as it might relate to leader behavior. With the current trend toward restructuring in schools, this situa- tional component becomes even more important. One of the basic components of a leader’s situation is the maturity level of his/her group related to the task at hand. Hersey and Blanchard called this task-relevant maturityu Of interest to them was McClelland’s (1961) research, in which he concluded that achievement-motivated people have certain characteristics in common, including the capacity to set high but obtainable goals. Hersey and Blanchard 'went on to define task-relevant maturity as (a) job maturity--the ability and technical knowledge to do the task, and (b) psychological maturity--a feeling of self-confidence and self- respect about oneself as an individual. 133 In terms of situational leadership styles, low readiness calls for high task/low relationship leadership (”telling”), low to moderate readiness calls for high task/high relationship leadership ("selling”), moderate to high readiness calls for low task/high relationship leadership (”participating"), and high readiness calls for low task/low relationship leadership ("delegating") (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). Several researchers have examined situational leadership in a school setting: Beck (1978) in "Leadership in Education: A Field Test of Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory"; Ducharme (1970) in "The Relationship Between Maturity Level and Leader Behavior Preference Among Urban Elementary School Teachers"; Peters (1974) in "Some Aspects of Leader Style, Adaptability and Effectiveness Among Western Massachusetts Principals”; Raynor (1976) in "Study of the Relationship Among Knowledge of Leadership Theory, Behavior and Effectiveness"; and Smith (1974) in ”Effectiveness in Urban Elementary Schools: A Function of the Interaction Between Leadership Behavior of Principals and Maturity of Followers.” Because leadership is the process of attempting to influence the behavior of others, and power is the means by which the leader actually gains the compliance of the follower (compliance in a professionally oriented setting may refer more accurately to professional growth), the two concepts are inseparable. Seven power bases were examined in this study. They were developed through the works of French and Raven (1959), Raven and Kruglanski (1975), and Hersey et a1. (1979): 134 Coercive power--based on fear. Connection power--based on the leader’s connections. Expert power-~based on the leader’s possession of expertise, skill, and knowledge. Information power--based on the leader’s possession of or access to information that is perceived as valuable. Legitimate power--based on the position held by the leader. Referent power--based on the leader’s personal traits. Reward power--based on the leader’s ability to provide rewards for other people. Numerous researchers have attempted to examine the relationship between the leader’s primary power base and the follower’s performance, but their results have suggested that the appropriate power base is largely affected by situational variables (Backman, Mowers, G Marcus, 1968; Burke G Wilcox, 1971; Ivancevich G Donnelly, 1970; Jamieson G Thomas, 1974). Just as the effective leader should vary leadership style according to the readiness level of the follower, the use of power needs to be varied in a similar manner. Readiness levels refer to a combination of having the skills or knowledge required for the task and being willing or secure in the carrying out of the task. Low readiness indicates lack of skills and willingness, low moderate readiness indicates lack of skills but a willingness to try, high moderate readiness owns the skills but lacks willingness, and high readiness level owns both the needed skills and a ”willingness." Coercive power may be needed with people at the low readiness level, connective power with people moving from a low to a moderate 135 level of readiness, reward power with people at low to moderate levels of readiness, legitimate power with people at the moderate level of readiness, referent power with people from moderate to high levels of readiness, information power with those from moderate to high readiness, and expert power with those at a high level of readiness. Figure 1 shows a way to examine these power bases in light of readiness levels of followers (Hersey et al., 1988). HIGH MODERATE LOW l I 1 R4 ' R3 ' R2 ' R1 Referent Connecuon Information Legitimate Figure 1: Power bases necessary to influence people at specific readiness levels. Another major component of leadership behavior examined in this study was decision-making style. Again using situational leadership theory as a base, the leader’s decision-making behavior must also reflect the situation he/she is in, specifically, the readiness of the group involved in the decision making. Readiness levels for decision making are similar to task-relevant readiness levels (Hersey et al., 1988): 136 Level one--unable to make the decision or solve the problem and either unwilling or insecure. Level two--unab1e to make the decision or solve the problem, but willing or confident. Level three-able to make the decision or solve the problem, but unwilling or insecure. Level four--able to make the decision or solve the problem and willing or confident. In matching styles of decision making to the preceding readiness levels, one needs to consider the dimensions of directive and supportive behavior. Hersey et al.’s (1988) problem-solving and decision-making model places these behaviors on a three-dimensional quadrant similar to their task and relationship quadrants: Directive behavior is the extent to which one solves the problems, makes the decisions, spells out the duties of others, and engages in telling them what to do, how to do it, when to do it, where to do it, and who is to do it. Supportive behavior is the extent to which one engages in two- way communication with others regarding the problem or decision and provides socioemotional support and facilitative behavior. High directive/low supportive leader behavior is reflected in authoritative decision making and is most effective with low readi- ness groups (level one, page 34). High directive/high supportive leader behavior is reflected in consultative decision making and is most effective with groups in readiness level two (page 34). Low directive/high supportive leader behavior is reflected in facili- tative decision making and is most effective with level-three readi- ness groups (page 34). Low directive/low supportive leader behavior is reflected in delegative decision making and works best with high readiness groups (level four, page 34). 137 The literature reviewed in Chapter II that related to the organizational structure of schools depicted school districts as professionally oriented organizations, more open than closed to the systems around them, coupled tightly in terms of vision and goals, and loosely coupled for collaborative problem solving. Restructur- ing efforts seem to be focusing on decentralization, participative decision making, and empowerment coupled with accountability. Several writers likened the school district to research and development centers, with the student as worker, the teacher as front-line executive, and the principal as a manager of managers. In an educational setting, working with highly trained and emotionally mature personnel, one could assume a high readiness level of the school’s instructional team. An effective leadership style for the educational setting would, in most cases, be low to high relationship/low task in leadership, low to high supportive/low directive in decision making, and based on referent, expert, and information power. In other words, one would expect the educational leader' to portray participating and delegating leadership, with facilitative and delegative decision making, using influential versus compliance-based power (expert, referent, and information). The central office administrator in charge of instruction was found, through the literature review, to be a key player in the school-improvement, restructuring process. Results of the DESSI study pointed to this professional as the ”linch pin” for change in improving schools. That is why the researcher chose to examine the 138 leadership behaviors of these key personnel who are currently playing major roles in their districts’ efforts to restructure their schools. The how of their behavior was more at issue than the what. Design of the Stugy The population of this study comprised 18 mid-sized school districts (4 rural, 3 urban, and 11 suburban) in Michigan that were also participating in the Leadership for School Improvement Program (LSIP). From those districts, one central office administrator in charge of instruction (n = 18) and a sample of those principals (n = 80) reporting to him/her were participants. Personal and demographic information collected in the study showed these participants to be mostly males, with degrees above the B.A. level, in their positions for fewer than five years, mostly in line positions, and moving to central office positions from a building principalship (Tables 1 through 13, Chapter IV). Instruments Instruments used in the study included the Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Style Inventory (Self) and (Other), along with the Power Perception Profile (Self) and (Other) developed by Hersey et al. as part of their situational leadership model. Combined, the instruments measured 11 leader behaviors: coercive, connective, expert, legitimate, information, referent, and reward power bases; and authoritative, consultative, facilitative, and delegative decision-making styles. 139 Excerpting examples from these instruments, the researcher developed a series of questions intended to measure the extent of change that was perceived for these leader behaviors over a period of two years or more. Because only those school districts undergoing districtwide and building-level school improvements for at least two years were included in the sample, these changes, if they did occur, would have been in a climate of restructuring. Instruments for the study also included a personal and demographic questionnaire for both central administrators and principals. Procedures The procedures in this study included the selection of the sample, selection of instruments, collection of data, scoring, and statistica1.ana1ysis. Having decided to conduct a study on the leader behaviors of central office administrators in the area of instruction working in districts focused on school improvement, the researcher contacted Lawrence Lezotte of the National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development in Okemos, Michigan. Dr. Lezotte was directly involved in the Michigan Leadership for School Improvement Project (LSIP) and was helpful in identifying those districts that had been in the project for at least two years and their corresponding administrators. Because he was interested in the topic for this research, Dr. Lezotte volunteered to assist in gaining access to these districts. Of the 27 districts the 140 researcher and Dr. Lezotte contacted, 18 (66%) responded positively and participated fully through their 18 central office administrators and 80 of their principals. The next phase of the study was to select the instruments, which were described under the Theoretical Framework section of this chapter. The Hersey et a1. inventories, the Power Perception Profile and Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Style, were chosen because of their situational component and because decision making and use of power are integral and inseparable components of leadership. The situational leadership model and its instrument, Leader Effectiveness and Adaptability Description (LEAD), which served as the framework for the power and decision-making-style inventories, have been widely used and examined in the field of education, as well as in the corporate world; the instrument has been found to be valid for measuring leader behavior. The central office administrators and principals were given the same inventories and questionnaires and were asked (a) to respond as one would view him/herself if participating as a central office administrator, or (b) to respond as one would view the central administrator’s behavior if participating as a principal. The collection-of—data phase ‘was carried out during spring 1990, after receiving approval from the researcher’s doctoral guidance committee, the Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, and the superintendent of each participating district. All data were coded for district grouping 141 purposes only. The inventories and questionnaires were returned directly to the researcher for scoring and tabulating. Statistical Treatment of the Data The data obtained from the Power Perception Profile and the Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Inventory were analyzed as follows. