in

‘\

 

A1...0)..i.p7. 1:4. '30-"
vv . 5.111463.-
4 :l’litin 3.

acres? } in»?! . 43...” . e395. :3
t.
.

.Iléptfl
.tt ‘t.ol¢l.’v!‘=
. 5 co to.

 

 

 

t.v...pul}.“.
.. ..cbV-Il-vlv09.
l I) .

L.’ Grlvl. I .
t.a.¢\lo-.h .4
‘ rt?

73-... .L‘ . vile)!
.(fllrasl.

Slit-1 .vil.31u.rl.
f!.o’\-f.bt!l.‘n .l: ;.to|vl|~.t1V
.. 2107!! .. q. l‘l.v|..lllv ..b l...-

arrrsilf .O.I$..vt.‘rl .DII’A.

 

‘HEfilS

KIAN sure mavensm LIBRARIES "'

‘will11121111:mmmummllMinimum!

93 00794 9799

 

.______

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Organizational Goal Congruence in Schools:
An Exploratory Multi-Level Analysis

presented by

Jeffrey Bret Vancouver

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D . degree in Psychology

M/M

Major professor

Date yAl/H
/ /

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

 

 

—_I___L.—_——

 

K" N
LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

K. 1

 

 

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

l
l l_____.
—I . _—l l

. Al
7:

WT;

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
cmmut

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORGANIZATIONAL GOAL CONGRUENCE IN SCHOOLS:
AN EXPLORATORY MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS

by

Jeffrey Bret Vancouver

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1989

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

ORGANIZATIONAL GOAL CONGRUENCE IN SCHOOLS:
AN EXPLORATORY MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS

by

Jeffrey B. Vancouver

This study defined four types of goal congruence based on type of
comparison (between-constituency vs. within-constituency) and level of analysis
(individual vs. organizational). The constituencies examined were within schools;
specifically, the principal and the teacher constituency. The goal congruence
terms were hypothesized to relate to job attitudes including job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, intention to quit, participative decision making
climate, stress and adjustment. Individual-level goal congruence terms included
agreement between the supervisor and subordinate and agreement between an
organizational member and his or her peers. At the organizational level
between-constituency goal congruence was defined as the agreement between all
subordinates and the supervisor, and within-constituency goal congruence was
defined as the overall agreement on organizational goals among all the teachers
in a school.

Goal importance ratings and attitude scale scores were collected from
14,721 teachers and 364 principals in a number of states using mailed
questionnaires. Goal congruence was measured by computing the difference

between profiles of the goal importance ratings of constituency members.

m.“ ’ J

.r—- .v ~o
V.‘ .‘

a

Results indicated that both type of comparison and level of
conceptualization are useful distinctions in that they provided a great deal of
information about whose agreement on goals was important. Moderate (.10 to
.30) correlations were found between three of the goal congruence terms
(supervisor-subordinate, member-constituency, and within-constituency) and job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention to quit.

Analyses on the interrelationship among the goal congruence terms
revealed that the peer agreement goal congruence terms tended to maintain their
relationships with the attitude variables even when the effects of the other goal
congruence terms were statistically removed using partial correlation analyses.
Most notably, peer agreement overshadowed supervisor-subordinate agreement in
terms of explaining variance in the attitude scales.

The results of this study demonstrated to some extent that failure to agree
can have negative consequences for the organization and its membership.
Agreement is particularly important among one’s peers in an organization.
Discussion focusses on the relative importance of each goal congruence term in
understanding associations with job attitudes. Suggestions for future research
concentrate on refining the understanding of goal specificity and peer group

boundaries.

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Challenging seems an appropriate word to describe the process of writing
a dissertation. The challenge was ultimately mine, but a number of people
suffered the consequences of this particular challenge. I would like to
acknowledge some of these people formally.

First, I would like to thank my wife, Laurie. Her understanding, warmth,
and support provided the base from which I could meet my challenge. May the
challenges of our life together meet with the same success as this challenge.

I thank the National Association of Secondary School Principals for
providing the data necessary to do this study. Also, I offer a special thanks to
Mary Doherty, fellow graduate student, for her extensive work on the data
collection process and for being a friend throughout.

Thanks to my exceptional committee for reading early drafts of my
proposal even though they did not have to, and for meeting Summer Term even
though they did not have to. Specifically, thanks to Daniel R. Ilgen and J. Kevin
Ford for going through this process with me twice, once for the master’s thesis
and again for the dissertation, and to Mary Ann Reinhart for providing me sage

advise throughout much of my graduate career.

iv

Finally, I thank Dr. Neal Schmitt, professor extraordinaire, for turning an
improbable challenge into merely a formidable one. Together we tested ideas,

refined concepts, coalesced data, interpreted results, and met the challenge.

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................... xiv
INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1
Background .......................................... 2

SSGC .......................................... 7

MCGC ......................................... 7

BCGC ......................................... 8

WCGC ......................................... 8

Summary ..................................... l . . 9

Overview ............................................ 9
Organizational Goals ................................... 11
Number of Goals ................................. 12

Number of Actors ................................. 13

Reification ...................................... 15

Individual Analysis ........................... 16

Aggregation ................................ 16

Summary ....................................... 17
Individual-Level Goal Congruence .......................... 18

Supervisor/ Subordinate Goal Congruence ............... 18

Leader-Member Exchange ...................... 18
Factors Associated with SSGC ................... 20
Participation ........................... 21

Satisfaction ............................ 22
Organizational commitment ................ 23

Intention to quit ........................ '23

Summary .................................. 24
Member-Constituency Goal Congruence ................. 24
Cohesion .................................. 25
Team-Building .............................. 27
Climate Discrepancy .......................... 28

Other Research ............ » ................. 30
Factors Associated with MCGC .................. 30

Size ................................. 31

Participation ........................... 31

Satisfaction ............................ 32

Intention to quit ........................ 33

Stress and adjustment .................... 33

Teachers as a Group .......................... 33
Summary .................................. 34

The Relationship Between SSGC and MCGC ............. 35
Individual-Level Hypothesis .......................... 38

vii

 

Composition Models .................................... 39

Two Composition Models ........................... 40
Organizational-Level Goal Congruence ...................... 41
Between-Constituency Goal Congruence ................. 41
Research Demonstrating BCGC .................. 42

Summary ............................. 45

Factors Associated With BCGC .................. 45

Participation ........................... 46

Satisfaction ............................ 47

Intention to quit and organizational

commitment ...................... 47
Between-Constituency Hypothesis ................ 48
Within-Constituency Goal Congruence .................. 49
Group Goals and Cohesion ..................... 51
Group goals ........................... 52

Cohesion ............................. 53

Factors Associated with WCGC .................. 54

Size ................................. 54

Participation in decision making ............ 54

Job Satisfaction and organizational commitment . 55

Intent to quit .......................... 55
Stress and adjustment .................... 55
Within-Constituency Hypotheses ................. 55

viii

Summary ............................................ 56

METHOD ................................................ 58
Background .......................................... 58
Subjects and Units of Analyses ............................ 58

Schools ........................................ 59
Principals ....................................... 60
Teachers ....................................... 60
Measures ............................................ 60
Goal Congruence ................................. 62
Goal Ratings ............................... 62

SSGC ..................................... 63
MCGC .................................... 64
BCGC .................................... 64
WCGC .................................... 66
Correlates ...................................... 66
Participation in Decision Making ................. 66

Job Satisfaction .............................. 67
Organizational Commitment .................... 67
Intention to Quit ............................ 68
Adjustment ................................. 68

Stress ..................................... 68
Covariate ....................................... 68

Measurement Issues ............................... 69

Procedure ............................................ 70

Data Analyses ........................................ 70
Descriptive Data .................................. 70

Degree of Agreement .............................. 71

Tests of Hypotheses ............................... 72

Composition Models ............................... 73

RESULTS ................................................ 74
Descriptive Statistics .................................... 74

Goals .......................................... 74

Attitude Scales ................................... 76

Goal Congruence ................................. 76

Size ........................................... 79
Individual-Level Hypothesis ............................... 79
Hypothesis One .................................. 79
Organizational-Level Hypotheses .......................... 81
Hypothesis Two .................................. 82

Hypothesis Three ................................. 85

Partial Correlations ..................................... 86
DISCUSSION .............................................. 87
Between-Unit Compared to Within-Unit Goal Congruence ........ 88

Individual-Level Compared to Organizational-Level Goal

Congruence ..................................... 89
Individual-Level Findings ................................. 92
The Relationship of SSGC and MCGC ................. 92

SSGC .......................................... 93
MCGC ......................................... 95
Organizational-Level Findings ............................. 97
BCGC ......................................... 97
WCGC ......................................... 99
Levels of Analysis Issues ................................. 99
Limitations ........................................... 101
Selection ....................................... 101
MethodBias..................... ................ 102
Generalizability .................................. 102
Direction of Causality .............................. 103
Implications and Future Directions of Research ................ 103
Goal Specificity ........... . ....................... 104
Defining the Constituency ........................... 105

The Thinking Organization .......................... 106
Conclusion ........................................... 107
APPENDIX A ............................................. 109

TABLE 1:
TABLE 2:
TABLE 3:
TABLE 4:
TABLE 5:
TABLE 6:

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

Research on Organizational Goal Congruence ............. 4
Demographic Characteristics of Principals ................. 61
Means on Goals ................................... 75
Scale Statistics .................................... 77
Scale Intercorrelation Matrix .......................... 80
Comparison of Correlations with Partial Correlations ........ 84

xiii

FIGURE 1:
FIGURE 2:
FIGURE 3:
FIGURE 4:
FIGURE 5:
FIGURE 6:
FIGURE 7:

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Types of Goal Congruence .......................... 6
Composition Models . . . . . . . . . . . .- ................... 41
Calculation of Goal Congruence Terms in Matrix Form ..... 65
Highest Supervisor-Subordinate Goal Congruence .......... 78
Lowest Supervisor-Subordinate Goal Congruence .......... 78
Between-Constituency Goal Congruence Model ........... 89
Within-Constituency Goal Congruence Model ............. 90

xiv

..,£aw1:-I""

 

 

‘%

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

To achieve success in an educational institution, an organization

must build a team, a true team in which individual efforts are

welded into a common effort, where each member contributes

something toward a common goal. Each position and each

individual effort must be directed toward the objectives of the total

enterprise (I. 1. Dow, 1981, p. 375).

Dow’s call for the involvement of all organizational members in the goals
of the organization is not unique to educational institutions. Organizational goals
reflect the values and commitments of the founders and leaders of organizations
(Schien, 1985), and to some extent, the people who make up the organization
(Schneider, 1975). The degree to which these people agree on the priorities of
organizational goals may have profound effects on outcomes considered important
to the organization and the people (e.g. Kochan, Cumming, & Huber, 1976).

This study integrates the content areas of organizational development,
organizational theory, group processes, and leadership to test hypotheses
concerning the effects of goal congruence on outcomes relevant to schools and

the teachers who work in them.

‘5.

 

 

 

 

guy,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

Background

Any textbook on strategic management emphasizes the importance of a
well articulated statement of mission and organizational objectives (e.g., Donnelly,
Gibson, & Ivancevich, 1987; Koontz, & Weihrich, 1988). These writers suggest
through case study and anecdotal evidence that the best organizations know
where they are going, if not how to get there. With a mission, organizational
members can pull together and focus their efforts on similar goals. Thus,
organizational objectives assume a central role in the normative models of
strategic planners.

Advocates of strategic planning project both a sophisticated model of the
organization and an untested assumption. The sophistication lies in the
acknowledgement that organizational members or groups of members must be
considered because these people may hold different goals for the organization.
Specifically, these strategists advise the organization to consider imbuing the
members with the organization’s goals. At the same time, the strategists are
assuming that congruence on those goals will lead to positive organizational
outcomes. There are reasons to believe that congruence does related to positive
outcomes, but the actual empirical evidence is scarce.

The supposed relationship between agreement on organizational goals and
outcomes may be most compelling when outcomes are the attitudes, beliefs and
intentions of organizational members. Job attitudes about satisfaction and
organizational commitment; beliefs about participation in decision making, stress
from work, and abilities to adjust to the work environment; and intentions to quit

are all outcomes that have received substantial attention in the organizational

 

 

3

behavior literature. Nevertheless, the associations of agreement on organizational
goals with these attitudes, beliefs and intentions (hereafter collectively referred to
as attitudes) have received only scant attention‘. This study was designed to
provide evidence regarding these possible relationships. Because of the
exploratory nature of this study, simple associations, rather than direction of
causality were assessed.

Several issues arose when attempting to make these associations. For
instance, which comparisons need to be made? At what level of
conceptualization should these comparisons and associations‘be made? How are
agreement and attitudes assessed? Most of these issues are discussed via an
overview of the role of goals in organizational theory and research on forms of
goal congruence and other similar concepts. The various possible ways of
conceptualizing agreement as to organizational goals are discussed in the next
section.

f l n n

There are numerous actors and factions within an organization whose goal
priorities may or may not coincide (Mintzberg, 1983). The degree to which they
coincide, I am calling goal congruence. Goal congruence has only recently come
under the scrutiny of organizational researchers. Table 1 describes eleven studies
on organizational goal congruence. These studies have occurred at two levels --
the individual and the organizational. At the individual level, supervisor and

subordinate goal priorities are compared, and their level of agreement correlated

 

‘ Role conflict and role ambiguity are similar conceptualizations only at a much
more micro (job) level.

 

 

f
l

 

TABLE 1: Research on Organizational Goal Congruence

51nd!

Avi-Itzhak
(1985)

Barkhaus (1974)

Bourgeous
(1985)

Jauch, Osborn,

& Terpening
(1980)

Kochan, Cummings,
& Huber (1976)

Leana (1986)
Reichers (1986)

Schmink (1985)
Vroom (1960)

Level

Organizational

Organizational

Organizational

Individual

Organizational

Organizational

Individual

Individual

Organizational

Individual

1&9:

Between

Between

Between

Within

Between

Between

Between

Between

Between

Between

Correlates

None

None

Organizational
Performance

Commitment

Conflict,
Dispersion
of Power

Conflict,
Position

Performance

Commitment,
Role
Conflict,

Job Sat.

None

Commitment,
Participation

 

5
with various subordinate outcomes. At the organizational level, the goal
congruence research has tended merely to describe the existence of differences
between top management and employees.

Four types of goal congruence, based on the level of conceptualization and
the type of comparison, are considered in this paper. The two levels are
organizational and individual. The two types of comparison are between-unit and
within-unit. Between-unit goal congruence consists of congruence in goals held
by members of different hierarchical positions in the organization’s structure.
These hierarchical positions are referred to as constituencies, which are groups of
people with a similar vested interest in the organization (e.g., customers, line
workers, or management). Within-unit congruence is the agreement among
individuals within a single constituency regarding the importance of various goals.

The selection of these four types of goal congruence is a function of both
the theoretical consideration of organizational models and the practical
considerations of the study sample. The study takes advantage of an archival
data set collected from principals and teachers from a large number of schools.
The principal and teachers within a school form two important constituencies. To
assess the between-unit goal congruence, goal ratings are compared between
these two constituencies at both the individual level (i.e., principal/teacher
dyads), and the organizational level (i.e., aggregation of principal/teacher dyads
by school).

Within-unit goal congruence refers to the level of agreement within a

single constituency -- teachers. Because only a single principal exists within each

 

school, it is not possible to examine the differences in goal priorities among this

constituency. At the individual level, within-unit goal congruence involves a
comparison of a teacher’s goal priorities with the goal priorities of all the other
teachers in the school. At the organizational level, within-unit goal congruence is
the average of all of the teachers’ goal congruences within a school. The goal
congruence terms are summarized in the 2 X 2 table presented below (Figure l).
The table defines four cells with level of conceptualization on the vertical axis

and type of comparison on the horizontal axis.

TYPE OF COMPARISON

 

 

 

 

 

 

BETWEEN-UNIT WITHIN-UNIT
L
ORGANI- Between-Constituency Within-Constituency
E ZATIONAL Goal Congruence Goal Congruence
(BCGC) (WCGC)
INDIVID- Supervisor/Subordinate Member-Constituency
E UAL Goal Congruence Goal Congruence
(SSGC) (MCGC)
L

FIGURE 1: Types of Goal Congruence

To assess congruence, I used two sets of goal ratings. One set was from
the principal of the school. The second set was from the individual teachers.
From these two sets, the four comparisons of goal priorities were made. Each
comparison is a type of goal congruence (see Figure 1). These types of goal

congruence are described in more detail below.

 

559$:

The individual representation of between-unit goal congruence is

supervisor-subordinate goal congruence (SSGC). Within the setting of schools,
the supervisor is the principal and the individual or subordinate is the teacher.
The importance ratings of 14 school goals by both the teacher and his or her
principal are compared to index SSGC. The method of this comparison is a form
of profile analysis called the D statistic to be described much later in the chapter
on methods.

The degree to which teachers’ goals are congruent with their supervisors’ is
an issue of the supervisor/subordinate relationship. Therefore, the leadership
literature is reviewed as a source of theory and research on this relationship.
Specifically, the theory of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) deals with the dyadic
relationship between each individual and his or her supervisor. LMX theory and
research is used as a source of hypotheses regarding correlates of SSGC such as
participation in decision making climate, turnover intentions, stress, adjustment,
organizational commitment, and job satisfaction.

megs

Individual teachers can also vary in their congruence with fellow teachers
in their school. Each teacher’s goal ratings profile is compared with the profiles
of all the other teachers in their school. The average agreement with the other
teachers’ ratings is the measure of MCGC. Research has not examined this type
of congruence. MCGC is very similar to the group cohesiveness construct, hence
I have generated hypotheses regarding MCGC based on group cohesiveness

research. Also, the comparison of individuals with their peers is a further

 

 

8

exploration of the climate discrepancy notions of Joyce and Slocum (1982).
Climate discrepancy is the difference between an individual’s perception of the
organization’s environment and the perceptions of others within that environment.
Results of the review suggest job satisfaction as well as the other outcomes
mentioned above may be correlated with MCGC.
BCGC

The third comparison is between the principal and all of his or her
teachers on goal rating profiles. This is goal congruence at the organizational
level which is hypothesized to relate to attitudes of the teachers within the school.
Participation in decision making climate, intentions to quit, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment are thought to relate to BCGC. It is argued that
aggregations of the principal/teacher dyads’ congruence (SSGC discussed above)
within a school can be examined for its effect on outcomes relevant to the total
organization. Team-building research is evoked as a possible, although
confounded, source of evidence linking BCGC to organizational correlates.
Team-building is confounded in the sense that the ideal team has both between-
and within-constituency goal congruence. Because of this, it is not known
whether between, within, or both types of congruence are responsible for the
types of relationships described in the team-building literature.

we

I hypothesized that the degree of agreement within a constituency on the
goals of the organization relates to job satisfaction, participation in decision
making climate, organizational commitment, and intentions to quit. Here, the

notion is that teachers form an important constituency within schools. The

9
aggregation of the degree of profile match between all possible teacher pairs
within a school is the measure of WCGC (average MCGC for each school). The
degree to which these teachers agree with each other may affect and be affected
by variables at the organization level. Theories and research in group processes
may be an important source for generating hypotheses. Specifically, the concept
of group cohesion is examined, and variables that are related to group cohesion
are hypothesized to be related to goal congruence within the teacher constituency.
Team-building research is also evoked in this section.
Summary
The benefits of organizational goal congruence on outcomes relevant to
the organization’s members has been an assumed one. Recent descriptions of the
organization have noted that organizations specify and pursue multiple goals
which may conflict because of the differing advocations of constituencies and
individuals within the organization. Based on this work, a study is described
which explicitly specified and compared the multiple goals of two constituencies
and their members within a number of organizations. It is important to note that
although goals may be advocated by different constituencies or individuals, they
are goals for the total organization; not for a constituency or an individual. Thus,
direct comparisons between constituencies and between individuals were possible.
Overview
In the first part of the Introduction, I present an overview of
organizational goals, the place they have had in organizational theories, and the
problems associated with the organizational goal concept. I present the notion

that organizations have multiple goals and multiple actors who may believe those

 

 

 

10
goals have different priorities. Furthermore, the intent or striving for a goal is
seen to be uniquely human (i.e., individual), even if it is a goal for the
organization. Thus, individual analysis is warranted. At the same time, groups of
individuals within the organization may be comprised of individuals who hold
similar goal priorities due to the similarity of their function and hierarchical level.
I argue that one can combine the individual goal congruence indices based on
this similarity, allowing organizational-level analyses.

Following the section on organizational goals, I present the rationale,
research and hypothesis related to individual-level goal congruence terms. Past
research on goal congruence, team-building, and Leader-Member Exchange
(LMX) is used extensively in the Supervisor/ Subordinate Goal Congruence
section. In the MCGC section, group cohesion research and climate discrepancy
are used to derive hypotheses. These concepts are similar to goal congruence,
but they are under-utilized as sources of understanding organizational and
individual attitudes.

A brief discussion of the potential link between SSGC and MCGC is
discussed based on the concepts of multiple commitments (Reichers, 1985).
According to Reichers, commitment to one group in the organization may be
sufficient for commitment to the organization as a whole.

The similarity in constructs and linkages across levels of analysis suggests
that composition modeling techniques would be appropriate (Kozlowski &
Ostroff, 1987; Roberts, Hulin, & Rousseau, 1978). The concepts of composition
modeling are briefly reviewed to give the reader an overview of this technique

prior to discussing the predicted organizational level relationships. Two

11
composition models are built, one for between-unit goal congruence and one for
within-unit goal congruence. The rationale for the linkages in the models is
presented during discussions of the models.

Between-Constituency Goal Congruence (BCGC) is discussed in terms of
past findings regarding this construct. Primarily, this research has been merely
descriptive. Nonetheless, research on team-building and organizational-level
models is used to predict relationships with BCGC.

Finally, Within-Constituency Goal Congruence (WCGC) is examined. Like
MCGC before it, the agreement on goals within a group is mostly the province of
social psychologists examining group cohesion. Hypotheses relating to WCGC are
derived from much the same literature used for MCGC.

Following the presentation of all the hypotheses, a method for testing the
hypotheses is presented, and the data analysis procedures are detailed. This
Methods section describes the exact operationalization of the four goal
congruence terms. Levels of analysis issues related to the study are discussed in
this section as well. In addition, the subjects, measures, and procedures used in
data collection are presented. A section describing the results follows. Finally,
the results are discussed in terms of the concepts presented in the Introduction
with possible directions for future research.

Organizational Goals

The role of goals in organizational theory has been a controversial one
(Boland, 1984). This review begins with the rational-analytic model of
organizations. In its simplest form, this model is the classic economic model of

the organization as a single actor pursuing a single goal (Mintzberg, 1983). The

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12
rational-analytic view holds that organizations pursue the goal articulated by top
management (Boland, 1984). Using this perspective, one is able to assess the
effectiveness of the organization by the degree to which it achieves its goal (cf.,
Keeley, 1984). Decisions within the organization are the product of rational
appraisals of the environment, and utilitarian evaluations of alternative courses of
action in terms of that goal (March & Simon, 1958).

The classic economic model has been slowly debunked such that now it is
merely a straw model (Mintzberg, 1983). One-by-one the assumptions have been
questioned. The questions raised have important implications for the analysis of
goal congruence. The specific problems with the rational-analysts’ model are
threefold: (a) the assumption of a single goal (Hall, 1980; Papendreau, 1952), (b)
the assumption of a single actor (Cyert & March, 1963), and (c) the reification of
organizational goals (Silverrnan, 1970). The three problems are interrelated.
When one moves away from the assumption of a single actor pursuing a single
goal, the question of agreement between multiple actors arises. Similarly, a single
actor can possess volition and intent. With the advent of multiple actors, the
problem of reifying the collective is raised. Each of the three problems listed
above are addressed separately, and their importance to the concept of goal
congruence specified.

Wis

The first problem associated with the rational-analytic approach is that
organizations may articulate and work toward a number of goals rather than a
single goal (Hall, 1980; Papendreau, 1952). As a result of the multiplicity of

goals, conflicts may result. Cyert and March (1963) claimed that organizations

 

13

pursue multiple goals, and that those goals are highly ambiguous and
non-operational. Each goal is used to justify the utilization of limited
organizational resources. A classic example is the university which must balance
teaching and research concerns. The administration must choose how to allocate
its limited resources in terms of the different goals. The emphasis placed by
tenure committees on publications versus feedback from students is one way the
university influences the time resource of its faculty.

Attempting to support numerous goals greatly complicates the mission of
organizations. Tradeoffs and compromises permeate the structure and policies of
the organization. Conflict on the priorities of those goals may also arise.
Factions within the organization may differ on their beliefs about the tradeoffs
and compromises. This type of conflict (i.e., between factions) leads to the
second assumption of the classic model.

NumbcLQLActnrs

When one moves away from the assumption of a single goal, then
assumptions of unanimity with respect to goal priorities must be questioned.
(yen and March (1963) were the first to point out that there may be multiple
actors within an organization who hold different goal priorities. The thesis of this
proposal is that these differences may be large or small within organizations.