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to compute frequencies, means, standard deviations, ranges, and modes, where appropriate, to determine the distribution of responses of the central office administrators and those of the principals, with respect to their perceptions regarding the central administrators’ use of power and decision-making style. A MANOVA was used to determine whether significant differences existed within each group in terms of their responses to the power scale as a whole and to the decision-making scale as a whole. MANOVA also was used to determine whether significant differences existed between the administrator and principal groups in terms of their responses to each variable of the power scale and each variable of the decision-making scale. The same frequency and MANOVA procedures were used to analyze the distribution and differences of responses of both groups to the questions relating to change in leader behavior over time. The Pearson product-moment coefficient of correlation was used to test whether significant correlations existed among the central office administrators’ perceptions regarding power and their 142 perceptions regarding decision making. The same technique was used to test whether significant correlations existed among the principals’ perceptions regarding their central administrators’ use of power and their perceptions regarding their administrators’ decision-making style. In addition, personal and demographic variables were tested for their possible relationship to the dependent variables of power and decision making, using a chi-square test. Where significant relationships did appear to be present, a gamma (for ordinal variables) or a Cramer’s V (for nominal variables) was used to test the strength and, if appropriate, the direction (positive or negative for ordinals) of those relationships. Eindings Researen Question 1: WiTl a dominant style emerge from the perceptions of central office administrators with respect to their decision-making behavior or power preference? Analysis of the data for central administrators’ responses to the power and decision-making variables indicated a perceived preference for using expert and information power to influence others. Coercive power was the least preferred power base. For decision making, the administrators’ responses indicated a perceived preference for a facilitative style, whereas the least preferred was an authoritative style. The differences in the administrators’ mean scores for both the power and the decision-making variables were significant at the .0005 level. Thus, Hypothesis 1 of no dominant style was not retained. 143 W: Will a dominant style emerge from the perceptions of principals with respect to central office administrators’ decision-making behavior or power preference? Analysis of the data for principals’ responses with respect to the power and decision-making variables indicated a perceived central administrative preference for the use of expert, information, and legitimate power to influence others. Coercive, power was perceived to be the least used power base by central administrators“ For* decision making, the principals’ responses indicated a perceived central administrative preference for a facilitative style. The differences in the principals’ mean scores for both the power and the decision-making variables were significant at the .0005 level. Thus, Hypothesis 2 of no dominant style was not retained. Research Question 3: Are there significant differences between the perceptions of' central office administrators and their principals with respect to decision-making behaviors and power preferences? Analysis of’ the data indicated that the responses of the administrators and principals did not differ significantly with respect to the perceived use of power. However, the responses of these two groups did differ significantly (at the .01 level) with respect to the perceived decision-making style, in that principals saw their administrators as being less facilitative and more authoritative than the administrators saw themselves. Thus, Hypothesis 3 of no difference was retained for the power variables only and was not retained for the decision-making variables. 144 Re ar u t' 4: Are there significant relationships between the personal or demographic variables and the power preferences or decision-making behaviors of administrators, as perceived by the administrators themselves or by their principals? Analysis of these data was difficult because of their sparsity. On the one hand, a small n would add credence to a significance score; on the other, the smaller number of responses led to some cells having only one or two members in the independent variables. Sparsity as well as preferences resulted in some empty cells in the dependent variables. Therefore, the relationships are reported here with caution. Gender of the principal seemed to be related to the perception of coercive, expert, and legitimate power of the central administrator; males’ perceptions tended toward higher levels of coercion and legitimacy, and females’ perceptions tended toward higher levels of expertise. Prior position of the central administrator seemed to be related to coercive and expert power, as well. Seventy-five percent of the former principals.saw themselves as low in coercive power, whereas 100% of the former central office people saw themselves as mid-range in coercive power. For expert power, 100% of the former principals saw themselves as high, whereas 50% of the former central office people saw themselves as high in this power. The years in position of the principal seemed to be related to expert power. More than 70% of those in the position fewer than ten years perceived their administrators to be high in expert power, 145 whereas only 38% of those in the position 11 or more years saw this high level of expert power in their administrators. Age of the central administrator seemed to be related to both authoritative and facilitative decision making. In the less-than-40 group, 100% saw themselves in the mid-range for making authoritative and facilitative decisions. Ihi the 40-to-50 group, 64% saw themselves in the low range for making authoritative decisions and in the high range for facilitative decisions. Hypothesis 4 of no relationship was not retained in light of the preceding data. Lesser significant relationships were found in the data and were shown in Tables 20 through 27 in Chapter IV. Research Question 5: Is there a significant relationship between leadership behaviors of central administrators, as perceived by the administrators themselves and their princi- pals, and the level of progress attained by schools in the school-improvement process? Analysis of the data indicated no significant relationships between perceived leader behaviors and the level of progress attained by schools in ‘their* school-improvement process. Thus, Hypothesis 5 of no relationship was retained. Researeh Questien 6: Is there a significant difference in the central office administrators’ perceived leadership behavior currently, as compared to their perceived leadership behavior of two or more years ago? Analysis of the data indicated that there was a significant difference in the responses of central office administrators to the change questions. Two behaviors, expert and facilitative, scored toward the more-than-before category, whereas coercive scored 146 slightly toward the less-than-before category, and the others scored closer to the same-as-before category. Thus, Hypothesis 6 of no difference was not retained. Researeh Question Z: Is there a significant difference in the central office administrators’ leadership behavior currently, as compared to their leadership behavior of two or more years ago, as perceived by the principals with whom they work? Analysis of the data indicated that there was a significant difference in the responses of principals in terms of how they perceived their administrators on the change questions. Three behaviors, expert, legitimate, and consultative, showed some movement toward the more-than-before category, whereas authoritative scored slightly toward the less-than-before category. ‘The others scored at the same-as-before category. Thus, Hypothesis 7 of no difference was not retained. Research Question 8: Are there significant correlations between the central office administrators’ perceived decision- making behavior and their perceived power preferences? Analysis of the administrators’ responses to the power and decision-making variables indicated that there were significant correlations (alpha . .01) between the two. These were as follows: negatively for reward power and authoritative decision making, negatively for expert power and consultative decision making, negatively for coercive power and delegative decision making, and positively for reward power and delegative decision making. Thus, Hypothesis 8 of no correlation was not retained. 147 arc e i : Are there significant correlations between the decision-making behavior and power preferences of the central office administrators, as perceived by their principals? Analysis of the principals’ responses to the power and decision-making variables indicated that there were significant correlations between the two (alpha = .001, .01, and .05). These were as fOllows: positively for coercive power and authoritative decision making; negatively for expert and information power and authoritative decision making; negatively' for* coercive and legitimate power and facilitative decision making; positively fbr expert, information, and referent power and facilitative decision making; and negatively for legitimate power and delegative decision making. Thus, Hypothesis 9 of no correlation was not retained. Qonelusions The following major conclusions were drawn from this study: 1. Among those in this study there was a favored power preference and decision-making style of central administrators made up of expert power and facilitative decision making. In reference to the situational leadership model, these would be the most appropriate leadership behaviors to use with high readiness groups. The fact that principals rated expert power the highest for their central administrators would indicate that they recognized and regarded as important their administrators’ expertise, skill, and knowledge. Assuming that principals are, in fact, members of a high readiness group, able and willing to solve problems and make 148 decisions, then facilitative decision making is appropriate but could move to delegative decision making, as well. It is possible that the position of the central office administrator being between the superintendent and principal makes delegation less appropriate than facilitation. Although a pattern of preference was found for both power and decision making, it should be noted that each of the power bases and each of the decision-making styles was selected as a response some of the time. This fits the situational leadership model and recognizes that there are times when coercive or authoritative measures are appropriate, but that these times are appropriately infrequent. Similarly, all other power and decision-making modes may be appropriate to the time, the task, and the people involved. The fact that perceptions of participants in this study indicated that all were used to some degree in some circumstances would lead one to conclude that the central administrators did own, to some degree, the gamut of power and decision-making behaviors. 2. In those districts participating in this study where change was occurring, central office administrators were showing a tendency to become more facilitative and using more expert power than they had before, while moving away from being authoritative. As schools are restructuring toward a more participative/ collaborative model, decentralizing services, and empowering more members of their staffs, administrators will need to move toward facilitative and delegative styles, using more expert and referent 149 power. The bureaucratic model based on position power and chain of comand will not work effectively in the professionally oriented organizations that schools are becoming. At the same time, authoritative and consultative styles with legitimate and connective power will continue to be needed in those areas where research has shown schools need to be tightly coupled-- vision, goals, and data-driven accountability. 3. Use of power and decision-making styles were significantly correlated within the perceptions of the groups in this study. This is important for those students of leadership and for those attempting to be more effective in their practices. The propensity to facilitate decision making was correlated positively to the ownership of expert, information, and referent power. Facilitation was correlated negatively to the use of coercive and legitimate power. 4. 'Central office administrators and their principals did not differ significantly as to their perceptions of the administrator’s use of power and differed only in degree in their perceptions about the administrator’s decision-making style. The pwjncipals’ perceptions served to validate the central administrators’ assessment of their own styles. It is possible that, because these districts were involved in effective schools and school-improvement training, and principals and central administrators were participating together in such activities, a uniformity of perception was developing. If this perception is reflected in what is truly happening, a goal of school improvement is being reached. 