Kochan, Cummings, and Huber (1976) claimed that rational theorists
assume consensus on the goals of the organization among their members. For
example, Etzioni (1964) defined organizational effectiveness as ”the degree to
which [an organization] realizes its goals" (p. 8). However, Hall (1980) and

others (e.g., Gross, 1965; Pennings & Goodman, 1977) have noted the possibility

 

 

 

 

 

14

of goal multiplicity and incongruence. Schein (1980), for instance, defined
organizations as "the idea of W in the service of mutual help"
(p. 13, emphasis in original text). Coordination is only helpful, according to
Schein, if there is some agreement within the organizational membership on
goals. Yet, agreement, particularly across levels of the organization, is not
necessarily common. Therefore, analysts who attempt to measure the success of
an organization by its own goals may have difficulty identifying which goals to use
(Zammuto, 1984).

In Mintzberg’s (1983) examination of power within organizations, he
identified important players as those who have an influence on the selection and
pursuit of organizational goals. Among these players are the CEO and the
operators (the staff, the workers, the employees, etc). The CEO is the single
most important player in the goal game, because of access to a number of power
systems (Mintzberg, 1983). Operators can be either professional or
non-professional. Professional operators are especially powerful within
organizations due to their special knowledges (Mintzberg, 1983). For instance,
within a school, the CEO is analogous to the principal and professional operators
to teachers.

Another term for players is constituency. The notion of constituencies is
important. Etzioni (1961) referred to constituencies as consensus-spheres.
According to Etzioni, these consensus-spheres can agree on a number of
dimensions, like organizational goals. That different constituencies exist within
the organization reflects a position separate fi'om that of organizations existing as

single entities (Schein, 1980). The single entity concept ignores possible conflict

 

 

 

15

among members. Likewise, the constituency approach suggests that all the

members need not be considered separately. Such an assumption would weight

the goal priorities of an individual operator as equal to that of a CEO - not a

likely situation. Instead, the constituency concept suggests that there are units in

the organization with properties relevant to organizational-level outcomes and

that these properties need to be explicitly and directly measured and compared.
i l i

Silverman (1970) contended that any talk of organizational goals is reifying
or anthropomorphizing organizations (Donaldson, 1985). The argument is that
only humans can have goals, volition and purposeful action; applying such
concepts to organizations is a fallacy. Silverman is raising more than just an anti-
reductionist argument by rejecting organizational goals. He is rejecting the
existence of goals for entities larger than the individual, even those organizational
goals held by the individual.

Donaldson (1985) argued that the philosophical question of reification
centered on the fallacy of expecting unwarranted properties for variables, and
then rejecting those variables because the properties were not found. He used as
an example the atom. Atoms, an abstraction by physicists, should not be
expected to assume the properties of touch and substance that are generally used
to prove existence. Rejecting the atom because it does not possess touch and
substance is to lose the usefulness of the atom in understanding and predicting
the environment. That usefulness is found in the consistency of empirical

relationships found using the atom concept.

 

 

 

16

Donaldson (1985) maintained that the application of intent and purposeful
action to organizations is not warranted. To reject the concept of the
organization goal as a result of the lack of these properties is the fallacy.
Donaldson (1985) makes the point that the organization coordinates individual
actions, and as such, the properties of organizations may be useful concepts. He
contended that it is more than the sum of its parts, but less than entities
possessing intent. Therefore, it may be legitimate and useful to consider not only
individual properties, but also organizational properties derived from aggregation.
These two solutions to the problem of intent, individual and aggregation analysis,
are discussed below.

The first approach to the problem of intent is to refer to an organizational
goal as an individuals’ goal for the group. The fact that the goals are for the
organization does not mean that the unit of conceptualization and analysis is
necessarily the organization. Cartwright and Zander (1968) pointed out that
organizational goals can be held by the individual - the individual’s goal for the
organization -- and collectively -- the organizational goal. The focus of this study
is in the agreement or congruence among individuals on their goals for the
organization, and the agreement on organizational goals within a group and
between groups.

Aggregation

Mohr (1973) noted that if we wish to include intent in our concept of

organizational goals, then the goals must be an aggregation of the organizational

members, because only individuals can have intentions. The exact method of

 

 

17

aggregation (e.g., averaging, unanimity, or majority rule) is arbitrary, but Mohr
(1973) and Etzioni (1964) suggested that when operationalizing organizational
goals, participants should be asked what the goals seem to be.

Mohr (1973) went on to note that more than one set of goal priorities may
exist within the organization. Borrowing from Perrow (1961), Mohr suggested
that the goals of the chief executives may hold a great deal of sway, separate
from the goals held by the general organizational membership. Thus, separate
consideration of both groups may be warranted.

Stimulant

The discussion of the problems associated with goals in organizational
models raises several important points. First, organizations can possess a
number of goals. Second, constituencies and individuals within organizations can
have different ideas as to the relative importance of those goals. Third,
measurement of organizational goals requires separate individual analysis or the
aggregation of individual responses if the problem of intent is considered.

The first point was addressed in this study by examining the ratings of
importance for 14 school-level goals. The second point was addressed by
identifying two types of comparisons - between- and within-unit. The third point
was addressed by recognizing two levels of conceptualization - the individual and
the organizational. Crossing type of comparison with level of conceptualization
produced four types of goal congruence. At this point each type of goal
congruence is examined separately for its potential correlates. The individual-
level goal congruence terms are examined first because readers tend to be most

familiar with this level when individual attitudes are considered. After predicted

 

 

18

relationships are discussed at the individual level, I discuss issues about levels of
analysis and the use of composition modeling to aid in cross-level hypotheses
generation. At that point the predicted correlates Of the organizational-level goal
congruence terms are discussed.
Individual-Level Goal Congruence
S . [S l 1' 5 l C

The congruence between the teacher/principal dyad on the goals for the
school may have significant consequences in terms of a teacher’s attitudes and
perceptions. An examination of the leadership literature, particularly
Leader-Member Exchange, is used to derive the correlates of Supervisor-
subordinate goal congruence (SSGC). Like SSGC, LMX focuses on the unique
relationship between the leader and each of his or her subordinates. An
overview of LMX is presented before launching into the specific examinations of
the potential correlates of SSGC. Research on organizational goal congruence at
the individual level is also available and examined.
W

In a recent review of LMX, Dienesch and Liden (1986) examined the
theoretical base, the implications for organizational members, and the
methological problems with the theory. The following description borrows heavily
from that review. The primary contribution of LMX to the leadership domain is
the notion of the dyad relationship between the leader and each of his or her
subordinates. These relationships are defined by the roles the subordinates have
developed or negotiated with their leader. This process of development and

negotiation is carried on informally through a series of role-episodes where the

 

 

 

 

19

supervisor imparts his or her role expectations for the subordinate onto that
subordinate. These role expectations define the duties and expectations of the
supervisor for the subordinate, thus clarifying the subordinates’ role within the
organization.

However, the degree of role clarification varies between each
supervisor-subordinate dyad. This differentiation in the leader-member exchanges
is exacerbated by the time constraints on leaders. Only a few key subordinates
are likely to have a close relationship with their leader. For the other
subordinates, leaders rely on the formalized role-setting structures of the
organization. These differences in the exchange are termed the degree of
negotiating latitude. The consequences of this differentiation are numerous.
Studies have shown that members differ in their levels of turnover (e.g., Graen,
Liden, & Hoel, 1982; Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984), satisfaction with supervision, and
performance (e.g., Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984).

Despite these promising results in terms of understanding the
phenomenon of leadership, LMX is not without methodological problems
(Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Miner, 1980). A primary problem is the
operationalization of the leader-member exchange or negotiating latitude,
specifically the multidimensionality of the construct (Dienesch & Liden, 1986).
LMX seems to be composed of a number of indices of togetherness. Dienesch
and Liden (1986) identified three dimensions of the construct:

(a) Perceived contribution to the exchange - perception of the amount,
direction, and quality of work-oriented activity each member puts forth

toward the mutual goals (explicit or implicit) of the dyad; (b) Loyalty -

 

20

the expression of public support for the goals and the personal character of

the other members of the LMX dyad ...; (c) Affect - the mutual affection

members of the dyad have for each other based primarily on interpersonal

attraction rather than work or professional values (pp. 624-5).

The concept of mutual goals and support for those goals enters into two of
the three dimensions. It is assumed that one of the principle role expectations
the leader wishes to convey to the subordinate is the goals of the organization, at
least as the leader perceives them. Thus, perceptions of motivation toward the
goals is found in the first dimension, and expression of support for those goals in
the second dimension.

W

The interest in LMX is in the potential for understanding the possible
antecedents and consequences of SSGC. The argument is that because goal
congruence is such an inherent, if unexpressed, component of LMX, the findings
related to the concepts are relevant sources for hypotheses regarding goal
congruence.

Additional evidence linking SSGC to individual attitude variables can be
found in research on individual-level, between-consistency goal congruence.
These studies are cited in Table 1 above. Together with LMX, these studies are
used to predict associations between SSGC and perceptions of participation in
decision making, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention to
quit.

W The conceptual base of the LMX model is the negotiating
latitude of the subordinate with his or his supervisor (Dienesch & Liden, 1986).

 

 

21
The notion is that subordinates differ in the latitude their supervisor allows in the
negotiation of their role. Preferred subordinates are allowed to negotiate more
and thus participate more in the definitions of what they do for the organization.
This leads to greater feelings of decision-making power, support and
consideration in their dealings with their superior (Graen & Cashman, 1975).
The research support for these hypotheses has been mixed. A study by Scandura,
Graen, and Novak (1986) reported a correlation of .45 between a measure of
LMX and decision influence. On the other hand, a study of Junior Achievement
(JA) companies found no relationship between LMX and perceived influence
(Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986).

Other research and theory is relevant as well. This review will show that
some researchers claim that goal congruence causes participation, and others the
reverse.

Vroom and Yetton (1973) proposed in their model of leadership
decision-making that managers use delegation only when they feel their
subordinates share their organizational goals. Participation may be a
consequence of goal congruence. Steiner and Dobbins (1986) found that when
the work values of subordinates and supervisors were similar, subordinates were
treated with more negotiating latitude.

On the other hand, in March and Simon’s (1958) discussion of evoked
alternatives, responses are to some extent a function of supervisor activities.
They hypothesized that when subordinates feel participation in decisions is high,
the evoked alternatives are more likely to be in line with the alternatives the

organization wishes to promote (i.e., goal-directed behavior).

 

22

Goal-setting researchers advocate participation in order to facilitate goal
acceptance as well. Recently, Ulrich, Brockbank, and Yeung (1988) extrapolated
the goal-setting research to organizational goals. They hypothesized that
participation in key organizational activities would lead to an increase in
commitment to and acceptance of those activities. They further hypothesized that
participation would increase overall job satisfaction both directly and through the
acceptance of organizational goals. Participation was assessed by self-reported
perceptions of degree of participation in decision-making. Goal acceptance was
operationalized as a single question asking the respondent to indicate the degree
to which the goal is appropriate considering challenges facing the company.
Participation did not directly relate to satisfaction but did relate to goal
acceptance, and goal acceptance related to satisfaction. Like the present study,
the goals were organizational whereas participation, acceptance of those goals,
and satisfaction were analyzed at the individual level.

In a study in which causation was not assumed, Vroom (1960) correlated
employee’s goals with those of top management. He then correlated those
coefficients with the degree of participation and autonomy supervisors allowed
their subordinates in decision making. The correlations were positive and
significant.

Satisfagign. Satisfaction was found to be related to goal acceptance in the
Ulrich et al. (1988) study. Other evidence of the possible relationship between
goal congruence and satisfaction is through LMX. Numerous studies of LMX
have demonstrated a relationship between these two variables. For example,

Vecchio and Gobdel (1984) found that in-group members, those with a great deal

 

 

23

of negotiating latitude, had greater satisfaction with their supervisors. Likewise,
out-group members, those with low negotiating latitude, had lower overall
satisfaction than the middle-range group. In the study of JA companies
mentioned earlier, Duchon et al., (1986) found a significant relationship between
LMX and satisfaction with the company president four weeks into the program,
but not 6 months later. Finally, Vecchio (1982) found that within-group variation
in leadership behavior continued to affect positively satisfaction with the
supervisor even when between-group variation was taken into account.

Wm. In the context of SSGC, organizational
commitment has not received a great deal of attention in either LMX or goal
congruence research. There are a few exceptions.

In the study of IA companies, Duchon et al., (1986) found a significant
relationship between LMX and company commitment at both four weeks and 6
months into the program. Vroom (1960) looked at goal congruence as the
correlation between an employee’s goals for the organization and the aggregation
of top managements’ goals. He found that goal congruence predicted a positive
attitude toward the company.

W. LMX researchers have also demonstrated a relationship
between negotiating latitude and turnover - a frequent consequence of intention
to quit (Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982; Vecchio & Gobdel. 1984). However, not all
the tests of the relationship between turnover and LMX have been significant
(V ecchio, 1985). In a recent study, Sherman (1986) operationalized what he
called goal congruence as a single question asking employees’ their commitment

to the goals of the work unit. He found that goal congruence with one’s work

24
unit influenced turnover decisions for engineers, but not for technical support
personnel. Unfortunately, it is not clear whether the goals of the work unit are
that of the supervisor, the organization, the peers in the unit, or some
combination of these people.
Summanr

The research on LMX and goal congruence seems to indicate a number of
potential relationships with SSGC. The connection of a subordinate with her or
his supervisor seems to affect subordinate attitudes as well as supervisor behavior
toward the subordinate. What is not clear is whether goal congruence, the
alignment of supervisor and subordinates on organizational goals, is the type of
connection which is related to employee attitudes. One of the goals of this study
is to examine the relationship between goal congruence at the supervisor-
subordinate level and employee attitudes. Specific hypotheses for SSGC are
presented after the section on member-constituency goal congruence due to the
hypothesized relation between SSGC and MCGC. Both MCGC and its relations
to SSGC are discussed next.

WWW:

Individuals’ goals may or may not correspond with the goal priorities of
their peers. Although teachers are within the same hierarchical constituency, any
one of them may or may not identify strongly with that group. The consequences
and antecedents of this identification have received only tangential attention in
group processes and social psychological research. These researchers have mostly
been interested in the influences the group uses to keep members in line (see for

example, Hackrnan, 1976), or the effect of the agreement on initial joining and

 

25

group formation (Shaw, 1981). Group cohesiveness and team-building research
are two exceptions, but their correspondence with within-unit goal congruence as
defined here are not direct. The correspondence and research on cohesiveness
and team-building are presented below. I also borrow from the climate
discrepancy concept of Joyce and Slocum (1982). Climate discrepancy is the
difference between the individual’s perception of the organizational setting
(psychological climate), and the aggregation of the perceptions of all the
individuals in the organization (organizational climate). Each section is presented
separately.
Cohesion

Research and writing on group cohesiveness indicates that it is a
multidimensional construct, but the nature of the components of group
cohesiveness is not clear. Research into the mechanisms regarding the
effectiveness and outcomes of cohesive teams has emphasized the importance of
agreement among individual members on the goals of the group. Group
cohesiveness has been defined as agreement with group norms (Sutermeister,
1969), the attraction of members to the group (Goodman, Ravlirr, & Schminke,
1987), intentions to stay (Zander, 1985), and commitment to the goals of the
group or organization (Goodman et al., 1987). These definitions can be grouped
into two types: (1) those related to the development and maintenance of
harmonious interpersonal relationships, and (2) those related to successful task
accomplishment (Carron, 1982; Yukelson, Weinberg & Jackson, 1984).

According to Carron (1982), for cohesion to exist, interpersonal attraction

is necessary but not sufficient. What is required is the desire to pursue common

 

 

26

goals. Likewise, Wheeless, Wheeless, and Dickson-Markman (1982) felt that
separating the social and the task roles of group members was "undesirable and
unwarranted" (p. 374). A number of researchers and theorists have supported
this claim.

For instance, in an attempt to develop a measure of group cohesiveness to
be used by sports teams, Yukelson et al., (1984) found that their measure
consisted of four factors. Unity of purpose was one of those factors. The
internal consistency reliability of the overall measure was .93 based on 22 items.
The intercorrelations between factors were not reported. Nevertheless, it seems
reasonable to conclude that the factors that make up group cohesion are highly
related and that one of these factors is congruence among group members on
goals.

At the individual level, MCGC is the agreement of one member of the
group with all the other members of his or her group. Cohesion as a group level
variable is discussed in the section on WCGC. Most members of a cohesive
group will tend to be congruent with each other, but some individuals may not be.
MCGC is sensitive to these aberrant individuals. Likewise, individuals in
noncohesive groups or members of splinter groups whose members do not share
the majority’s goals are not going to be congruent with the majority of other
members in their organization. The hypothesis developed in this section is that
individuals with incongruent goals, whether 1) members of a noncohesive group,
2) members of a splinter group, or 3) aberrant members from a cohesive one, are

likely to feel disassociated from work and the organization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27

I -E .1 1°

The team-building research within the domain of Organizational
Development (OD) has focused on the agreement of various parties on
organizational goals. Within the organization, OD specialists focus on team
building, conflict resolution, and the use of groups for organization-wide change
(Strauss, Miles, Snow, & Tannebaum, 1974). In McGregor’s (1967) classic
example of OD at Union Carbide, one of the explicit tasks was to help build an
”effective management team." One of the factors involved in building that team
was "understanding, mutual agreement, and identification regarding the goals of
the group" (Bennis, 1969). The OD perspective has centered its attention on
team-building as an affective process and as a catalyst toward organizational
change (Patten & Dorey, 1977). In a review of OD interventions, Porras and
Berg (1978) reported that task-focused team-building techniques are the most
widely used of the OD methods. One of the purposes of these team-building
efforts is to increase member participation in the setting of organizational goals
and the building of commitment to them (Hughes, Rosenbach, & Clover, 1983).
The outcomes of team-building include increased team productivity (Patten &
Dorey, 1977), positive work climate (Hughes et al., 1983), and satisfaction (Eden,
1985).

The team-building literature is replete with intervention type studies
(quasi-experimental) of dubious empirical quality (Woodman & Sherwood, 1980).
Nonetheless, team-building research provides a perspective on the types of
antecedents and outcomes one may expect to be related to groups and group

members with congruent goals. The team-building process includes the

 

 

participation of both leader and members. Because multiple hierarchical levels

are represented within the teams, changes in goal congruence due to team-
building efforts are likely to be both within and between hierarchical levels. It is
not possible to separate constituency alliances in the building process. This is
probably desirable in terms of the effects of the team-building, but complicates
one’s understanding of goal congruence. The present study proposes to separate
cross-hierarchy goal congruence from within hierarchy goal congruence.
However, the findings of team-building research are used to help generate
hypotheses for both between- and within-constituency goal congruence. As with
cohesion, team-building research and conceptualizations are evoked at the
organizational-level sections as well as the individual-level section.

Cl' 12'

A great deal of methodological controversy has surrounded the concepts of
psychological and organizational climate (for the most recent debate see James,
Joyce, & Slocum, 1988; and Glick, 1988). Psychological climate is defined as the
individual’s perceptions of the practices and procedures of the organization.
Organizational climate is the collective description of this environment, usually
assessed through the average perception of the members (Joyce & Slocum, 1982).
The methological question centers around the meaning of organizational climate
when it is the aggregation of psychological climate. At least all agree that the
individual responses must demonstrate some level of agreement before
aggregation is to make sense. If agreement does exist, then shared perceptions
can be assumed and aggregation reflects an organizational-level construct (see

James, 1982; James, Joyce, & Slocum, 1988, for supporting arguments).

 

29

Joyce and Slocum (1982) added a new twist when they suggested that the
difference between any one respondent’s psychological climate and the
organizational climate may be relevant to climate research outcomes. They
called this difference climate discrepancy. The argument was that climate
discrepancy reflects the degree of "fit" between the individual in an organization
and others in the organization in terms of their perceptions of the organization.
Large discrepancies might predict low performance and low job satisfaction
relative to small discrepancies.

It should be noted what climate discrepancy is not. It is not the difference
between what an individual prefers or expects the climate to be and what others
believe it to be (cf, Schneider, 1972; 1975). Such a conceptualization would
require individuals to answer questions about preferences, expectations, or
perceptions prior to organizational entry, and for those answers to be compared
to incumbents’ perceptions of the organization as it is. Climate discrepancy asks
only incumbents’ perceptions of the organization as it is and compares each
incumbent with all other incumbents to derive a discrepancy score for each
incumbent. This latter definition is consistent with the way in which MCGC is
operationalized.

Very little research on the climate discrepancy concept has been reported.
Joyce and Slocum cite one clinical example of a very unhappy student whose
perception of the school climate was very discrepant from her peers, even though
her needs were very similar (Stern, 1978, cited in Joyce & Slocum, 1982). Joyce

and Slocum (1982) found that climate discrepancy explained a significant amount

 

 

30

of variance (27%) in job satisfaction in the study of three heavy-duty truck
manufacturing plants.

As intimated, the importance of the climate discrepancy notion in terms of
goal congruence is found in the similarity of the operationalization of the terms.
Climate discrepancy is derived from the difference between how one individual
describes the organization as compared to his or her peers. The context of the
description is the organization, but the respondents are an individual and the
other members of the individual’s group. MCGC is defined as the difference
between an individual and his or her peers as well. The only difference is the
content of the items to which the individual and group respond. For the climate
discrepancy, the content is the individuals’ view of the situation within the
organization (Rousseau, 1988). For MCGC, the content is the individuals’ view
of the organization’s goals.

DilloLBosoaroh

One of the consequences of discrepancy with the group norms is the
source of discomfort this brings to the discrepant individual (Festinger, 1954).
According to Festinger’s (1954) theory on social comparison, individuals dislike
being out of congruence with the group. They seek congruence by comparing
themselves with others and using that information to guide behavior, beliefs and
attitudes. Thus, being incongruent may result in low satisfaction, high stress and
poor adjustment to the demands of work.

WWW
Cohesion, team-building, climate discrepancy, and, to a lesser extent, social

comparison theory are evoked when predicting relationships with MCGC.

 

 

31

Sue. Despite the cliche "the more the merrier,” the opposite seems to be
true (Seashore, 1969). Smaller groups promote more cohesiveness through the
greater ability of the members to interact with one another, share interests, feel a
significance in their contribution to the goals, et cetera (Napier & Gershenfeld,
1981; Tsouderos, 1955; Wicker, 1969).

Participation. As with SSGC and participation in the previous section, the
direction of the relationship between goal congruence within a group and
participation in decision making is unclear. The OD specialists use participation
to increase the cohesiveness of the group (Leavitt, 1965). Yet, similarity in
attitudes and goals is frequently cited as a determinant of cohesive groups (Shaw,
1981). At the same time, cohesive groups are more likely to interact and
participate in group discussion (Shaw, 1981). For instance, Back (1951)
manipulated group cohesiveness in a creativity task. Subjects in the cohesive
groups tended to interact more. Of particular interest was the finding that when
cohesiveness was manipulated by evoking interpersonal attraction, the interaction
was pleasant and friendly. On the other hand, when the cohesiveness was evoked
by congruence in task interest, interaction was more task oriented (Back, 1951).
In a study of the contributions of individuals to group goals, it was found that the
atmosphere within cooperative groups provided for a greater felt freedom to
contribute (Rabble, Benoist, Oosterbaan, & Visser, 1974). Cooperative groups
can be defined as those groups in which there exists a homogeneity of the group
goals held by members (Shaw, 1981).

Safisfacjign. One of the definitions of cohesiveness is that members are

attracted to the goals of the group and derive satisfaction from the group and

 

32

those goals. Conversely, without a purpose, the group is not likely to be satisfying
to its members (Zander, 1985). The more sophisticated concepts of cohesiveness
separated attraction and satisfaction. Nonetheless, both types of satisfaction are
plausible and the data are consistent with these hypotheses (Shaw, 1981).

For example, Wheeless et al., (1982) found a high correlation between
perceptions of group cohesion and self-reports of satisfaction with the group
(r = .63). Marquis, Guetzkow, and Heyns (1951) reported a correlation beMeen
cohesiveness and member satisfaction with the group process. Exline (1957)
found that members in groups that were told they were well matched and
congenial reported greater satisfaction with group progress.

Research on team-building has produced mixed results. Eden (1985)
found that only peer relations increased as a result of a team-building effort
within the Israeli Defence Forces. Other outcomes measured included
component satisfaction, communication patterns, leadership, and general
management, including an item on goal clarity. More to the point, Gross (1954)
reported that cohesiveness in Air Force groups positively related to satisfaction
with the Air Force and its goals. Other positive team-building-to-satisfaction
research is provided in the BCGC section on satisfaction.

Finally, the work cited earlier on climate discrepancy and social
comparison support a relationship between satisfaction and MCGC.

W. Like satisfaction, intentions to remain with the group
(conversely, intentions to quit) is an aspect of group cohesiveness (see for
example, Cartwright & lander, 1968). As such, turnover intentions by definition

are related to cohesiveness. It is highly probable that the goal congruence aspect

 

 

33

of group cohesiveness is related to the intention to remain aspect. However, no
empirical research regarding this relationship was found.