150 5. The gender, age, and years in position of the principal group seemed significantly related to the principals’ perceptions about their central administrators’ use of power and decision-making style. Male principals seemed to perceive more coercive and legitimate sources of power than did female principals. Principals with more years in their position perceived less expertise than did those with fewer years in the position. And younger principals perceived less facilitation on the part of their administrators than did older principals. These findings could have implications for central office administrators as they work with individual differences of their groups. 6. One conclusion was drawn that did not stem from the data. The review of the literature with respect to the role of the central office administrator (instructional supervisor as referenced in most of' the literature) indicated that. certain leader behaviors were necessary for successful supervision. These behaviors were leading, decision making, facilitating, communicating, initiating change, building commitment, cheerleading, linking, consensus building, and nurturing, to name a few. The literature on restructuring called for leaders who would do those same things. It would appear that the ”new" school cultures being built today will be established by leaders who are like the people who have been around since the 1940$--instructiona1 supervisors, assistant superintendents for instruction, and directors of curriculum. It might be that the reason the perceived preferences 151 of the group of central administrators in this study paralleled so closely those leadership behaviors being called for in today’s site- managed world is really because these are behaviors they have always had to have in order to implement instructional innovations. Impljeations This study confirmed that central office administrators are using leader behaviors that are facilitative and are influencing others through the power of expertise and information. These leader behaviors are in line with those currently cited in the literature as being crucial to organizational effectiveness. Because central office administrators in charge of instruction historically have endeavored to achieve the kind of leadership now being called for in schools, they should be considered key players in a school’s change effort. Because central office administrators historically have been the change agents for instructional innovation, their role should be enhanced in a school’s change effort in order to capitalize on their experiences. Recent studies have shown central office administrators to be the ”linch pins" of successful innovation efforts. Hence, school districts should study carefully any consideration of cutting back or eliminating these positions. Central office administrators should develop a supportive constituency to reduce their vulnerability as middle managers in today’s site-based climate. Researchers have found that teachers do 152 not know what persons in these positions do and therefore do not support them in a time of cutbacks. Other investigators have found that people holding these positions are the politically expedient ones to go during staff reductions. Long-ternl effects in cutting the central office staff are likely to show up in decreased curriculum relevance, lack of long- term planning in terms of instruction and curriculum, less relevant professional development for teachers and other instructional staff, and a general lack of updating teachers and administrators. Short- term budget balancing could lead to long-term instructional bankruptcy. Recommendations for Future Study It should be reemphasized at this point that this study was exploratory and descriptive. It should also be noted that size limits the power of the data and the findings. However, considerable data were collected around two leader behaviors--power and decision making--from two important groups of school leaders-- principals and central office administrators--and have been centered on those schools currently involved in a major change effort. 1. Additional studies need to be conducted relating to how effective central office administrators lead. Earlier authors focused on describing what central administrators do; this researcher examined how central office administrators do their work. Other investigators could look further at how by replicating this research in other settings, i.e., districts that are not undergoing 153 major change. Expanding the look at how could be done by examining other leader behaviors or by pairing an effectiveness measure with the how measures. 2. There is a need for ethnographic studies related to the central office administrative position. An important area for future research might be a set of in-depth ethnographic studies of central office administrators with on-going documentation and description of roles, activities, influences, and effects of their work. Data from these kinds of studies could be used to develop job and role descriptions, especially in terms of looking at the role in influencing the change process in schools. 3. Examining the level of readiness of different members of a school’s instructional team could be helpful. Using the situational leadership model, one might measure the readiness levels of superintendents, district staff, principals, teachers, boards of education, parent groups, and students for school innovation and improvement. Such information would be useful in determining the appropriate leadership behavior, power base, and decision-making style to use in a period of change. 4. An effective measure or definition for central office administrators is needed. It is highly unlikely that the effects of central office personnel will be visible in student achievement data. Other criteria of effectiveness need to be considered-- effectiveness in facilitating change, effectiveness in resolving conflict, effectiveness in building consensus, and effectiveness in facilitating growth and learning of staff. 154 5. A study is needed on the short- and long-term effects of cutbacks of central office administrative positions. This vulnerable, middle-management position is more and more frequently being reduced throughout American school districts. Budget balancing and political expediency, as well as the movement toward flattening bureaucracies, place this position in jeopardy. Researchers need to begin now to measure the short- and long-term effects on districts that are "doing without" anyone in charge of instructional development for the district. 6. A study involving on-site observation of the interactions between central office administrators and their principals to determine whether "perceived" leader behaviors are "true" to actual leader behaviors. 7. An expanded study on those personal and demographic variables that appeared to relate significantly to the decision/power variables but without strong confidence due to small n’s in some cells. 8. A study of leadership styles as they are used with groups moving through the stages of adult learning and the stages of change would be very useful. Much of the conceptual framework for such a study could be gleaned from what is known about adult education and the literature studying human reaction to change. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE 155 EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS Dr. Michael J. Bitar, Superintendent Battle Creek Public Schools 3 West Van Buren Street Battle Creek, Michigan 49017-3079 May 11, 1990 Dear Dr. Bitar: As a member district of the Leadership for School Improvement Project (LSIP), we would encourage you to join with us in a collaborative effort. We have begun a research study which will be of importance to all of us involved in school improvement efforts. This study will determine what effects have been experienced by central office administrators during periods of change which I' have led to decentralization of decision-making (abstract enclosed). The study will be used as research for the National Center for Effective Schools and by Vickie Markavitch, Superintendent of schools in Skokie, Illinois, as a doctoral dissertation at Michigan State University. As a participant school district in the project, your central office admin- istrator in charge of instruction and/or curriculum and the building princi- pals with whom he/she works, will receive a two page survey which they will be asked to complete by June 30th. Field testing has shown the survey to take a very short time (twenty minutes or less). The instruments used in this study were developed by Drs. Hershey and Blanchard, of Situational Leadership, Inc., and have been widely used in American schools and businesses. They are not tests and in no way measure administrative ability. There are no right or wrong answers, just descrip- tors of styles of decision-making and styles of exerting influence. We want to assure you and members of your district of confidentiality and anonymity. The names of participants and districts will not be divulged. You will be asked to give enough information so that district information can be clustered and examined. we urge you to grant this important piece of research a small portion of your district's time. Please return the attached permission form today. Thank you for your willingness to help broaden our knowledge in this area. Upon'com- pletion of the study, we will forward an abstract to you. Sincerely yours, Lawrence W. Lezotte Vickie L. Harkavitch Effective Schools Products. Ltd. P.O. Box 476 Okemos, Michigan 48805 156 To Whom It May Concern: This is to inform you that approval has been granted to Lawrence Lezotte and Vickie Markavitch to conduct research with selected central office administrators and principals in our school district pursuant to research for the National Center for Effective Schools and as a doctoral dissertation for Michigan State University. The data collected will be treated as group data and the responses of indivi- duals in our district have been assured the strictest confidence and anonymity. We are also assured that the forms which must be completed as part of the study will take only a short time from our busy schedules. Date Superintendent or designee The central office administrator who works most closely with building prin- cipals in the area of instruction and/or curriculum is: Name of Administrator Title The principals who work with the above named administrator are: Principal Building Principal Building Principal Building Principal Building (please copy if more space is needed) 157 EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS As a member district of the Leadership for School Improvement Project (LSIP), we would encourage you to join with us in a collaborative effort. We have begun a research study which will be of importance to all of us involved in school improvement efforts. This study will determine what effects have been experienced by central office administrators during periods of change. especially that change which has led to decentralization of decision-making. The study will be used as research for the National Center for Effective Schools and by Vickie Markavitch, Superintendent of schools in Skokie, 111.. as a doctoral dissertation at Michigan State University. ' As a participant school district inthe project, you, as central office admin- istrator in charge of instruction/curriculum and the building principals who work with you are asked to complete the enclosed survey. returning it to the research office in the self-addressed envelope by June 30th. Field testing has shown the survey to take a very short time (twenty minutes or less). The instruments used in this study are not tests and in no way attempt to measure administrative ability. They concern themselves with perceptions of how a leader behaves in certain situations. not how well he or she behaves. There are no right or wrong answers, just descriptors related to styles of decision—making and styles of exerting influence. The instruments used have been developed by Drs. Hershey and Blanchard of Leadership Studies, Inc. and have been used extensively in American schools and businesses. All data will be received by the researchers themselves and will be held in strictest confidence. The anonymity of all of the respondents is assured and the names of the participants and districts will not be divulged in any way. The data will be treated as group data. You will be asked to give enough information to allow clustering of district data for analysis. Enclosed please find a letter from your district superintendent granting permission to conduct this research in your district. We cannot overemphasize the importance of your participation to the success of this project. I shall be contacting you within a few days to see if you have questions or need assis- tance in completing the instruments. Your submission of the completed surveys will indicate your voluntary agreement to participate. We urge you to grant this important piece of research a small portion of your . time. Thank you for'your willigness to help broaden our knowledge in this area. Upon completion of the study, we will forward an abstract to you. Sincerely yours, :27///' my "‘égiéé 5::% Lawrence W. Lezot e Vickie L. Markavitch Efiective Schools Products. Ltd. RC. 80: 476 Okemos, Michigan 48805 (51 7) 349-0941 Effective Schools Products. Ltd. P.O. Box 476 Okemos. Michigan 48805 158 EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS As a member district of the Leadership for School Improvement Project (LSIP), we would encourage you to join with us in a collaborative effort. We have begun a research study which will be of importance to all of us involved in school improvement