Wm. Stress and adjustment have been linked with group
cohesion (Lazarus & Folkman, 1985). Cohesion improves coping alternatives and
adjustment. Conversely, stress and poor adjustment are likely to lead to low
levels of acceptance of group and organizational goals (T annenbaum, 1966).
Seashore (1969) hypothesized that cohesive groups reduce stress and facilitate
adjustment among their membership. Lastly, Festinger’s (1954) theory on social
comparison supports a prediction of a relationship between MCGC with stress
and adjustment.

Mohamefirouo

The discussion of group cohesiveness and team-building as useful concepts
depends, in part, on the link between the types of groups studied and teacher
constituencies. Do they consider themselves members of a group? More to the
point, are some schools filled with teachers who feel they belong to a cohesive
group of peers, while others do not? The answer to that question seems to be yes
(Blackman, Crowell, Bollmann, & Mester, 1988). High levels of camaraderie
within the teaching core may be indicative of high cohesiveness. Researchers
within the field of education have found that teaching staffs vary in the level of
cohesiveness they express (Blackman et al., 1988).

Nevertheless, the size of teacher constituencies and the size of groups on
which most research on cohesion is based is generally different. Most of the
work is done by social psychologists on groups of 4 to 12 members. Other

research done on sports teams uses groups of varying size depending on the type

 

34
of sport. Although basketball teams are generally small, hockey, football, and
baseball teams can get quite large. Still other research is done in a military
setting on groups as large as 100 (see, for example, Griffith, 1989). All of these
types of researchers and settings have been evoked in this review.
Summary

The review of the cohesiveness, team-building and climate discrepancy
research has demonstrated or suggested a number of possible correlates of
MCGC. However, group cohesiveness has generally been measured with a
questionnaire on attraction to the group and its goals (Goodman et al., 1987).
This measure is then correlated with other questionnaire measures. Research of
this type is highly susceptible to method bias. MCGC, on the other hand, is
derived more objectively. The ratings on importance of goals by constituency
members are compared with each other. Respondents are not asked for their
perceptions of cohesiveness. Therefore, other perceptual correlates should be
methodologically independent of MCGC.

Team-building research is generally of the quasi-experimental type in
which team-building interventions are employed. When interventions are used,
manipulation checks are sometimes used to verify the process. These checks are
subject to the same bias as the cohesion questionnaires. For these reasons,
MCGC is unique in its degree of methodological independence from its
hypothesized correlates. Also, it is more focused on one aspect of same-
constituency relations - that is, goal agreement. Thus, MCGC is a unique

contribution to the organizational behavior literature.

35
W

At the individual level, organizational goal congruence is very similar to
the concept of organizational commitment (Reichers, 1985). Organizational
commitment is frequently defined as composed of three components: (1) a strong
belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals, (2) a willingness to exert
considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and (3) a definite desire to
maintain organizational membership (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974).
The first component is the focus of this proposal. The third component is
incorporated in the intention to quit concept. The second component has not
received much support (Angle & Perry, 1981), and may be less critical in a school
setting because teachers are frequently motivated to educate students regardless
of their commitment to the school.

Reichers (1985) made a number of points regarding commitment and
organizational goals which are relevant to this proposal. Her first point is the
separation of desire to maintain organizational membership from the Porter et al.
(1974) conceptualization of organizational comrrritment. The argument was that
the desire-to-remain items in the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire
(OCQ) used to measure organizational commitment (Porter et al., 1974) are very
close to intention-to-quit items. Intention to quit is an antecedent to turnover
(Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglimo, 1979). Therefore, it is not surprising that
organizational commitment correlates with turnover. The problem is the
redundancy of commitment and intention to quit (Morrow, 1983). This leaves
items on belief and acceptance of organizational goals, and willingness to work

toward them as the remaining components of organizational commitment.

36

Recently, Reichers (1986) examined the relationships among conflict, goal
congruence and organizational commitment. In her study, conflict was
conceptualized as the perceived conflict between the individual’s goals and those
of top management. Individuals were asked to endorse goals as they would and
as they felt management would. A conflict score was derived by summing the
absolute differences between the two types of endorsements on 18 goal tradeoffs.
The tradeoffs were between management, professional funding agencies, and
client/public constituencies of a community mental health agency. For example,
"Planning and implementing changes based more on top management’s
cost/benefit considerations, than on input from professional staff' was an item
within the management/ professional goal conflicts cell. Each constituency was
crossed with each other constituency forming six cells. Each cell had three items
in it. Internal consistency reliability for the conflict measure was .23.
Nonetheless, 24% of the variance in organizational commitment was explained by
this measure. Conflict correlated significantly, r = -.51, p < .001, with job
satisfaction. Reichers also found that those endorsing top management goals
exhibited more organizational commitment than those endorsing other
constituencies’ goals. She concluded that organizational commitment is, in part, a
function of the individual’s commitment to managerial goals and values. 7

The second point that Reichers made concerned the recognition of
multiple constituencies within the organization. Much like the arguments
presented in the section on organizational goals, Reichers noted that the goals for
the organization might arise from different constituencies within and outside the

organization. Organization members’ goal priorities for the organization may be

 

 

37

more in line with one constituency than another. Congruence with the goals of
one of the internal constituencies may be enough to produce organizational
commitment and positive attitudes toward work (Reichers, 1985).

Jauch, Osborn, and Terpening (1980) examined the relationship between
employee orientations and goal congruence. The employee orientation measure
consisted of three factors: 1) professional identification, 2) organizational loyalty,
and 3) peer loyalty. In this study, sixteen hospital administrators in 16 different
hospitals were asked to rate 14 goal statements on a 5-point Likert-type scale
anchored from unimportant to very important. Two hundred fifty seven
professional/ technical employees working for these hospital administrators,
representing a 73 percent response rate, completed a similar questionnaire. No
interpretable factor structure was found among the goals so they were considered
separately and also summed into a global index. The global index had an
adjusted Spearman-Brown reliability of .85. Goal congruence was assessed by
calculating the absolute difference between the administrator’s score on the
individual goals and the global index, and an individual employee’s score. The
employee orientations interacted with each other in two-way interactions
suggesting that the orientations can substitute for each other in the prediction of
goal congruence.

In the Reichers’ (1986) study, goal congruence correlated with job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. With regard to organizational
commitment, her goal congruence measure seemed most like SSGC because it
was those who supported top management who displayed the highest

organizational commitment. However, the evidence from the Jauch et al. (1980)

 

38

study and Reichers’ own theorizing suggest that commitment to constituencies
other than top management may still produce loyalty to the organization. Thus,
SSGC and MCGC may substitute for each other in predicting organizational
commitment and other correlates. Substitution is a non-linear relationship
methodologically operationalized as an interaction. This interaction and the main
effects of SSGC and MCGC are the individual-level goal congruence terms of
interest in Hypothesis One presented below.
It ivi - v

Due to the expected interaction between SSGC and MCGC, and the fact
that SSGC and MCGC have similar hypothesized correlates, the following single
hypothesis is presented.

H1: SSGC and MCGC are positively related to perceptions of
participation in decision making climate, job satisfaction, perceived
adjustment to work, and organizational commitment of the teaching
staff, and negatively related to intention to quit and perceived levels
of stress. The interaction of SSGC and MCGC is related to
perceptions of participation in decision making climate, job
satisfaction, perceived adjustment to work, organizational
commitment, intention to quit, and perceived levels of stress of the
teaching staff.

The predictions in this hypothesis are based on theoretical and empirical
work done in many domains of research. Some of these domains, particularly
organizational theory, group cohesiveness and team-building, cross levels of

conceptualization. In fact, it is not always clear at what level a concept is useful.

 

39

It is not clear whether group cohesiveness is a group-level phenomenon or the
sum of its individual-level parts. Up until now the latter has been assumed within
this introduction. At this point the organizational level needs to be more fully
explicated. The process used to do this is called composition modeling.
Composition modeling is discussed below to introduce the reader to some of the
relevant concepts of the process. Following that presentation the organizational-
level goal congruence terms are reviewed in terms of current research and theory.
However, much of the work on relationships with organizational goal congruence
has already been discussed at the individual level. To avoid redundancy the
reader is directed to these areas when appropriate.
Composition Models

Composition models are the explicit definitions of relationships of
functionally similar variables at multiple levels (Roberts et al., 1978). For
example, rather than assuming technology means the same thing at the
organizational, work unit, or individual job levels, a composition model defines
technology at each level and specifies the relationships between these definitions.
Furthermore, relationships between the various definitions and other variables of
interest are identified. Thus, similarity must also include homology (Von
Bertalarrffy, 1975). Homology is the case of corresponding relative position
linkages to correlates at the corresponding levels. For example, because it is
known that job technology affects individual attitudes, organizational technology
may affect organizational attitudes. Nonetheless, specific rationale relating
organizational technology to organizational attitudes must be forthcoming.

Without this explication, the relationship between organizational technology and

 

b

 

-_--r "- -

40
organizational attitudes cannot be specified. Similarity of constructs and
homology are the two criteria for the development of composition models
(Roberts et al., 1978).
IW C . . I I 1 1
Two composition models are developed in this study. In the first model,
individual-level between-unit goal congruence, SSGC, is hypothesized to relate to
individual attitudes. Furthermore, organizational-level between-unit goal
congruence, BCGC, is hypothesized to affect individual-level attitudes. It is
hypothesized that organizational-level disagreement, or general level of
congruence, between top management and subordinates will have an effect above
and beyond the mere addition of the individual supervisor/ subordinate parts. In
the second model, individual-level within-unit goal congruence, MCGC, is
hypothesized to relate to individual attitudes and organizational-level within-unit
goal congruence, WCGC, is hypothesized to relate to individual attitudes. Again,
the degree to which the teachers exhibit "togetherness" on the school goals is
believed to be more than the sum of each teacher’s agreement with the other
teachers in the school. The models are drawn below (Figure 2). The rationale
for the individual-level links have already been presented. The rationale for
organizational-level goal congruence hypotheses are presented in the next section.
Alternative models in which the goal congruence term at one level of
analysis may mediate the relationships of the other goal congruence term with the
attitude variables may be more appropriate. Mediation implies an effect, but an
indirect one. Partialling the mediating goal congruence term from these

relationships gives an indication of the direct versus indirect effects. Mediation is

 

 

 

 

41

indicated if an established association between a goal congruence measure and an
attitude scale disappears when the other goal congruence term is controlled.
Thus, the second goal congruence term mediates the relationship between the
first goal congruence term and the attitude. These alternative models are
depicted by a dashed line in Figure 2 below. Additional analyses were conducted

to evaluate these models.

 

Between-Constituency
Goal Congruence

 

 

 

 

|
l
sI/

Supervisor-Subordinate Individual
Goal Congruence Attitudes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Within-Constituency
Goal Congruence

 

 

 

 

I
|
Al/

Member-Constituency Individual
Goal Congruence Attitudes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIGURE 2: Composition Models

Organizational-Level Goal Congruence
WW
There are two dominant constituencies within a school - the principal and

the teachers. The fact that the constituencies are separated by hierarchical level

 

 

42

is important. Researchers reported differences in the climate perceptions of
organizational members at different hierarchical positions (Johnston, 1976; Payne
& Mansfield, 1973). More to the point, Mintzberg‘ (1983) noted the potential for
differences in the ratings of the importance of various organizational goals by the
CEO and employee (operator) constituencies. Thus, differences between the
constituencies are very possible.

The consequences of these differences in constituency perspective are also
important. Perrow (1986) suggested that top management is in a position to win
most of the battles over goals and define the priorities of those goals. However,
McKelvey and Kilrnann (1975) and others (Taylor & Cangemi, 1983) noted that
designs developed at the top, without the input or cooperation of lower-status
members, are often rejected and undermined, implying a lack of agreement with
the goals. The longevity of the goals is also potentially related to congruence. In
addition to goals being expressed by top management, "what makes the goals
organizational is the process of their authorization and institutionalization. This
latter process ensures that goals, once understood and shared, can survive the
death of most of the architects" (Donaldson, 1985, p. 22). Because of the
potential for conflict between the constituencies, their goal ratings should be
considered separately so that their level of agreement can be measured.
WW9;

Although research on organizational goal congruence has been sparse and
poorly executed, it has tended to find differences in goal priorities among
constituencies in different hierarchical positions. Within a model of

intraorganizational conflict, Kochan, Cummings, and Huber (1976) investigated

 

 

1‘ l'

 

 

 

 

43

goal congruence in a sample from a city government. Goal congruence was
defined as the differences among constituent’s goals within the organizations.
Much like the argument made in this proposal, the authors were disturbed by the
assumption of goal congruence in some models of organizations (e.g. Schein,
1965; Tannenbaum, 1968), while other models assumed goal incongruence (e.g.,
Cyert & March, 1963, Weick, 1979).

Kochan et al. (1976) hypothesized that goal congruence is related to
differences in the positions held by employees, operationalized as different job
titles, and again that this congruence relates to perceptions of conflict. Goal
congruence was measured by having city officials rate 14 goals on a Likert-type
scale. The goals concerned protection of the power of particular constituencies.
For example, one of the goals stated "The decision-making authority of agency
heads is protected." Individual ratings were normalized to eliminate the bias of
response tendencies across raters. The standard deviation of the normalized
ratings of each goal across all city officials was summed to form the congruence
score. The reported alpha for the combination of the standard deviations was an
unimpressive .36. One-way analyses of variance were used to test the proposition
that different position holders differed on goal ratings. The E ratio was
significant (p < .05) for twelve of the 14 goals, indicating the presence of
interconstituency differences in goal importance ratings.

A study by Avi-Itzhak (1985) in Israel attempted to assess the existence of
differing goal orientations among the main status groups of a large university.
The researchers asked students, faculty members, and administrators to rate

importance on 30 goals using a five-point Likert-type scale. A factor analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reduced these 30 goals to five factors: 1) Freedom/Democratic Governance, 2)

Extracurricular Activities, 3) Student Training, 4) Research, and 5) Accountability
to State/Community. Alphas for these factors ranged from .51 to .71. Two
additional factors, with eigenvalues of less than 1.00 and accounting for only
12.7% of the variance, were eliminated from the analyses. Analysis of the results
consisted of comparing group means between the status groups on the factors.
For three of the factors (Extracurricular Activities, Student Training, and
Research) significant E ratios were found indicating differences between
constituencies.

Although the study revealed mean differences between constituencies
within the university, it did not examine the differences in the profile levels the
constituencies gave to these goals. Should faculty, for instance, rate all the goals
of equal and high importance, and the students rate all goals of equal but
medium importance, the congruence in Lelati_ve acceptance of the goals is lost in
the mean difference analysis.

A second study done within the context of educational institutions
examined the congruence between various constituencies within a school system
(Schmink, 1985). Spearman-Brown Rank Order correlations were used to assess
congruence. The goals of interest were content areas for the students. Little
disagreement between constituencies was found. Nearly everyone agreed that
basic skills and higher learning were top priorities. The other goals were ranked
in the following order overall: Health and physical fitness, career, civic,

moral/ethical, interpersonal relations, change/adaptation, creativity, economic

 

 

45

efficiency, family living and leisure. The rank order correlations ranged in the
.80’s and .90’s across constituencies on these goals.

Contrary to the Avi-Itzhak study, relative differences in ranking were
detectable in the Schmink study. However, ranking forces an ordinal scale and
does not allow for mean differences. Thus, students may not care too much
about any of the goals of the school, but they may rank them in a similar order to
the faculty. A Spearman-Brown Rank Order correlation would not detect this
mean difference.

Summag. With the exception of the last study, this research reinforces the
proposition that constituencies separated by hierarchical level are likely to differ
in their ratings of goal importance. This study will use profile analysis to
incorporate both mean differences and relative differences when comparing
constituencies. Theory and research on the potential correlates of BCGC is
presented next.

WW

Factors associated with goal congruence at the level of constituency
agreement are numerous. Most of the existing work has been done on the
relationship between congruence and participation in organizational decision
making. Usually, this research is conducted under the assumption that
participation leads to and increases congruence. However, it is not clear that
direction of causality has been established. Other variables associated with
congruence and conflict include satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
turnover. Discussion and evidence regarding these relationships are presented

below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46
Participation. McKelvey and Kilmann (1975) argued that organizations

must establish a climate of participation in which all organizational members
have a chance to specify objectives for the organization. Among the advantages
of this participation in decision making climate is that employees are more likely
to be satisfied with and implement changes they helped make (Leavitt, 1965;
Kilmann, 1974). In a description of the Scanlon Plan, Taylor and Cangemi (1983)
articulated the same reasoning. They argued that only a climate for participative
decision making will lead to consensus on and cooperation in working toward
organizational goals. March and Simon ( 1958) noted that when the values of the
top hierarchy and the rest of the organizational participants are similar, then
participation is the best method to preserve that congruence and to enlist the
support of the participants.

One of the explicit mechanisms of team-building efforts is the mutual
participation of leaders and members in the definition and management of their
own goals (Buller & Bell, 1986). Presumably this participation leads to the
commonality of the team’s goals. Friedlander ( 1967), Nadler and Pecorella
(1975), and Woodman and Sherwood (1980) found team-building efforts
increased participation in decision making perceptions within organizations. Of
those studies, goal consensus was measured only by Woodman and Sherwood
(1980). Unfortunately, they found only a slight increase in perceptions of decision
making. Likewise, Brown, Aram, and Bachner (1974) found no change in goal
consensus after a team-building effort.

Kochan, Huber, and Cummings (1975) hypothesized that the greater the

incongruence in the goals of city officials, the more internal conflict would be

 

 

47

observed. Goal congruence was measured using the same normalized standard
deviation in goal ratings across all city officials in a city government as in the
Kochan et al. (1976) study. Congruence correlated with measures of dispersion of
power and control, such that the greater the dispersion, the lower the congruence.
This finding is counter to the participation studies cited earlier. However, due to
the very political nature of the goals (i.e., maintaining constituency power),
dispersion of control may have placed those goals in more direct conflict.

When the conflict is between upper and lower echelons within the
organization, it may lead to lower satisfaction, organizational commitment and/ or
higher turnover among the lower echelon. Research on these variables is
presented below.

Satisfaction. The relationship between BCGC and subordinate job
satisfaction has not received a great deal of attention. Only team-building
research is available and it has shown mixed results. Eden (1985) did not find a
relationship between job satisfaction following a team-building effort. However,
Gross (1954) did report that cohesiveness in Air Force groups correlated with
satisfaction with the Air Force and its goals. Several other researchers have
reported a relationship between team-building and satisfaction (Hand, Estafen, &
Sims, 1975; Nadler & Pecorella, 1975; Schmuck, Murray, Smith, Schwartz, &
Runkel, 1975; Schmuck, Runkel, and Langmeyer, 1969; 1971).

W The research reviewed
earlier demonstrated a possible connection between goal congruence and
turnover. Numerous models of turnover exist at both the individual (e.g., March

& Simon, 1958; Mobley et al, 1979) and organizational levels (e.g., Price, 1977).

 

48

The only research available on turnover and organizational-level goal congruence
is in the team-building field, and that is sparse. Beckhard and Lake (1971)
reported turnover decreased in a management team that went through a
team-building exercise.

Organizational commitment has, like turnover, received much more
attention at the individual level. The current discussion centers on the idea that
goal congruence is a part of organizational commitment. At least, agreement on
organizational goals is usually an item in commitment measures. At the
organizational level, organizational commitment has been shown to relate to
turnover rate (Angle & Perry, 1981). Because the best predictor of turnover is
intention to quit (Bluedorn, 1982), intention to quit may serve as a proxy for
turnover. Likewise, organizational commitment may reasonably be expected to
relate to organizational-level variables, providing some degree of agreement or
shared perceptions exists (Mossholder & Bedeiarr, 1983).

n- n i n h i

Despite the centrality of goals within organizations and the logic of the
importance of goal congruence between the upper and lower echelons of an
organization, little research has been done in this area. A number of studies
have documented the varying levels of goal congruence between constituencies of
different hierarchical levels (Avi-Itzhak, 1985; Barkhaus, 1974; Bourgeous, 1985,
Kochan, Huber & Cummings, 1975; Kochan, Cummings, & Huber, 1976; and
Schmink, 1985). However, a pressing question centers around the distinction
between organizational-level and individual-level between-unit goal congruence.

Is BCGC merely the sum of SSGC? The prediction within this study is that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49

conceptually BCGC is more than just the sum of SSGC, even if the correlates are
similar. Theoretical speculation and some research has suggested that concepts
similar to BCGC are related to organizational members’ attitudes. Specifically:
H2: BCGC is positively related to the climate for participative decision
making, job satisfaction and organization commitment of the
teachers, and negatively related to intentions of teachers to quit.

Next, theory and research related to the second method of operationalizing

organizational-level goal congruence, WCGC, is examined.
W' i - n '

The group processes and team-building literatures were used to support
the notion that, at the individual level, congruence on the goals within an
operator constituency will lead to positive outcomes. However, the research may
be relevant at the organizational level as well. Much of the theoretical work
done on group cohesiveness and team-building is at the group level. Because this
study considers all teachers in a school as a group, group and organization level
are equivalent in the following discussions.

Conceptually, moving from the individual to the group with cohesiveness
and team-building is not a difficult transition to make. Cohesiveness at the
individual level is how much an individual wishes to be a member and pursue the
goals of the group. At the group level, cohesion is a reflection of how much
everyone wants to be in the group and pursue mutual goals. Cohesion at the
group level is more than just the sum of its parts. For example, group members
may find themselves between two factions within a group. The individual may

generally agree with everyone, but must deal with the lack of agreement among

 

 

- ._...-u-I- """""""""""""""

 

D
I ‘
I

50

the other members. On the other hand, a cohesive group is like "one big happy
family." It is not just that one member gets along with everyone else; it is that
everyone gets along with everyone. It is a feeling of unity, of cooperation.

The team-building concept is similar to cohesion in its gestalt. A sense of
foam enhances the experience for everyone. Whether rallying against an external
force, responding to a team-building effort like sensitivity training, or simply
responding to one another, a cohesive team may have profound effects on
member attitudes.

One is tempted to characterize the difference between individual and
organizational-level, within-unit goal congruence as reflected in the amount of
discrepant stimuli impinging on individuals versus the stimuli impinging on all
members. This conceptualization ignores the work of Hackman (1976) regarding
the messages sent to aberrant group members designed to bring these individuals
in line with group goals. Groups where most of the members are in high
agreement on goals may be more consistent in terms of the messages sent to
aberrant members. Therefore, congruent groups (high WCGC) may increase
their congruence through the use of discretionary stimuli on some group
members.

In March and Simon’s (1958) model of the organization, group
cohesiveness is affected by and affects the degree of uniformity of group opinion.
Also, regardless of the degree of identification of members with the group,
uniformity of group opinion decreases the possibility of receiving mixed messages

from the group. Thus, the set of evoked alternatives and the consequences of

 

 

 

 

51

those alternatives are less ambiguous when a group has a high level of goal
congruence.

The effects of organizational goal congruence within a constituency at the
organizational level have been reported in a single study. Bourgeous (1985)
looked at the goal congruence of top managers in 20 public corporations. He
operationalized goal congruence as the standard deviation of managers’ ratings of
numerous non-operational goals. Although he hypothesized that goal consensus
among the top management team would lead to high economic performance, the
opposite relationship was found. A post hoc explanation that goal consensus
implies the perils of groupthink (Janis, 1972) was offered. He argued that due to
differing perspectives of top executives, goal diversity would be the normal and
preferred condition. Would a similar finding occur if goal congruence was
operationalized at the subordinate level?

WW

Group processes literature provides a great deal of empirical evidence on
the relationship between group goals and cohesiveness. Researchers of group
processes discuss group goals as a focal point for the group members and use the
term cohesiveness to connote the "togetherness" of the group on, among other
factors, group goals (Goodman, et al., 1987). Therefore, an understanding of the
processes surrounding group-level goals is important to the understanding of
congruence on organizational goals within the group. Theoretical and empirical
information is available on the congruence of group goals and is used to further
understand organizational goal congruence. First, group goals as a focal point for

members are discussed.

 

52
W. All groups must have a purpose (lander, 1985). Whether it

be the self-aggrandizement of its members or the accomplishment of some '
difficult or altruistic task, groups cannot become established without a purpose.
Without informed, comprehended, and accepted group goals, group members are
more interested in personal rewards than group accomplishments (lander, 1985).
This may not be a problem when groups are formed for the realizations of
individual goals. However, when groups are formed to accomplish the goals of
the group or organization, a lack of congruence within the membership on those
goals is likely to lead to ineffective group processes.

During the history of group goals research, theorists have had to grapple
with the validity of a group-level goal construct (Napier & Gershenfeld, 1981),
much like organizational theorists grapple with the problem of reification of
organizational-level goals. Allport (1924) rejected the idea of a group-level goal,
while Lewin (1939) supported it. The controversy raged bitterly for many years
before the acceptance of group goals as a construct emerged intact (Napier &
Gershenfeld, 1981). Cartwright and lander (1953) assumed that the formal
properties of group goals do not differ from those of individual goals. Substantial
empirical evidence backed this notion (Shaw, 1981). Nonetheless, linking
individual goals to group goals was still a problem (Shaw, 1981). Like Mohr on
organization-level goals, Cartwright and lander (1953) suggested assessing
individual members’ beliefs regarding the group goal. Degree of consensus was
taken as a reflection of the degree to which a group had a unitary goal. But
again, as with the organizational-level goals, more than one goal is common

among groups, and this has to be taken into account (Shaw, 1981).