efforts. This study will determine what effects have been experienced by central office administrators during periods of change, especially that change which has led to decentralization of decision-making. The study will be used as research for the National Center for Effective Schools and by Vickie Markavitch, Superintendent of schools in Skokie, 111., as a doctoral dissertation at Michigan State University. As a participant school district in the project, you, as building principal and the central office administrator who works with you in the area of instruc- tion and/or curriculum are asked to complete the enclosed survey, returning it to the research office in the self-addressed envelope by June 30th. Field testing has shown the survey to take a short time (twenty minutes or less). The instruments used in this study are not tests and in no way attempt to measure administrative ability. They concern themselves with perceptions of how a leader behaves in certain situations, not how well he or she behaves. There are no right or wrong answers, just descriptors related to styles of decision-making and styles of exerting influence. The instruments used have been developed by Drs. Hershey and Blanchard of Leadership Studies, Inc. and have been used extensively in American schools and businesses. All data will be received by the researchers themselves and will be held in strictest confidence. The anonymity of allof the respondents is assured and the names of the participants and districts will not be divulged in any way. The data will be treated as group data. You will be asked to give enough information to allow clustering of district data for analysis. Enclosed please find a letter from your district superintendent granting permission to conduct this research in your district. We cannot overemphasize the importance of your participation to the success of this project. I shall be contacting you within a few days to see if you have questions or need assis- tance in completing the instruments. Your submission of the completed surveys will indicate your voluntary agreement to participate. We urge you to grant this important piece of research a small portion of your time. Thank you for your willingness to help broaden our knowledge in this area. Upon completion of the study, we will forward an abstract to you. Sincerely yours, Lawrence W. Lezotte Vickie L. Markavitch (51 7) 349-0941 159 Your district has agreed to participate In the enclosed ”effective schools" study. Completing this project can be one of the quicker things you do in closing out this school year. In fifteen minutes or less you can: 1. Complete the survey sheet 2. Seal it in the enclosed envelope 3. Put it in the "out" mail box All responses are strictly confidential. Surveys are coded for purposes at grouping data. No district Information will be reported by name. THANK YOU SO MUCH! APPENDIX B INSTRUMENTS 160 POWER PERCEPTION PROFILE Perception of Self Developed by Paul Hersey and Walter E. Natemeyer PURPOSE 1w. ' 4 . L utilization of various type of power as Write basis of your leadership attempts PART I: Instructions for completing the profile U Listed below are 21 pairs of reasons often given by people amples below, making sure that the numbers assigned to when they are asked why they do the things the leader sug- each pair add up to 3‘ gests or wants them to do. . All”! my.— L ' ' in napk pair. Base your point allocation on your judgment of each altemau've's relativei Importance as a reason for others’om- com- pliance to 0 Allocate the points between the first item and the second , . . ‘ 0 After you have completed this profile, uset the "Power “em based on ”new“, rmponance “ shown '" ‘h' ex- Perception Profile Work Sheet" to relate the data gathered to vanous levels of follower readiness. Others respond to my leadership attempts because: I can administer sanctions and punishment to those who do not cooperate with me. They realize that I have connections with influential and rmportant persons They respect my understanding. knowledge. judgment and experience. I 2. I possess or have access to information that is valuable to others. I My position in the organization provides me with the aulhonty to direct their work activities 1 3’ They like me personally and want to do things that will please me. ' I can provide rewards and support to those who cooperate with me. I I can administer sancnons and punishment to those who do not cooperate with me. They realize that I have connections with influential and imponant persons 5. They respect my understanding. knowledge. judgment. and expenence. I possess or have access to information that is valuable to others. 6. My positron in the organization provudes me with the authonty to direct their work activities They like me personally and want to do things that will please me. I can provide rewards and support to those who cooperate WIth me. Cooper-r : my was :4Leaoersnosruaes hr Arngntsm: 16] I can administer sanctions and punishment to those who do not cooperate with me. 8- They respect my understanding. knowledge. judgment and experience. They realize that I have connections with influential and imponant persons. 9' I possess or have access to iniormanon that is valuable to Others. They respect my understanding. knowledge. judgment. and experience. ‘0. My position in the organization provrdes me with the authority to direct their work activities. I possess or have access to information that is valuable to others. 11. I can administer sanctions and punishment to those who do not cooperate with me. My position in the organization provides me with the authority to direct their work activities. 12. They realize that l have connections with influential and important persons They like me personally and want to do things that will please me. 13. They respect my understanding, knowledge. judgment. and experience. I can provide rewards and support to those who cooperate with me. "- They realize that I have connections with influential and important persons. I can administer sanctions and punishment to those who do not cooperate with me. 15. My position in the organization provides me with the authority to direct their work activities. They realize that l have connections with influential and important persons. 16. They like me personally and want to do things that will please me. They respect my understanding, knowledge. judgment. and experience. 17. I can provide rewards and support to those who cooperate with me. I possess or have access to information that is valuable to others. ‘8. They like me personally and want to do things that will please me. My position in the organization provides me with the authority to direct their work activities. 19. i can' provide rewards and support to those who cooperate with me. They like me personally and want to do things that will please me. 20' I can administer sanctions and punishment to those who do not cooperate with me. I can provide rewards and support to those who cooperate with me. 21. I possess or have access to information that is valuable to others. CWO r979. nmwumpammumm. 162 When involved in problemalving or decision-making situations with others. I usually: '1. Provide specific instrucuons for resolving the problem. Ask for input from others to help solve the problem. I 2. Share ideas and attempt to reach t‘tutsviisiis mi .t ilm isiim. L Provide an opportunity for others to make the decrsion. I 3. Ask for input from others to help solve the problem. L Facilitate discussion and am supportive in problem solving I 4. Make the decision and act firmly and decisively in its implementation. l Provide an opportunity for others to make the decision. 5. Provide specific instructions for resolving the problem. I Facilitate discussion and am supportive in problem solving 6 Discuss the decision with others and attempt to gain their commitment. | - Provide an opportunity for others to make the detrsion. l 7. Make the decision and act firmly and decisively in its implementation. Share ideas and attempt to reach consensus on a decision. l! a Ask for input from others to help solve the problem. I Let others take the major responsibility for solving the problem. I 9. Discuss the decision with others and attempt to gain their commitment. l Share ideas and attempt to reach consensus on a decision. 10. Provide specific instructions for resolving the problem. I Let others take the major responsibility for solving the problem. 11. Make the decision and act firmly and decisively in its implementation. l Discuss the decision with others and attempt to gain their commitment. Facilitate discussion and am supportive in problem solving. Let others take the major responsibility for solving the problem. CWO naz. Imoytematnesn Mr-gtttsreserveo. 163 ll' m rin Now compare your current style of Influencing others as compared to your perception of what your style was two or more years ago. (DO NOT COMPLETE THIS SECTION IF YOU HAVE WORKED IN THIS TYPE OF POSITION FOR LESS THAN TWO YEARS.) morevaxronwaurm m M ame- aunt-u- hono- beene- “a. new mun eta-ura- ems-- nut-n mano- man- mmmmmmm 1 2 3 4 5 mmmwlthhtpormpem 1 2 3 4 5 mumwwum 1 2 3 ‘ 5 Wamumm 1 2 3 4 5 anelbtlandotherawantopleeeeme 1 2 3 ‘ 5 mnprohnaolvinglmaltededaloneend ‘ 5 ectfirrrtiyhtteirlnplementation 1 2 3 Vlfhenprobmaolvinglaattforhputfrom ‘ Z 3 ‘ 5 omeratohdoreaolvingtheproblem YlnienproWnaotvlngIahareldeaeand ' etternpttohuildmondeciaione 1 Z 3 4 5 Whenprowmaolvinglletothetstaltethe ‘ 5 mq'orreapmatulityforaoivingtheproblem 1 2 3 W 1. Sex: Female Male 2. Birthdate: _. 3. Yearslncurrentposition 4. HighestOegreeEamed: BA I MA PhD other 5. Whichhestdeecribeayourcentralottloepoaition: Aumpoenioninwhidilwperviumdpusutdamneponaibhmwaluafion Amflpoaitionktwtidtlofluwpponmddlncoonbprmdpdswimwuaengmem S. mmmmmmmmmwmmmmmmtmmvmo): oentralotficeadmtniatrator _Wnomrnl otheradminimtivepoeitlon non-administrative position 7. Which Ihds of training have you had In effecove schools and the school improvement process (check all that apply): at the job raining work with a oonauttant taaversity' ' oouraets) Independent reading hadership academy program aeminar(a) Quiet required team training other 8. Whichddiefolbwmgbestdeaaibumewathhidtyuxdisolothmouomnnfemdso(checkontyone): rural wean urban Numberofstudentslndlstrict 164 PROFILE PURPOSE This Instrument isd POWER PERCEPTION Perception of Other Developed by Paul Hersey and Walter E. Natemeyer L .a 4 sons utilization of various types of power as the basis of leadership attempts PART I: Instructions for completing the profile O Listed below are 2I pairs of reasons often give nby peope when they are asked why they do the things the leader sug- gests or wants them to do 0, - Allocate 3 pornts between the two alternative chorces In each pair. Base your judgment on the relative Importance of each altematrse. This is in reference to your perception of why you comply with this leader ‘ “ second item based on “perceived importance as shown In the examples I respond to this leader's influence attempts because: below. making sure that the numbers assigned to each pair add upto 0 Elmer you have completed this profile. use the "Pinter Percep tion Profile Work Sheet" to relate the data gathered to various levels of follower readiness. This person can administer sanctions and punishment to those who do not cooperate. I realize that this person has connections with influential and important persons. I respect this person's understanding, knowledge, Iudgment, and experience. This person possesses or has access to Information that is valuable to others. . This person‘s position in the organization provrdes the authority to direct my work activ-ties. I like this person and want to do things that will please. This person can provide rewards and support to those who cooperate. This person can administer sanctions and punishment to those who do not cooperate. I realize that this person has connections with influential and important persons. I respect this person's understanding. knowledge, judgment, and experience. This person possesses or has access to Information that Is valuable to others. This person‘s position in the organization provides the authority to direct my work activities, I like this person and want to do things that Wlll please. This person can provide rewards and support to those who cooperate, Comhgrit 5 I979 I989 Dy Leadership Stuoes Inc All rights reserved 165 This person can administer sanctions and punishment to those who do not cooperate. 8. I respect this person‘s understanding, knowledge. iudgment, and experience. I realize that this person has connections with influential and important persons. 9. This person possesses or has access to information that is valuable to others. I respect this person's understanding knowledge. Judgment. and experience. ID. This person's position in the organization provides the authority to direct my work activities. This person possesses or has access to information that is valuable to others. 11. This person can administer sanctions and punishment to those who do not cooperate. This person's position in the organization provides the authority to direct my work activities. 12. I realize that this person has connections with influential and important persons. I like this person and want to do things that will please. 