I‘Vv . w

 

 

 

53

Concurrently, Shaw (1981) discussed the term "goal clarity" as the degree
to which a group’s task or tasks are clearly defined. He hypothesized that the
less clearly defined the group goals the more likely the resulting confusion will
lead to ineffective group action. A study of the effects of goal clarity was
conducted in the laboratory (Raven & Rietsema, 1957). The researchers found
that by increasing the clarity of the goal, members could be more attracted to the
task, show less nontask-directed tension, show more involvement in the group,
and conform more to group expectations.

Goal clarity, therefore, is the degree of consensus which is shown to be
related to individual attitudes of group members. Simultaneously, a construct
called group cohesiveness began to take on the role of consensus on goals.
However, cohesiveness included other concepts as well.

Cohesion. As with the individual level, cohesion at the organizational
level is highly interrelated with goal congruence. By definition cohesive groups
agree on goals. Dynamically, cohesive groups send messages to their membership
which solidify goal congruence (Rosen, 1989). An example of the power of
cohesiveness on group members was provided by Sheikh and Koch (1977). They
found that interrupted group tasks are remembered better than completed ones,
if the group is cohesive. Their study is an extension of the leigarnik Effect
(leigarnik, 1927) - that individuals tend to remember interrupted tasks better
than completed ones. Lewin’s (1951) theory of motivation has been used to
explain the effect as a result of unresolved tension set up by the uncompleted
task (Sheikh & Koch, 1977). Horwitz (1954) extended the generalizability of

leigarnik’s finding from the individual level to the group level. Horwitz found

 

54

that when the group members believed that the group voted to complete a task,
they set up a tension for completing that task. This tension was reflected in the
better memory of the uncompleted group task. Sheikh and Koch’s (1977) finding
confirmed Horwitz’s, but added cohesion as a moderator. Apparently, the tension
is only felt for interrupted tasks when it is believed that the group wishes to
complete the task, and that the group is highly cohesive.

The findings of the group-level construct of cohesion provides support for
the placement of an organizational-level variable within a composition model of
within-unit goal congruence. Like MCGC at the individual level, WCGC should
be related to the concept of cohesion and cohesion’s correlates. Below, are
presented the factors specifically examined in this study.

E E . l . 1 INC 5 C

Si_ze. Size of the group was postulated to affect group cohesiveness
(Seashore, 1969). The larger the group, the more difficulty each member has
connecting with all the other members and the group as a whole. Therefore, the
larger the group, the more likely WCGC is low for the entire group. Like in
MCGC, size needs to be controlled in any test of relationships involving WCGC.

Panioioarion in oeoision making. Perceptions of participation in decision
making may be associated with WCGC for a number of reasons. Most have
already been mentioned. For example, participation may be higher in groups
where all members feel the others agree on group or organizational goals.
Participation in decision making may make the organization goals more salient
such that cohesive groups are motivated to bring aberrant members in line on

these important dimensions.

 

55

 

. As pointed out in the
MCGC discussion, cohesiveness is the degree to which the members are attracted
to, committed to, and satisfied with each other and the group goals. At the
organizational level, members attitudes may be affected by the sense of unity
within the group; unity reflected in congruence among all the members on all the
goals; unity measured by WCGC. Thus, WCGC should correlate with their job
satisfaction and group commitment where group is defined as the organization.
Inieni 1o onit. A similar argument can be made for intentions to quit.
Only members with a weak affiliation to the group may wish to leave that group.
The remaining members reflect a lower level of intention to quit. Thus, WCGC
should correlate with intention to quit.
W. Griffith (1989) studied cohesiveness in army units.
In Griffith’s study cohesiveness was increased by using unit replacement rather
than individual replacement. Two facets of satisfaction, perceived satisfaction
with social support and helpfulness of the support, were positively related to
cohesiveness, regardless of replacement procedure.
° i - i
The constituency of interest is teachers. Based on the literature discussing
cohesiveness and team-building a third hypothesis is specified.
H3: WCGC is positively related to climate for participative decision
making, feelings of adjustment among the teachers, job satisfaction,
and organizational commitment; WCGC is negatively related to

intentions to quit and teacher stress.

 

 

56

Summary

The notion of organizational goals as an important component of
organizational processes is intuitively appealing, but conceptually and
operationally complex. Closer examination of organizational goals and models
reveals the multiplicity of entities and intentions within organizations with regard
to their goals. Because of this multiplicity, the concept of congruence between
these entities represents a potentially important factor reflecting the harmony and
integration of the organization and its members. Defining the entities and
comparisons leads to a consideration of hierarchical level and constituency
groupings. Further exploration of the units involved required the incorporation of
both individual and organizational-level comparisons and conceptualizations.
From this analysis, I argued that four types of goal congruence terms are useful in
understanding the role of organizational goals in relation to properties of
organizations and its members.

Between-unit goal congruence has received some attention in the past.
This study adds the within-unit goal congruence measures to that research.
Furthermore, both absolute and relative differences between and among
organizational members are assessed.

Many of the same correlates are hypothesized for the different goal
congruence measures, yet the research used to generate these hypotheses
frequently confounded these types of congruence. Thus, one advantage of
separating type of goal congruence is the recognition of numerous potentials for
goal incongruence. Explicit measurement of this congruence (or incongruence)

may further our understanding of where goals diverge within the organization and

 

 

57

when that divergence is important. The method to test these hypotheses is

presented in the next chapter.

 

 

METHOD

Background

The data for this study were collected as part of a larger project on school
effectiveness carried out for the National Association of Secondary School
Principals (NASSP). The larger project was designed to study a model of school
environments (cf. Keefe, Kelley, & Miller, 1985). Information was collected from
students, teachers and principals in 364 schools located throughout the United
States and Canada. The instrumentation was piloted in a series of studies over a
four year period of time (Kelly, Glover, Keefe, Halderson, Sorenson, & Speth,
1986; Schmitt & Loher, 1984; Schmitt & Ostroff, 1987). The results of the larger
study are reported in Schmitt and Doherty (1988).

Subjects and Units of Analyses

Two levels of analysis were needed to test the hypotheses in this study. At
the organizational level, schools were the units of analysis. Information about the
schools was collected from the principal and the teachers. At the individual level,
teachers were the units of analysis. Information was collected from teachers and
principals for this level of analysis. Any information collected from the principals
was school level, and, therefore, assigned to all the teachers in that school. A

description of the schools, principals, and teachers is presented below, followed by

58

 

59

a description of the measures completed by each of these groups in the Measures
Section.
Schools

A sample of 364 schools from 36 states and Canada agreed to participate
in this study. Three hundred fifty four schools returned usable information from
the principals and teachers. Ten schools were missing information from at least
one group, but provided some data. These missing data account for the number
of schools ranging from 354 to 364 in the results.

Schools were selected based on a randomized cluster sampling. Ten
metropolitan areas were selected as cluster points. Concentric circles defined by
postal zipcodes were drawn around the metropolitan midpoints. A specific
number of schools were randomly selected within each concentrically defined
area. When a school refused to participate, another with similar size and location
characteristics was selected. This sampling procedure produced 261 of the
schools. The remainder were schools participating in an "effective" schools study
conducted by NASSP. The procedures assured a wide range in school and
community size.

The states with the highest percentage of schools in the sample were
Michigan (21.2%), Iowa (13.5%), and Tennessee (9.1%). Three hundred thirty of
the schools (90.7%) claimed to be public, and 24 private (6.6%). Seventy-five
schools (20.6%) were junior high level, 252 (69.2%) were senior high level, and
36 (9.9%) included all elementary students.

 

60
E . . 1
All the principals from the 364 schools were asked to fill out a

questionnaire on goals and an open-ended questionnaire about their schools. The
questionnaire is provided in Appendix A. Of the 364 schools, 356 principals
responded to the goal questionnaire items and 355 responded to other relevant
measures, providing a total of 352 complete principal responses. Demographic
information on the principals is provided in Table 2. Principals responded to
questions about school goals, and school size, as well as numerous items not
included in this study.
Teachers

Information from 14,721 teachers in 362 schools was obtained for this
study. The number of teachers responding per school ranged from 8 to 86 with a
mean of 40.67. Entire teaching staffs completed questionnaires for schools with
less than 75 teachers. In larger schools, principals were instructed to obtain at
least 75 randomly selected teacher questionnaires by selecting every nth teacher
in an alphabetic listing, where n depended on the number of teachers in the
school. The teachers answered questions about school goals, school commitment,
participation in decision making climate, intention to quit, overall and component
satisfaction, stress, and adjustment. The teachers’ questionnaire is provided in
Appendix B. No demographic information is available for the teachers.

Measures
The exact measures as presented in the questionnaires are reproduced in

Appendices A and B. Appendix C breaks down the questions into the specific

TABLE 2: Demographic Characteristics of Principals

61

g] . .
Gender

Male
Female

EthnlLSlams

Asian American
Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Tenure

Less than 1 year

More than 1 year, but less than 2
More than 2 years, but less than 3
More than 3 years, but less than 4
More than 4 years, but less than 5
More than 5 years, but less than 8

8 or more years

I

 

89.0%
8.5%

0.8%
3.7%
0.3%
92.9%
0.3%

10.7%
11.8%
11.8%

7.1%

6.6%
15.9%
33.8%

 

‘The total percent for each characteristic does not equal 100% due to missing

data.

62
constructs discussed below. This discussion describes the constructs and
calculations used to form indexes.
Moments:

Four goal congruence terms were discussed in the introduction of this
proposal. A description of the goals, the rating scales, and exact procedures for
computing the goal congruence terms follows below.

QoaLBatings

Both the principals and the teachers rated the importance of the same 14
goals for the school. A seven-point Likert-type rating scale ranging fiom ”Of no
importance" (0) to "Of primary importance” (6) was used. The goals and the
rating scale are provided in the beginning of Appendices A, B and C.

One potential issue is the exact wording of the goal rating items. The
directions indicated to the respondent that they should rate the goals’ importance
without specifying whose perspective to take. Therefore, respondents may have
rated the goals as to the importance they felt should be given the goals; or, they
may have rated them as to importance the organization gives the goals. This
distinction can be summarized as the difference between rating how important a
goal "should be" versus how important it "is." One study asked respondents to
rate the importance specific school goals should have versus the importance they
felt goals were presently being given (Barkhaus, 1974). The rank order
correlations between these two types of items was .70 for faculty, .84 for
administration. Thus, although the items as worded in this study may have been
ambiguous, evidence exists which seems to indicate that the ambiguity may not

have produced markedly different responses.

 

63

Goals were initially selected based on a review of the education literature.
The set of goals were then reviewed and edited by the six members of the
NASSP School Climate Task Force which included educational researchers and
consultants. All but one of these persons had worked as teachers or principals in
elementary or secondary schools in various parts of the US.

From the ratings of the importance of these goals by the principals and
teachers the goal congruence terms were created. The exact procedure is
described for each term.

SSGC

Supervisor-subordinate goal congruence is an individual-level variable. It
was the comparison of the teacher with his or her principal on their ratings of the
importance of the 14 goals for the school. In order to calculate a congruence
score, the principals’ ratings were assigned to all the teachers in their school.
The D statistic (described below) was used to index congruence. In this analysis,
the number of subjects should equal 14,721.

The comparison was calculated using the D statistic (Cronbach & Gleser,
1953). D is defined as follows:
where a and b represent the constituencies being compared, j the goal being
compared, and N the number of goals compared.

As an index of comparison, the D statistic reflects both absolute
differences and relative differences. The alternatives were the Pearson-r between
the goal profiles in question, or the sum of mean differences, each of which

reflect only one type of difference. Pearson-r only accounts for relative

 

differences, such that a rating on 3 goals of 1-2-3 when correlated with ratings of

4-5-6 would yield 1.0. Thus, the difference in value between the 1 and the 4, the
2 and the 5, the 3 and the 6 would not be reflected in the perfect correlation.
On the other hand, the sum of the mean differences would be 9. The same mean
difference would be calculated if the ratings were 1-2-3 and 6-5-4 respectively.
However, the relative similarity of 1-2-3 to 4-5-6 would be lost with the sum of
the mean differences. The D value range depends on the number of comparisons
(in this case 14, one for each goal), and the range of the scale (in this case 6,
zero minus six). These parameters allowed D to range from 0 to 22.45, where a
low score meant high congruence. Correlations with the D statistic were reversed
so that high scores on the attitude scales would correlate positively with high
scores on congruence.
more

Member-constituency goal congruence is the comparison of a teacher with
all other teachers in a school. Therefore a D statistic was calculated for each
teacher with every other teacher in the same school. Averaging these D’s for
each teacher produced an index of the difference of that teacher’s goal priorities
with all others in their school. Figure 3 represents the method for calculating
MCGC in matrix form. The number of subjects again equalled 14,721.
BCGC

The between-constituency goal congruence term is a comparison of the
ratings of the principal constituency with the teacher constituency. Principal
constituency ratings were simply the ratings of the principal for the school on the

14 goals. The principal’s rating was compared to the rating of each teacher in

 

65

Between-Unit Goal Congruence
TI T2 T3 . I ' TI

 

. (£13.)
Principal, D, D, D, . . . D, } BCGC, =r+

Where: a represents one school, n the number of teachers completing the
survey in the school, and k the teacher being compared. SSGC is the D. (DI ..
D,) for each teacher/principal pair.