13. I respect this person's understanding, knowledge, iudgment, and experience. This person can provide rewards and support to those who cooperate. I4. I realize that this person has connections with influential and important persons. This person can administer sanctions and punishment to those who do not cooperate. 15. This person's position in the Organization provides the authority to direct my work activities. I realize that this person has connections with influential and important persons. 16. I like this person and want to do things that will please. I respect this person’s understanding, knowledge, judgment, and experience. 17. This person can provide revards and support to those who cooperate. This person possesses or has access to information that is wluable to others. 18. I like this person and want to do things that will please. This person‘s position in the organization provides the authority to direct my work activities. 19. This person can provide rewards and support to those who cooperate. I like this person and vent to do things that will please. 20. This person can administer sanctions and punishment to those who do not cooperate. This person can provide rewards and support to those who cooperate. 21. This person possesses or has access to information that is valuable to others. Copyright 1: I979 I989 Dy Leaqersnip studies Inc All rights reserved 166 When involved in problem-solving or decision-nuking situations with others. this person will usually: Provide specific instructions for resolving the problem. Ask for input from others to help solve the problem. 2 Share ideas and attempt to reach consensus on a decision. Provide an opportunity for others to make the decision. 3. Ask for input from others to help solve the problem. Facilitate discussion and be supportive in problem solving. 4. Make the decision and act firmly and decisively in its implementation. Provide an opportunity for others to make the decision. 5. Provide specific instructions for resolving the problem. Facilitate discussion and be supportive in problem solving. 6. Discuss the decision with others and attempt to gain their commitment. Provide an opportunity for others to make the decision. 7. Make the decision and act firmly and decisively in its implementation. Share ideas and attempt to reach consensus on a decision. 8. Ask for input from others to help solve the problem. Let others take the major responsibility for solving the problem. 9. Discuss the decision with others and attempt to gain their commitment. Share ideas and attempt to reach consensus on a decision. IO. Provide specific instructions for resolving the problem. Let others take the maior responsibility for solving the problem. It. Make the decision and act firmly and decisively in its implementation. Discuss the decision with others and attempt to gain their commitment. 12. Facilitate discussion and be supportive in problem solving. Let others take the maior responsibility for solving the problem. CWIQ'I! C l”). "’88 by LeaOt'shrp Studies Inc All right; reserveg 167 W Now compare this person’s ctmnt style at influencing others as compared to your perception at what this person's style was two or more years ago. (DO NOT COMPLETE THIS SECTION IF YOU HAVE WORKED WITH THIS ADMINISTRATOR FOR LESS THAN TWO YEARS.) m on or. non not new W scam as“ e. seam w is- noa ieea now sane new M lhen more men than bolero than Delete . belore then belore than belore Administers sanctions when others do not cooperate 1 2 3 4 5 hhuences through connections with important persons 1 2 3 4 5 Possesses and uses knowledge important to actors 1 2 3 4 5 Holds a position oi direct authority 1 2 3 4 5 h well likes and others want to please him/her 1 2 3 4 5 h problem solving this person makes decisions and acts tirmly In their implementation 1 2 3 4 5 h problem solving this person asks for input from others to help solve the problem 1 2 3 4 5 is problem solving this person shares ideas and attempts to reach consensus on decisions 1 2 3 4 5 In problem solving this person lets others take the major responsibility tor solving the problem 1 2 3 4 5 W 1. Sex: Female Male 2. Blrthdate: 3. Years in current position 4. Highest Degree Earned: BA MA PhD other 5. Number oi years spent working with the administrator involved in this study 6. Which ol the iollowing activities in the school improvement process have been accomplished to date in your building: in not MARK ALL THAT APPLY done progress started general awareness training district level team lorrned _ _ _ building level team termed mission statement written student data disaggregated lirst year action plan written subsequent action plans written 168 PART l: Power Choiceifgring/ In order to score your instrument. go back through the 21 items These scores reflect your perception of this leader‘s utilization and add up all the scores that you have gixen to each oi the or" tarious tvpes of power as the basis or" influence. You will A. B. C. D. E. F. and C items. Enter the total tor each category use these data in Part I: Power Chorce Protile below. in theibaites below. The total of these scores should equal 63. A 3 c D E F G - TOTALS: ' + + + + + + . 53 PART I: Power Choice Profile Transfer the score totals from Pan l: Power Choice Scoring and the profile. This provides feedback on the relative strength of plot them on the graph below by circling the corresponding each power base of this leader as perceived by you. number on each scale. Connect the circled points to complete I8 I8 I8 l8 l8 l8 l8 i7 l7 l7 I7 :7 I7 l7 I6 16 I6 lb 16 I6 I6 is IS IS IS IS l5 l5 t4 t4 t4 14 I4 t4 i4 l3 l3 I3 I3 l3 l3 l3 3 I2 r2 I2 I2 l2 l2 r2 2 II ll II II ll II II U IO IO ID ID l0 ID ID w 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 g a a a 3 e a a II 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 E 6 o s 6 b s 6 B s s s s s s s 2, 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 . l I I r I l l ‘ o o o o o- o o l A I C D E F G Coercive Connection Expert Information Legitimate Referent Reward MOMIIM “I I‘m w ‘ _‘ b~0.&~0— lu---—- --—-.. n A O C O m PROBLEM‘SOLVING & : Dogsq.—‘g—.. ....._.t .9 DECISION-MAKING MODEL -~--—------- _ ..‘.. _ m u it INSTRUCTIONS FOR SCORING I QC] -- - Add the scores that you have assigned to the m A items and awe-lune 5' , ’ record the total in theAbosbelow. Repeat the same procedure —— _ D D for the 8. Cent! D itemsimalu'ng sure that the numbers in " L the four boxes add up to 36. u u A 8 C D i . ” " nous-newness TOTALS + + + l ! = 36 Now. transfer your scoresifromthe A. 8. C. and D boxes above to the correspondingbcites in the model below. ’1'“ N: _ / P5319: "-‘-'-"- ..'.::-:-:—;_--.-:-'.-.-EE: .;-~L—‘—:--U ’—.~- * A + B - [ ] Leader-Made Decisions 1":‘3‘35: _ 2 ' -..........T.: . . . r—nw‘u— cums—oes—ee-n-e-n— 8 -i- C - [ lCollaborative Decrsrons '........................: __ “:3. C + D - [ ] Follower-Made Decisions __ J‘ z '3‘... ............... rmo-ADt-O— :12: :mmz “O- -Q--. C’— APPENDIX C PARTICIPATING DISTRICTS Participating Districts Battle Creek Public Schools Big Rapids Public Schools Clio Area Schools Dowagiac Union Schools Ferndale School District Grand Blanc Community Schools Holland Public Schools Holt Public Schools Manistique Area Schools Milford Huron Valley Schools Mt. Clemens Community Schools Mt. Pleasant Public Schools Oak Park Public Schools Tecumseh Public Schools Walled Lake Consolidated Schools Warren Woods Public Schools Wyandotte Public Schools Wyoming Public Schools Battle Creek, Michigan Big Rapids, Michigan Clio, Michigan Dowagiac, Michigan Ferndale, Michigan Grand Blanc, Michigan Holland, Michigan Holt, Michigan Manistique, Michigan Milford, Michigan Mt. Clemens, Michigan Mt. Pleasant, Michigan Oak Park, Michigan Tecumseh, Michigan Oakland, Michigan Warren, Michigan Wyandotte, Michigan Wyoming, Michigan P'ia.) APPENDIX D LETTERS 0F APPROVAL I70 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COUIGE 01' EDUCAHON usr MNSING . mono/m . «824.1034 ovum or mucanomu. mummnon :mauouuau 1 May 1990 Dr. John K. Hudzik UCRIHS 206 Berkey Hall Campns Dear Dr. Hudzik: The doctoral guidance committee for Ms. Vicki Markavitch has on this date approved her prospectus for the doctoral dissertation. C Pdtaliy, 1%er W 7" Professor and committee chairperson 1b I7] MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY COMMUTE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 «cu-nu HUIAN SUBJECTS (UCIIHSI 2“ BERKS? HA”. (517) 535-973. July [2, l990 IRB# 90-199 Wokie Markavitch Box 44IA Bridgman, Ml 49l06 Dear Ms. Markavitch: RE: “CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS IN CHARGE OF INSTRUCTION A STUDY OF LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS UNDERGOING RESTRUCTURING IRB# 90-199" The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. Your proposed research protocol has been reviewed and the rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be protected. You have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. if you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to July l2, l99l. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If we can be of any future help, please do net hesitate to let us know. Sincerely, I Lit/Chi; 0 .11“? 2t't'q/ - Kenneth 0. Marvin, Jr. Acting Co-Chair, UCRIH KOM/sar cc: S. Moore MSU is an A/fimum Anna/Equal Willly hum-um I72 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF A PROJECT INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS Submit your proposal for UCRIHS review to: Dr. John K. Hudzik, Chair UCRIHS Michigan State University 206 Berkey Hall East Lansing, MI 48824-1111 If you have questions, or wish to check the status of your proposal, call: (5I7) 353-9738 DIRECTIONS: COMPLETE QUESTIONS 1 - 11: Attach additional material as requested. 1. RESPONSIBLE PROJECT INVESTIGATOR: NAME OF INVESTIGATOR: (faculty or staff supervisor) (II different) I219 SmugI MOOIE VICKIL Mkfln 411th 2. CAMPUS ADDRESS: CAMPUS ADDRESS: (or address where —— agroval letter is to be sent) ,le iO‘I (quKCQA) tut #4143 [Zud7maA ‘I‘I/oe PHONE#: 3(3- 3387 PHONE#: bio-vervei7f 3. mus OF PROPOSAL: 687/77847. UFP/ce Murflfiénfiff l/I (JAM PJ flsfiucia‘) ’ U .f (I! 7. Per/7.. can. A, ' 4. A. PROPOSED FUNDING AGENCY (II any) A/oue 8. IS nus AN FDA PROPOSAL [ 1 YES [W C. MSU ORD# IF APPLICABLE 0. DATE ON WHICH YOU PLAN TO BEGIN DATA COLLECTION 6 /l /7 0 5@/EXPEDITED. II applying for Exempt or Expedited status. indicate the category. SEE INSTRUCTIONS - ITEM 1 (le. I-A. 2-D. etc.). Category. / -C. For Subcommittee: Comments to Pl: Office Agenda: Comments to REV: Use Comments: I73 6. ABSTRACT. Summarize the research (its purpose and general design) to be conducted. This can be identlcal or similar to the summary required when submitting to the NIH (200 words or less). Briefly outline, In particular, what will bg dgng tg rggggrgh sgbjggs. The major purpose of this study is to determine and compare the perceptions about leadership behavior of central office administrators in charge of instruction and/or curriculum as expressed by the administrators themselves and by the building principals who work with them. Districts participating in the Michigan Leadership for School Improvement Project (LSIP) who employ central office administrators will be asked to take part in this study. All such districts have been involved for two to three years in a change effort leading to decentralization of decision-making and lines of authority. Individual participants will be asked to complete a survey form developed by Drs. Hershey and Blanchard, of Leadership Studies, Inc. Permission to use these forms has been granted by that organization. Data analysis will be done by the researcher using the SPSS computer program. Hypotheses about leadership behaviors, their differences and relationships, and the relation- ships of such behaviors to personal and demographic variables will be tested for acceptance or rejection. All responses will be assured confidentiality. Data will be coded for grouping purposes only. 7. SUBJECT POPULATION. Will any of the following be subjects: Yes No Yes No Minors [ ] [x] Students [ l [x] Pregnant Women [ j [x] Low Income Persons [ ] [x] Women of Child-bearing age [x] [ Imaybe Minorities ' [x] [ Imaybe Institutionalized Persons [ ] pm Incompetent Persons [ ] DUI (0r diminished capacity) 7a. Number of subjects (including controls)? 120 7b. Are you associated with the subjects (e.g., your students, employees. or patients.) [ ] yes K}! no If yes. explain nature of the association. 7c. How will subjects be contacted and selected? A letter requesting permission for district participation sent to School superintendents. After permission is granted, letter and phone calls to the administrators to be involved in the study. Participants selected via involvement in LSIP and by Superintendent recommendation. 7d. Will research subjects be compensated? [ ]Yes [xjNo If yes. all information concerning payment. including the amount and schedule of payment must be set forth in the informed consent. 7e. Will you be advertising for research participants? [ ]Yes [xINO If yes. attach a copy of the advertisement you wfll use. SEE INSTRUCTIONS - ITEM 2 I74 ANONYMITY/CONFIDENTIALITY. Describe procedures and safeguards for insuring confiden. tlality or anonymity. SEE INSTRUCTIONS - ITEM 3 No one but the researcher herself will deal with the raw data. A code will be used in data entry so that respondents from the same district can be grouped together. The code sheet will be kept by the researcher, locked in a separate place from where the data analysis is taking place, and will be kept only until the defense of the dissertation has been successfully completed. The data code sheet will then be destroyed. Identities will not be easily known even to the researcher, requiring a match between known variables and demographics. In the case of building principals, where more than one is responding from each district, the identifies may never be known as one or more respondents in that group may have similar personal variables. Confidentiality will be maintained at all costs and all reports of this research and its findings will not permit associating subjects with specific responses nor with findings. School district and school personnnel names and titles will not be used in research reports. RISK/BENEFIT RATIO. Analyze the risk/benefit ratio. SEE INSTRUCTIONS - ITEM 4. Com- pletely answer items A, B, and C listed in the instructions. ALSO SEE item 6 in the instructions if your research involves minors or those with diminished capacity. We find no potential risk to partcipants in this study. The instruments to be used have no right or wrong answer. They do not measure ability or success. They deal with descriptors of accepted leadership behaviors in the areas of decision-making and exertion of influence, under a variety of common situations. The only social risk is minimal - that of the central administrator somehow learning of the principal's responses. The responses are strictly confidential. The surveys are sent to each admin- istrator and principal individually and have their own addressed, stamped return envelope marked "confidential", which is to be sent directly to the researcher. Names are never cited on any research form or document beyond the cover letter to the participant. ' Individual participants are selected fromthe group of school administrators most involved in the significant change going on in American schools today. The information gleaned from this study will be of benefit to them as well as to the field of school administration. In addition, the kinds of items on the instruments are accepted leadership actions in a variety of situations. The insights gained during completion of the items may prove of some immediate benefit to the participants. - I75 10. CONSENT PROCEDURES. Describe consent procedures to be followed. including how and where informed consent will be obtained. SEE INSTRUCTIONS - ITEM 5 on what needs to be included in your consent form. Include a copy of your consent form with your proposal. ALSO SEE item 6 In the Instructions If your research involves minors or those with diminished capacity. Consent will be requested of the superintendent of each school district selected to be a part of this study. (Cover letter to Superintendents is attached). After receiving superintendent's consent on form provided, letters of explanation and consent will be sent to district administrators selected for the study. Each letter will be followed by a personal phone call from the researcher, providing answers to questions and verifying contents of letters. (Cover letter to administrators and principals attached) 11. CHECKLIST. Check off that you have included each of these items with your proposal. If not applicable, state n/a. [ ] Provide six (6) c0pies of all information unless applying for exempt or expedited review. Provide two (2) capies if applying for exempt or expedited. Include all questionnaires. surveys. forms. tests. etc. to be used. [ ] Proposed graduate and undergraduate student research projects submitted to UCRIHS for review should be accompanied by a signed statement from the student’s major professor stating that he/she has reviewed and approves the proposed project. [ ] Provide one complete copy of the full research proposal. Graduate students should furnish one copy of the 'Methods' chapter of their thesis/dissertation (if available) in lieu of a research troposm. [ ] Questions I . 10 have been filled out completely. [ ] Provide the consent form (or instruction sheet. explantory letter. or the script for oral presentation if signed consent is not to be obtained-See item 5 in the instructions). [ ] Advertisement included if applicable YOUR PROPOSAL WILL BE ASSIGNED A UCRIHS PROPOSAL NUMBER. REFER TO THIS NUMBER AND THE TITLE OF YOUR PROPOSAL ON ANY CORRESPONDENCE OR INQUIRIES. I76 Mr. Alexander Ogg Leadership Studies, Inc. 230 West Third Avenue Escondido, California 92025 Dear Mr. Ogg: This letter is to confirm our phone conversation of May 30th regarding my use of the Power Perception Profile and the Problem- Solving and Decision-Making Style Inventory in my doctoral research. As I indicated to you I am completing my Ph.D. at Michigan State University in East Lansing, and am superintendent of schools in Skokie. Illinois. My research is being carried out in collaboration with Dr. Lawrence Lezotte of the National Center for Effective Schools. The focus of my study is leadership behavior of central office administrators in organizations restructuring toward decentralization. As I explained. I have used your instruments and I believe they would be most compatible with my study. However, in their printed form they present more explanatory information than is desired for a survey research project. I would have to alter the forms slightly, removing the descriptive and scoring information. The numbered items themselves and the directions for responding would not be altered. but I would have to print a version different from the one provided by University Associates. I am most appreciative that you were able to grant me per- mission to use your instruments. and also want to thank you for waiving any user fees. I have enclosed a general form used by universities when granting permission to use copyrighted material. I think it covers the parameters we discussed. As you explained, reliability/validity information for the above instruments does not exist. You did mention that some such information was available for the original LEAD instruments. If you have it, that information it would be very helpful to me. Again, I thank you for your prompt attention to and understanding of my research needs. If you ever need a school contact in the Chicago area, please call on me. I hold your products in high regard and would be happy to help your organization in some way. Sincerely yours, Vickie Markavitch a... t .M n-afl.’ I77 STATEMENT OF POLICY Concerning the Power Perception Profiles (self and other) and the Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Style Inventory: Permission is granted to use the Power Perception Profile. the Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Style Inventory developed and copyrighted by Leadership Studies, Incorporated, subject to the following conditions: \Imfi ulll: "Two. m 1. Use: The Forms may be used inhresearch project. They may not be used for promotional activities or for producing income on behalf of individuals or organizations. VKMflE'NUlnvnflflfiit 2. Adaptation pnd Revision: The direa/Ions and the format of the items may be adapted to specific situationl when such steps are considered desirable and do not inter- fere with the content and purpose of the instruments. ,vtuti museum's 3. Duplication: Sufficient copies for h specific researc project may be duplicated. ytme «mimic 6k 4. Inclusion in dissertzgions: Copies of the nstruments may be included in Wdissertationt Permission is granted for the duplication of dissertation. when filed with the University Microf In Service at Ann Arbor. Michigan 48106. I au§3 5. Copyright: In granting permission to modi y or duplicate th questionnaire. we do not surrender our copyright. Duplicated questionnaires and all adaptations should contain the notation ”Copyright 1979. 1988 by Leadership Studies, Inc. . 6. Reliability pnd Validity: Information as to the reliability and validity of these instruments is enclosed; or is available by writing to Permission as outlined above is hereby granted: zitLIIqo Date Peggy-lit Position BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, William F., and Bailey, Gerald D. "Managerial Leadership Behaviors: A Model of Choice." Egrfgrmaggg and Instrgstjgg 28 (January I989): 43-46. Afifi, J. W. "A Study of the Actual and Ideal Role Perceptions of Instructional Supervisors in the Public Schools in the Counties of Tennessee.” Qissgrtation Abstracts Intgrnational 41 (I980): lB49A-l850A. Anderson, M. L. "The Status and Role Perceptions of the Supervisor of Instruction in Mississippi Public Schools." Qissertatign Abstrgcts Internatiggal 39 (I979): 5623A. Babcock, Chester D. "The Emerging Role of the Curriculum Leader." In Role of Supervisor and urric m 'r ctor i Cha ge. Edited by Robert R. Leeper. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, I965. Baldridge, Victor J. "The Analysis of Organizational Change: A Human Relations Strategy Versus a Political System Strategy." R & D Memorandum 7S. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Center for R & D in Teaching, Stanford University Press, l97l. Barnard, Chester I. Thg Functions of the Execgtive. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, I938. Bauchner, J. E., and Loucks, S. F. "Building Administrators and Their Role in the Improvement of Practice." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associ- ation, New York, New York, I982. Beach, T. A. "The Perceptions of Teachers, Principals, and Supervisors of the Instructional Supervisory Support Services in Tennessee Public Schools." ' 5 ° t Intgrngtional 37 (I976): 5466A. Beck, Arthur C., and Hillmar, Elles D. ”What Managers Can Do to Turn Around Negative Attitudes in an Organization.” Mgpgggmgn; Bgngw 73 (January I984): 22. I78 179 Beck, John D. W. "Leadership in Education: A Field Test of Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory." Ph.D. disser- tation, University of Massachusetts, May I978. Behrens, Robert L. ”Rally Commitment for Your Vision.“ Thg Sghool Administrator 46 (March I989): l6. Bennis, Warren. Changing Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, I966. "Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior: The Problem of Authority." Administrgtjyg Scigncg anrtgrly 4 (l959-60): 26l. On Bgcoming a Leader. New York: Addison-Wesley, I989. "Transformation Power and Leadership." In Leadership and Orqgnizgtiongl Cultuyg. Edited by Thomas Sergiovanni and John Corbally. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1984. . Why Leaders Can’t Lead: The Unconscious Conspirggy Continues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, l989. , and Nanus, Burt. Leaders. New York: Harper and Row, 1985. Bird, Charles. Social Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, I940. Blake, R., and Mouton, J. The Managerisl Grid. Houston: Gulf, I964. Blau, P. M. "The Hierarchy of Authority in Organizations." American Journal of Sociology 73 (I968): 453-67. Block, Peter. The Empowered Manager: Positive Politicgl Skills at Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, I987. Blumberg, A. "Central Office Supervisors: A Brief Study Conducted by the ASCD Committee on Research on Central Office Super- vision." Alexandria, Va.: ASCD Committee on Research on Cen- tral Office Supervisors, 1984. Boucree, O. E. ”Role Perceptions and Expectations of Central Instructional Supervisory Personnel as Held by Principals and Teachers.” Dissgrtgtion Abstracts Intgrgational 4i (l979/8l): 4221A. Boulding, Kenneth. lhree Faces of Power. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1989. 180 Brande, R. T. "Supervisory Behaviors Which Contribute to the Improvement of Instruction: An Analysis of Teacher and Super- visor Perceptions." Dissertaiion Abstracts Intarnationa! 4l (I981): 4897A-4898A. Breniman, W. E. ”The Role of the Director of Instruction." Dissar- Iatipn Abstracis International 24 (I963): 2588A. Burch, B. G., and Danley, W. E., Sr. ”The Instructional Leadership Role of Central Office Supervisors." duca 'on e i 37, pp. 636-37. Burns, Tom, and Stalker, G. M. The Danagemepi of Innovation. London: Tavistock Publications, 196I. - Caldwell, Sarah D., and Wood, Fred H. "School-Based Improvement-- Are We Ready?" Educational Leadership 46 (October l988): 50-53. Cantrell, R. T. "Analysis of the Function of the Curriculum Director in Staff Development Programs of Georgia Public Schools With Pupil Enrollments Between 2,500 and I0,000." Dissertation Abstracts International 40 (I979): I766A. Capper, G. H. "A Study of Supervisory Procedures and Behaviors in Relation to Teacher Morale in Selected Cook County Schools." Dissertation Absiracts International 4I (l98l): 4223A. Cardenos, J. A. "Role Expectations for Instructional Supervisors as Expressed by Selected Supervisors, Administrators and Teachers." Dissertation Abstracts International 27 (I966): 2022A. Carlton, C. G. "Role of Instructional Supervisors as Perceived by Teachers and Principals in Selected Florida Elementary Schools." Dissertation Abstracts Internaiional 3I (I970): 4406A. Carmon, B. D. "Roles and Responsibilities in General Supervision of Instruction: A Synthesis of Research Findings, l955-l969." Dissertatipn Abstracts Internaiipnal 3I (I970): 4406A-4407A. Cartwright, D. C., and Zander, A. Gro nami ° R se rch and Theory. Evanston, III.: Row, Peterson, I960. Cawelti, G. "Effective Instructional Leadership Produces Greater Learning.” [hygsi for Educational Lgagerspip 9 (I980): 8-9. 181 Christensen, Donald J. ”The Curriculum Worker Today.” In Dgrrigu- lgm Laadars: Improving Their Influapce. Edited by Charles A. Speiker. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1976. Clark, D. L., and Astuto, T. A. ”Effective Schools and School Improvement: A Comparative Analysis of Two Lines of Inquiry.” duc i na Adminis atl n ar I 20 (1984): 41-68. Cohen, David M.; March, James G.; and Olson, J. P. ”A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice.” Admipistraiivg Scianca Duartarly I7 (1972). Colbert, J. E. "A Study of Effective and Ineffective Supervisory Behavior." Dissertation Abstracts Internaiiona! 27 (1966): 2306A. Common, Dianne L. "Power: The Missing Concept in the Dominant Model of School Change." Theory Into Practica 22 (Summer 1983): 203-210. Conley, Sharon C. "Reforming Paper Pushers and Avoiding Free Agents: The Teacher as a Constrained Decision Maker." Educational Administration Quarterly 24 (November 1988): 393-404. Cook, K. E. "The Relationship Between Teacher Perceptions of Supervisory Behavioral Style and Perceived Teacher Burnout." Dissertation Abstracts International 44 (1983): 8925A. Costa, A}, and Guditus, C. "Do District-wide Supervisors Make a Difference?" Educatipnal Leadership 41 (1984): 84-85. Cox, P. L. "Complementary Roles in Successful Change." Edusational Leadership 41 (1983): IO-I3. , and Havelock, R. "External Facilitators and Their Role in the Improvement of Practice.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, New York, 1982. Crandall, David. A t d '55 mi tion ffor s u 'n ch m m t. Vols. I-X. Andover, Mass.: The Network, 1982. . "Models of the School Improvement Process: Factors Contributing to Success." Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New York, New York, 1982. —— 182 Danley, W. E., Sr., and Burch, B. G. "Teacher Perceptions of the Effective Instructional Leader." Claaring flpgse 52 (1978): 78-79. David, Jane L. "Synthesis of Research on School-Based Management." Edgpatiopal Laadarship 46 (May 1989): 45-53. Davis, M. "An Exploration Into the Role of the Urban Instructional Supervisor Through an Identification of Approved Practices." Dissertation Abstracts International 39 (1979): 6499A. Deal, Terrence. ”The Culture of Schools.” Leadership; Examining tbs Elusive. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1987. "Educational Change: Revival Tent, Tinkertoys, Jungle, or Carnival?" In Rethinking School Improvement: Besaarsh, Craft, and Concept. Edited by Ann Lieberman. New York: Teachers College Press. Defeo, W. E. "The Role and Function of the Supervisor in the Public Schools of Northern New Jersey." Dissertatipn Abstragts Iniar- national 43 (1983): 3539A. Delehant, Ann M. "Personal Reflections on Shared Decision-Making: A Central Office View." The Sghppl Adminisiraigr 47 (September 1990): l4-I9. Deming, W. E. Out of Crisis. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, 1986. Derr, C. Brooklyn, and DeLong, T. J. "What Business Management Can Teach Schools." In The Managemepi of Educational Institutions. Edited by H. L. Gray. Sussex, England: Falmer Press, 1982. Diamond, S. C. "Toward Effective Supervision of Classroom Instruc- tion." NAS§E Bulletin (May 1979): 89-97. Dixon, Nancy. "Participative Management: It’s Not as Simple as It Seems." Supervispry Management 29 (December 1984): 2-8. Douglass, J. M., Jr. "Role of Instructional Supervisors as Per- ceived by Instructional Supervisors and Superintendents in Alabama." Disseriatipn Abstrasts Intarnarional 40 (1979): 5414A. Drake, Rodman L. "Innovative Structures for Managing Change." Elannipg Beviaw 14 (November I986): 22. Drucker, Peter F. Innovatipn and Entreprenaurship. New York: Harper and Row, 1985. 183 Drummond, Harold D. "Foreword.” In Bpla pf §gparyisor app Dgrripg- ' m e f h . Edited by Robert Leeper. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, I965. Ducharme, David J. ”The Relationship Between Maturity Level and Leader Behavior Preference Among Urban Elementary Teachers.” Unpublished thesis, University of Toronto, 1970. Eisenberg, E. M. ”Ambiguity as Strategy in Organizational Communica- tion." memunigaiipp Mpppgraphs 51 (1984): 227-42. Emrick, J. A., and Peterson, S. M. "A Synthesis of Findings Across Five Recent Studies on Educational Dissemination and Change." San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, I978. Fiedler, F. E. A Theory of Leadership Effagtiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Firestone, W. A., & Corbett, H. 0. "Schools Versus Linking Agents as Contributors to the Change Process." Educatipnal Evaluation and Policy Analysis 3, 5-17. Floyd, M. Kathryn. "Flexibility and Central Office Supervisors: The Instrumental Function of Fragmentation, Invisibility, and Ambiguity." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., April 1987. Fraser, James W. "Democratic Governance and Effective Education." Equity and Choipa 4 (Spring 1988): 45-50. Fraser, K. P. ”Supervisory Behavior and Teacher Satisfaction."' ngrnal of Edgcationai Administration, 18 (1980): 224-31. Frohman, Mark, and Pascarella, Perry. "Creating the Purposeful Organization." lndusiry Week, June 9, 1986, pp. 44-50. Fullan, M. lpe Mganing pf Educational Changa. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press, 1982. Gardner, J. W. c I : C n We ua nd x llen 7 New York: Harper and Row, 1971. Genck, Fredric H. "Scrutinize Test Scores to Gauge School Success.” Amarigan Schopl Dpard ngrnai 176 (August 1989): 27-28. George, C. S. The History of Management Thoughr. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall, 1972. 184 Getzels, Jacob W.; Lipman, James M.; and Campbell, Roald F. Eduga- tional Administration as a Social Procaas. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. Gibb, Cecil A. an b o ia s hol I. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1954. . "The Principles and Traits of Leadership." Jgurnal gf Abnormal and Sggial Esygholggy 42 (July 1947): 267-84. Glickman, C. D. Develgpmental Supervisiog. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1981. Goal -Based Education Program. "Effective Schooling Practices: A Research Synthesis." Portland, Ore.: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1984. Goodlad, John I. A Plaga Called Sghogl: Prgspegts for tha Future. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1983. Goslin, L. W. "District-Level Curriculum Leaders in Missouri Schools: Perceptions of Ideal Functions, Competencies, and Leadership Styles." Dissertatign Abstracts International 42 (1980): 525A. Griffiths, D. E. "Evolutions in Research and Theory: A Study of Prominent Researchers." Educational Administration Quarterly 19 (1983): 201-21. Groves, Andrew. High Qutggt Management. New York: Random House, 1983. Grubbs, M. R., and Reidenback, R. Eric. "Managing the Change to a Sales Organization." Magazina at Bank Administratign 62 (June 1986): 40-44. Halberstam, M. "W. Edwards Deming, The Man Who Taught Japan About Quality." Parade Magazine, July 8, 1984, pp. 4-7. Hall, C. S., and Lindzey, G. eori s f Pers it . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957. Hamilton, Norman K. ”Sensing and Timing in Change.“ d ti n Laadarship 27 (January 1970): 342. Harrington-Lueker, Donna. "Kentucky Starts From Scratch.” m ’ an School Board dogrnal 177 (September 1990): 17-20. Harris, 8. M. Sgparvisory Behavigr in Edugation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963. 185 Harrison, Cynthia R. "Site-Based Management: The Realities of Implementation." Educational Laadarahip 46 (May 1989): 55-58. Hass, Glen. "Introduction." Leadership fgr improving Instrggtigp. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1960. Hefferman, Helen, and Bishop, Leslee J. "The Supervisor and Cur- riculum Director at Work." In Bgla pf Sgpervisgr and Curricu- lgm Director in a C1imatg_gt_§hagga. Edited by Robert R. Leeper. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1965. Heller, Robert W.; Woodworth, Beth E.; Jacobson, Sephan L.; and Conway, James A. ”You Like School-Based Power, but You Wonder If Others Do." The Execgtive Educator 11 (November 1989): 15-17. Hemphill, John K. "Situational Factors in Leadership.” Monograph No. 32. Columbus: Bureau of Educational Research, The Ohio State University, 1949. Herman, Stanley M. "Participative Management Is a Double-Edged Sword." Training 26 (January 1989): 52-57. Hersey, P., and Blanchard, K. Management of Organizational Behavior:yti1izing Human Resourges. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977. . Management of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1982. Hickson, D. J.; Hinings, C. B.; Lee, C. A.; Schneck, R. E.; and Pennings, J. J. "A Strategic Contingencies Theory of Intra- organizational Power." Administrativa Sciange anrtarly 19 (1971): 215-29. Holder, C. W. ”Task Analysis of Selected Leadership Personnel Responsible for Instructional Supervision and/or Curriculum Development in Local School Systems of Georgia." Dissartation Abstracts iptgrpatignal 38 (1977): 4546A. Hollander, E. P. d ami ° r i i c- tiya_3glatigp§nip§. New York: Free Press, 1978. Homes, Michael Jon. ”The K-12 Curriculum Director in Michigan: His Characteristics, and His Self-Perceptions of Leader Behavior With Respect to Staff Development." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. 186 Hoy, W. K. "Recent Development in Theory and Research in Educa- tional Administration." Edueatigpal Administratigp anrterly 8 (1982): 1-11. Huberman, Michael, and Miles, Matthew B. Ippgyatigps up Clgse; flew Sehgol Improyement Works. New York: Plenum Press, 1984. . "Rethinking the Quest for School Improvement: Some Findings From the DESSI Study." leaehers lelege Record (Fall 1974): 40-49. "Rethinking the Quest for School Improvement: Some Find- ings From the DESSI Study." In Rethinking Sehgol Improvement; Research, Craft, and ancept. Edited by Ann Lieberman. New York: Teachers College Press, 1986. Iannaccone, Laurence, and Lutz, Frank W. 1i ow n Polity. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, 1970. Jennings, Eugene E. An Anatomy of Leadership. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960. . "The Anatomy of Leadership." Management of Persgnnel Quarterly 1 (Autumn 1961). Kanter, Rosebeth Moss. The Change Masters. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983. . "Women of the Moment." P r n m nt 18 (September 1986): 22-24. Klohr, Paul R. "Looking Ahead in a Climate of Change." In Bgle gf Supervisor and Curriculum Director in a Climate gf Charge. Edited by Robert R. Leeper. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1965. Kordomenos, V. L. "An Examination and Comparison of Perceptions of the Role of Instructional Specialists of the Mobile County Public School System as Perceived by Instructional Specialists, Principals, Teachers, and Area Personnel.” Dissertatigp Abstracts International 42 (1981): 2407A. Korman, A. K. "Consideration, Initiating Structure, and Organiza- tional Criteria--A Review.” P rsonnel 0 ° A r a1 gf_Applied_Aeseareh 19 (Winter 1966): 349-61. Kouzas and Posner. a r n . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987. 187 Kyle, J. D. ”Teacher Perceptions of the Instructional Specialist: Essential Behavior Expectations, Role Preference, and Elected Sources of Effective Instructional Support.” Qissertatipn Abstraets lnterpatippal 41 (1984): 3268A. Leeper, Robert R., ed. 1 Su rv n r i 1 f n e. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1965. Lewis, Anne. Bestrgetgripg America’s Sehogls. Arlington, Va.: American Association of School Administrators, 1989. Lezotte, Lawrence A. “Base School Improvements on Effective-Schools Research." Ameriean School Board Journal 176 (August 1989): 18-20. "Strategic Assumptions of the Effective Schools Process." Okemos, Mich.: National Center for Effective Schools, 1988. "Successful School Improvement: Triumphs of Leadership and Empowerment." Okemos, Mich.: National Center for Effec- tive Schools, 1987. , and Maksimowicz, Michelle L. A District Plan for Sepggl m r m t. Lansing: Michigan Institute for Educational Management, 1989. Lieberman, Ann, and Miller, Lynne. "School Improvement: Themes and Variations." In thi ’ S h men ' r Craft, and Concept. Edited by Ann Lieberman. New York: Teachers College Press, 1986. Lipsitz, Joan. Suc 1 Scho ls f r Y un Adolesc n . New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1984. Loftus, W. J. "The Role of the Central Office Instructional Leader in Selected Public Elementary School Districts. lQissertatigp Abstragts lnterpatignna141 (1980): 5675A. London, Manuel. Chagge_Agepts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988. Lott, J. G. "A Statistical Study of the Concepts of the Role of the Instructional Supervisor." Qissertatigp Abstraets lpterna- tigpal 24 (1963): 2324A. Loucks, Susan F., and Cox, Pat L. ”School District Personnel: A Crucial Role in School Improvement Efforts." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, New York, March, 1982. 188 Loucks, Susan; Cox, Pat; Miles, Matthew; Huberman, Michael; and Eiseman, Jeffrey. ”Portraits of the Changes, the Players, and the Contexts." In A Stgdy of Disseminatign Effgrts Sgpporting Sehool Imprgvement. Edited by David Crandall. Andover, Mass.: The Network, 1982. Loucks, Susan F., and Hall, G. E. "Implementing Innovations in Schools: A Concerns-Based Approach.” Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California, 1979. Louis, K. S. , and Ke11,D. The Human Easter in Disseni natign; Eield Agent Rgles in Their Organizational So mte t. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates, 1981. Lovell, J. T., and Phelps, M. S. Supervision in Tennessee; A Study of the Perceptigns gf Teachers, Prineipals, and Supervisors. Murfreesboro: Tennessee Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1976. MacKenzie, D. "Research for School Improvement: An Appraisal of Some Recent Trends." Educational Researcher 12 (1983): 5-17. Malen, Betty; Ogawa, Rodney T.; and Kranz, Jennifer. "Unfulfilled Promises: Evidence Says Site-Based Management Hindered by Many Factors." Ine,School Administrator 47 (February 1990): 30-32. Marburger, Carl L. One Sehogl at a Time. Columbia, Md.: National Committee for Citizens in Education, 1985. Marchak, N. "The Role Expectations for the Supervisor of Instruc- tion as Seen by Supervisors of Instruction, Teachers, and Prin- cipals." Dissertation Abstracts Internatignal 30 (1969): 4729A. March, John, and Simon, H. Organization. New York: John Wiley, 1958. Maxcy, Spencer J., and Caldas, Stephen J. "Moral Examination and the Philosophy of School Leadership.". Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa- tion, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 1988. Mayo, C. R. "The Relationship Between Perceptions of Organizational Characteristics and Role Conflict Among Instructional Super- visors in Virginia.” Qissertatign Abstraets International 43 (1983): 3173A. Mayo, Elton. he ' P oblems of an nd r 1 Civilization. Boston: Harvard Business School, 1945. 189 ,McClelland, David C. Human Motivatign. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987. McGregor, Douglas. uma i e f nt r ' . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. McTague, Michael. ”Productivity Is Shaped by Forces Beneath Corporate Culture.” Eersonnel Journal 65 (March 1986): 20-23. Meade, Edward, Jr. ”Philanthropy and Public Schools: One Founda- tion’s Evolving Perspective." New York: Ford Foundation, 1979. Meussling, Vonne. "The Corporate Culture Climate at the Crossroads: Back to the Future." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Boston, Mass., November 1987. Miller, D. W. "Teachers’ Appraisals of Selected Supervisory Practices." Dissertation Abstracts Internatignal 20 (1959): 3157A. Milstein, M. M. "Training Internal Change Agents for Schools." In lhe Management of Educational Institutions. Edited by H. L. Gray. Sussex, England: Falmer Press, 1982. Mintzberg, H. D. The Nature of ManagerialWork. New York: Harper and Row, 1973. . "The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact." Harvard Busi- ness Review 53 (1975): 89-119. . "The Structure of Unstructured Decision Processes." Administrative Quarterly Revieu 21 (1976): 246-75. Mitchell, James E. "Coaxing Staff From Cages for Site-Based Decisions to Fly." lhe School Administratgr 47 (February 1990): 23-29. Morgan, G. m o r n i . Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1986. Moyer, Herbert S., and Makoneczny, Robert W. ”Shaping Tomorrow Through a Budget Planning and Review Process--A Collaborative Approach." Unpublished paper, Bedford Public Schools, Temperance, Mich., 1988. Mulford, W. "Consulting With Education Systems Is About the Facili- tation of Coordinated Effort." In The Management of Eduea- tignal lnstitutigns. Edited by H. L. Gray. Sussex, England: Falmer Press, 1982. 190 Murphy, Jerome T. ”The Paradox of Decentralizing Schools: Lessons From Business, Government, and the Catholic Church." Ebi Delta Kappan 70 (June 1989): 808-12. Murphy, Joseph. “Educational Reform in the 1980’s: Explaining Som Surprising Success." ducati na Ev a i n n 1 - sis 11 (Fall 1989): 209-21. Murphy, J., and Hallinger. "Characteristics of Instructionally Effective School Districts." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, Calif., April 1986. Natchigal, Paul. A o n i n Goe o c . New York: Ford Foundation, 1972. Neagley, Ross L;, and Evans, N. Dean. an o r ff Supervision of Instruction. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. Norman, M. C. "An Analysis of Perceptions of Atlanta Public School Administrators Regarding Central and Area Responsibility in Personnel, Curriculum, and Instructional Supervision.” Disser- tatign Abstracts Internatignal 39 (1978): 56A. Ohme, Herman. "Ohme’s Law of Instructional Change." Ebi Delta Kappan 59 (1977): 263. O’Neil, John. "Piecing Together the Restructuring Puzzle." Eduea; tional Leadership 47 (April 1990): 4-10. Ouchi, W. G. Theory 1. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1981. Palardy, J. Michael. "Institutional Structure: An Impediment to Professionalism." NASSP Bulletin 72 (May 1988): 83-84. Pascale, Richard Tanner, and Athos, Anthony F. Ihe Art of Japanese Management. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981. Pascarella, Perry. "Resistance to Change.” Industry Week, July 27, 1987, pp. 45-47. Paulu, Nancy. "Key Player in School Reform: The Superintendent.” lhe Schgol Administrator 46 (March 1989): 8-15. Peters, Lee Gordon. ”Some Aspects of Leader Style, Adaptability and Effectiveness Among Western Massachusetts Principals.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, September 1974. 191 Peters, Thomas, and Austin, Nancy. A Passion fer Excellenee. New York: Random House, 1985. Peters, Thomas L., and Waterman, Robert H. 5 ar 0 1 nc . New York: Harper and Row, 1982. Pfeffer, J. ”The Ambiguity of Leadership.” In Leadersbip: Mnere Else Dan Me Gd? Edited by M. W. McCall and M. M. Lombardo. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1978. Plato. lbe Republie. New York: Modern Library, 1964. Purkey, S. C., and Smith, M. 5. "School Reform: The District Policy Implications of the Effective Schools Literature." Elementary Schgol Jgurnal 85 (1985): 353-89. Ramseyer, John. ”A Concept of Educational Leadership." Leadership for Improving Instruction. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1960. Ravitch, 0. he Tr bl d rusade: Am ri a d ti n 9 -1 8 . New York: Basic Books, 1984. Raynor, Maryse R. "A Study of the Relationship Among Knowledge of Leadership Theory, Behavior and Effectiveness." Ph.D. disser- tation, University of Massachusetts, 1976. Reddin, W. J. Managerial Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. . "The 3-D Management Style Theory." Tr ' in and v ment Journal (April 1967): 8-17. Rentz, R. R. "The Relationship Between Supervisors’ Activities and Their Perceptions of the Purpose of Supervision." Ph.D. dis- sertation, University of Georgia, 1969. Rist, Marilee C. "Chicago Decentralizes.” Amer can ch 0 ard Journal 177 (September 1990): 24. Roberson, G. T. "An Analysis of Role Perceptions in Instructional Supervision by Secondary Public School Administrators in St. Charles and St. Louis Counties." Dissertation Abstraets Internatignal 40 (1979): 5681A. Ross, G. S. "A Description of Activities of North Carolina Supervisors as Self-Reported." Di 5 rtation A ra t International 29 (1968): 2449A. 192 Royster, E. C., and Madey, D. L. l ' a i h m ov - n d r t e me t at E ueatibnal E as it . Mel= III; A Study at Linker Agent Aetiyities and Rules. Durham, N.C.: NTS Research Corpo- ration, 1980. Rutrough, James E. ”Emerging Role of the Director of Instruction.” MW 27 (April 1970): 721. Saunders, Robert L.; Phillips, Ray C.; and Johnson, Harold T. A or E ’ Le der i . Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1966. Schatz, Kenneth, and Schatz, Linda. £urpgse_1net Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1986. Schlecty, Phillip C., and Joslin, Anne Walker. "Images of Schools." In Rethinking School Imprgvement: Research. Craft, and Sun- eept. Edited by Ann Lieberman. New York: Teachers College Press, 1986. Schmuck, R. A. "Organization Development for the 1980’s.” In lbe Management of Educational Institutions. Edited by H. L. Gray. Sussex, England: Falmer Press, 1982. Seigel, Peggy, and Smoley, Eugene, Jr. "Restructuring Education: Parallels With the Private Sector." Paper presented at the National Governors’ Association, Washington, D.C., March 1988. Sergiovanni, Thomas. "The Theoretical Basis for Cultural Leader- ship.” Leadership: Examining the Elusiye. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1987. ; Burlingame, Martin; Coombs, Fred; and Thurston, Paul. Educational Governance and Administratign. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1987. Sergiovanni, Thomas J., and Carver, Fred 0. The New Sghogl Emeeutive: A Theorv of Administratign. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1980. Sergiovanni, Thomas J., and Elliot, D. Edueational and Drganiza- i eadershi ment h . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975. Sergiovanni, Thomas J., and Starratt, Robert. Emerging Eatterns pf Supervision: Human Eerspectives. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. 193 Shafer, Harold T., and MacKenzie, Gordon. ”Securing Competent Instructional Leaders." In Rule pf Supervisor and Currieulum irector m of C an e. Edited by Robert R. Leeper. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1965. Sheive, Linda Tinelli. ”New roles for Administrators in Rochester." Educational Leadership 46 (November 1988): 53-55. Shinn, Byron Merrick. "A Study of Superintendent, Principal and Curriculum Director Perceptions of Role in the Educational Program.” Ed.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1969. Shores, Harlan. "Foreword.” Toward Ergfessibnal Maturity gf Supervisors and Durrieulum Workers. Washington, D.C.: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1967. Simon, R. I. "Mysticism, Management and Marx." In lhe Management of Educational Institutibns. Edited by H. L. Gray. Sussex, England: Falmer Press, 1982. Smith, B. "A Literature Review on What Makes Central Office Supervisors Effective." Unpublished paper, University of Georgia, November 1983. Sponsored in part by the Effective Supervisors Project of the Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Smith, Mary J. "Effectiveness in Urban Elementary Schools: A Function of the Interaction Between Leadership Behavior of Principals and Maturity of Followers." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, December 1974. Smythe, John. "A Research Agenda: An Alternative Vision and an ’Educative’ Agenda for Supervision as a Field of Study." dgurnal bf Currieulum and Supervisign 4 (Winter 1989): 162-77. Spears, M. D. "A Comparison of the Observed and Ideal Roles of the Supervisor of Instruction as Perceived by Supervisors, Princi- pals, and Teachers in the State of Louisiana.” Dissertatign Abstracts Internatignal 41 (1980): 2397A. Speiker, Charles A., ed. Currieulum Leaders; Imprgving Their Influenee. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1976. Srisa, A. W. "A Microscopic Analysis of Role Dimensions of Curricu- lum Directors: Perceptions and Expectations of Superintend- ents, Curriculum Directors, and Principals.” Dissertatign Abstracts Internatignal 28 (1967): 2463A. 194 Stampen, Jacob. ”Improving the Quality of Education: W. Edwards Deming and Effective Schools.” Dentempgrary Edueatign Review 3 (Winter 1987): 423-33. Staunton, J. Donald. "Balancing Your ’Power’ to Sharpen Your Managerial Skills." Eerfgrmange and Instruetign 23 (April 1984): 24-26. Steele, Fritz. The Mole bf tne Internal Donsultant. Boston, Mass.: CBI Publishing Co., 1982. Stimson, Terry D. "Empowering Teachers: Do Principals Have the Power?" Ehi Delta kappan 71 (December 1988): 313-16. Stogdill, R. M. ”Personal Factors Associated With Leadership: A Survey of the Literature." dgurnal gf Esyeholggy 25 (January 1948): 35-36. ‘ Stogdill, R. M., and Coons, Alvin E., eds. Leader Dehayior; Its Description and Measurement. Research Monograph No. 8. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State Univer- sity, 1957. Stover, Del. "What’s Cooking in School-Based Management." Execu- tive Educator 11 (January 1989): 19. Stringfield, Sam, and Teddlie, Charles. "A Time to Summarize: The Louisiana School Effectiveness Study." Edueational Leadership 46 (October 1988): 43-49. Sullivan, C. G. "Supervisory Expectations and Work Realities: The Great Gulf." Edueational Leadership 39 (March 1982): 448-51. Tannenbaum, Robert; Weschler, Irving R.; and Massarik, Fred. Leadership and Organization: A Behavioral Science Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. Taylor, Frederick W. The Prineiples of Scientific Management. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1911. Thomas, K. O. "The Status and Role Perceptions of the Supervisor of Instruction in Louisiana Public Schools." Dissertation Abstracts Internatignal 42 (1981): 2430A-2431A. Timar, Thomas B., and Kirp, David L. "Educational Reform and Institutional Competence." Harvard Edueational Revieu 57 (August 1987). Urick, Ronald, and Frymier, Jack R. "Personalities, Teachers and Curriculum Change.” Educatignal Leadership 21 (November 1963): 108. Vaill, Peter. "The Purposing of High Performing Systems.” In Leadership and Drganizational Dultures. Edited by Thomas Sergiovanni and John Corbally. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1984. . ”The Requisites of Visionary Leadership.” In Managing_as a Perfgrming Art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989. Vroom, V. H., and Yetton, P. W. Leadership and Degision Making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973. Wiles, Kimball. lbe Dhanging Curriculum pf the Ameriean Higb Schggl. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Wimpelberg, Robert K. "Instructional Leadership and Ignorance: Guidelines for the New Studies of Direct Administrators.” Education and Urban Society 20 (May 1988): 302-10. Wood, Carolyn J. "Participatory Decision Making: Why Doesn’t It Seem to Work?" Educational Forum 49 (Fall 1984): 55-64. "‘mmmmmES