Within-Unit Goal Congruence

 

T, T, T, . . . T, ..

l (EDIT)
T, -- D,, D,, . . . D,, } MCGC, = Mn
T, D, -- D, . . . D,, MCGC,
T, D,, D,, -- . . . D,, MCGC,
T, D,, 'D,, D, I 3 I 1- MCGC,

(iMCGC)
wcoc. = ...

Where a represents one school, It the number of teachers completing the
survey in the school, and i the teacher who is compared with all the other
teachers completing the survey.

FIGURE 3: Calculation of Goal Congruence Terms in Matrix Form

 

66

the principal’s school (SSGC). These comparisons were then averaged by school.
The average was used as the measure of BCGC. Figure 3 shows this calculation
in matrix form. The number of subjects equalled 356, the number of schools with
usable goal ratings from principals and with the goal ratings of at least some (8)
teachers.
EGGS

Within-constituency goal congruence is an index of the variability of the
ratings of the importance of school goals by the teachers. This variability is the
difference between all the constituency members with each other. Because
MCGC is an index of each individual teacher’s differences with the other teacher,
the average MCGC across teachers in the school was the best index of WCGC
(see Figure 3). The number of subjects (schools in this case) equalled 352.

Corlolmos

Hypotheses about the correlates of the various congruence terms were
outlined above in the Introduction. The correlates, including participation in
decision making climate, satisfaction, commitment, intention to quit, adjustment,
and stress, were derived from questionnaire items asked of the teachers
(Appendix B). Appendix C groups the items by scale. Size, a covariate, was
determined by an open-ended question to the principal asking for the number of
full-time equivalent teaching personnel currently paid by the school.
B .. . '12” 111'

Four items asking respondents to estimate the frequency with which they
participated in different types of decisions were used to measure participation in

decision making climate. This participation scale was developed by Hage and

.. MW:-

 

 

 

67

Aiken (1967). The five-point Likert-type scale ranged from never (0) to always
(4). A coefficient alpha of .76 and test-retest reliability of .65 was reported on
this scale for a sample similar to the respondents in this study (Schmitt & Ostroff,
1987).

I l S . E .

Nine items concerning feelings of satisfaction about various aspects of the
schools constituted the satisfaction scale. A Likert-type scale was used ranging
from 1, "I am mm with this aspect of the school," to 5, " I am new
satisfied with this aspect of the school." These items were obtained from a larger
measure of facet satisfaction (cf. Schmitt & Ostroff, 1987). A single item from
each subscale was used in this scale based on the item’s intercorrelation with the
other items in the scale. The subscales all had reasonable reliabilities (> .77),
and interscale correlations ranging from .14 to .58.

ni i n l ° n

Organizational commitment was measured by the rating of 9 items on a
five-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (0) to strongly agree
(4). Seven of the items were taken from the Porter and Smith (1970)
Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, and 2 from Franklin’s (1975)
Commitment to the Formal Organization Scale. The sampling of items from the
different questionnaires insured the scale assessed three aspects of organizational
commitment (Ostroff, 1987). The aspects are attitudinal commiunent,
commitment to the school’s values and calculated involvement. The internal
consistency reliability of this scale was reported as .82 by Schmitt and Ostroff

(1987).

 

68

Infenfion 1o Quit

Three items from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire
(Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979) were adapted to assess teachers’
desire to remain with the school. The items were rated on a five-point
Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree (0) to strongly disagree (4). A
coefficient alpha of .83 was reported in the original publication. Ostroff (1987)
reported an alpha of .85.
Adjustment

Teachers’ perceptions of adjustment to work were measured by a six item
scale. The items were adapted from Fisher (1982) for the earlier study (Schmitt
& Ostroff, 1987). Ratings on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging fi'om strongly
agree (0) to strongly disagree (4) were used. Earlier research reported a
coefficient alpha of .75 (Ostroff, 1987).
Stress

Teachers’ perceptions of stress were measured by four items soliciting
perceptions of psychological symptoms of stress adapted from the J ob-Related
Tension Scale (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). A fifth item
asked about a general feeling of stress. All items required ratings using a scale
ranging fiom never (0) to quite often (4). An alpha of .82 was reported using
this measure (Ostroff, 1987).

Coronal:

The covariate in this study is a situational constraint beyond the control of

the school which may affect the relationships hypothesized in the introduction.

Size is hypothesized to affect relationships with WCGC and MCGC. Size was

 

 

69

operationalized as the number of employed teachers within the school. Principals
were asked to report how many full-time equivalent (FI‘E) teachers were
employed at the school. Note, size is not necessarily equivalent to the number of
teachers responding from each school (11) in the study. FI'E is a better measure
of the size of the teacher constituency.

Moasuromemlssuos

With many of the organizational-level correlates, measurement issues arise
concerning aggregation. SSGC, MCGC, participation in decision making climate,
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intention to quit, adjustment and
stress are all individual perception variables that were aggregated to the
organizational level for testing some of the hypotheses. As individual perception
variables, the individual represents the "unit of theory" (Roberts et al., 1978).
When individuals share meaning about organizational phenomenon, and
associations with organizational-level variables are being tested, then composition
theory suggests that individual-level variables can be aggregated to avoid violating
the assumption of independent observations. Discussion of the measurement of
shared meaning is presented below in the Degree of Agreement section.

A second approach is to assign the organizational-level terms (BCGC and
WCGC) to the individual. Although this procedure violates the assumption of
independent observations underlying the computation of correlations, it has
certain advantages. One advantage is the ability to compare the relative effects
of both individual and organizational variables simultaneously. Another
advantage is that because the attitude scales are individual, some suggest they

should not be aggregated (see, for example, Glick, 1988). Assigning

 

70

organizational-level variables to individuals obviated aggregation of individual-
level variables.
Procedure

The data collection procedures described below were described by Schmitt
and Doherty (1988) in their technical report to NASSP.

Permission from the schools to administer the surveys was solicited by Dr.
James Keefe, Director of Research, NASSP. The surveys were mailed by NASSP
to school principals who then distributed the appropriate materials to their
teachers and students. Principals were asked to obtain a maximum of 75 teacher
participants. All principals were asked to participate. A letter explaining the
project and how to collect the data requested accompanied each packet of
measures. All responses were anonymous and confidential. Once teachers and
students completed the measures, they were collected by the school principal who
mailed them to the researchers. The researchers reviewed each set of data for
problems (torn answer sheets, missing data, etc.), and coded open-ended answers,
prior to machine scoring of the data.

Data Analyses
Downtown.

Descriptive data includes the means and standard deviations on all the
variables. Scale internal consistency reliabilities and intercorrelations were also
computed. Mean goal importance scores were broken down by principal and

teacher groups.

 

b

   

71
W

Before one can aggregate the perceptions of individuals, they must be
shown to possess shared meaning (James, Joyce, & Slocum, 1988). Generally,
shared meaning is assessed by intraclass correlation or ICC(1) (James, 1982).
ICC(1) is calculated by a simple one-way AN OVA, where the between-
organization sum of squares is compared with the total sum of squares. It is the
proportion of variance in individual responses associated with variation among
environments (eta’). In general, eta’s have ranged from .00 to .50, with a median
of approximately .12 (J arnes, 1982). In the sample of schools, 362 different
conditions exist.

A second method for obtaining eta2 is the ratio of organizational-level
standard deviation over individual-level standard deviation for the particular
variable in question (James, Demaree, & Hater, 1980). A slight difference in the
values of eta2 using the two methods can be traced to unequal sample sizes in
cells (i.e., unequal numbers of teachers reporting in each school).

As a check of the contention that teachers form a like-minded
constituency, the goal ratings by the teachers and all perceptual variables to be
aggregated were tested for intraclass agreement. For the perceptual variables,
reasonable levels of agreement defined by James (1982) were reached before
aggregating. Also, because WCGC was an aggregation of all the MCGC’s within
a school, the degree of agreement for MCGC needed to be calculated to confirm
the reasonableness of organizational-level within:constituency goal congruence.
Likewise, the degree of agreement between SSGC within schools needed to be

assessed before aggregating to form the BCGC measure.

 

72

Finally, because WCGC is an index of the degree of agreement on
organizational goals within the teacher constituency it was applied to improve the
relationships of BCGC with its correlates. If WCGC was so low that the teacher
constituency does not provided a consistent stance with which the principal can be
compared, then BCGC would not be a reliable measure. To test if this effect was
indeed present in the data, BCGC was correlated with its hypothesized correlates
using the total sample and using only those schools where WCGC was above
average. Finding equal effect sizes would imply no reliability problems in low
WCGC schools.

IestLofflxoothosos

To test the relationships hypothesized for the individual-level goal
congruence terms, tests of the significance of hypothesized correlations were
computed. The size of the school was assigned to all teachers in the school in
order to partial size from MCGC relationships. Organizational-level hypotheses
were also tested using tests of the significance of the simple correlations of the
organizational-level goal congruence terms with each other or perceptual
variables. With the WCGC relationship tests, the effect of size was partialled
out.

Particularly for the individual-level hypothesis, sample size and power were
so great that the major emphasis was on the size of the correlation. In this
regard, any correlation below .10 was not considered useful. This value was
chosen because Cohen (1977) suggested that correlations below .10 are indicative

of negligible effect size in social science research.

 

 

 

 

The hypotheses reflect the composition models developed in the

Introduction. These models and the subsequent hypotheses only included direct
effects. Recall the models were constructed for each type (between- and within-
unit), with two goal congruence terms at two levels of analysis. The results of
partialling one goal congruence measure from relationships between another goal
congruence measure and the attitude scales revealed the direct and indirect
effects between goal congruence terms and the attitude variables. All tests of the
alternative models occurred at the individual level. Because of the sample size,
the practical meaningfulness of the partial coefficients rather than significance

was the critical factor used to interpret the results.

 

 

RESULTS

Results of this study are reported in four sections. The first section
provides descriptive information on the scales and goal ratings. Internal
consistency reliabilities for the attitude scales are also presented in this section.
The second section describes the results of the tests on the individual-level
hypotheses. The third section presents the eta’s relevant to organizational
aggregation followed by results of the tests of the organizational-level hypotheses.
For these tests, BCGC and WCGC were correlated with both aggregated and
non-aggregated attitude scores. Finally, in the last section the partial correlations
of goal congruence with attitudes in which the "other-level" goal congruence term
is the covariate are presented to indicate the relative contributions of the
congruence terms on the attitude scales.

Descriptive Statistics
Goals

The means and standard deviations of the 14 organizational goals for all
the principals and all the teachers are presented in Table 3. Eta’s for the
fourteen goals are also presented in Table 3. These values range from .06 to .16
with a mean of .08. These values indicate a range of agreement among teachers
within a school versus between schools. Although these values tend to be low,

the goals themselves are never aggregated by schools; rather, the profile similarity

74

 

 

TABLE 3: Means on Goals‘

QQAL
Basic Skills

._r
.

Breadth of Courses
Athletic Programs
Cocurricular Activities
Staff Development
Cost Effectiveness
Physical Resources

Racial Integration

109°99‘99P’!"

Instructional Time

10. Special Education

11. Discipline

12. Parent/Community
Involvement

13. Academic Programs

14. Vocational Education

 

75

PRINCIPAL
W
535 (1.12)
3.47 (133)
2.75 (1.11)
3.15 (1.10)
4.64 (1.14)
3.70 (1.35)
3.83 (1.33)
2.30 (2.00)
4.49 (1.33)
4.06 (1.32)
3.76 (1.28)

4.42 (1.11)
4.28 (1.30)
3.48 (1.48)

TEACHER
MEAMSD.)

5.30
3.45
3.03
2.89
3.78
3.70
3.67
2.47
3.89
3.74
3.96

3.96
4.09
3.40

(1.08)
(1.41)
(1.59)
(1.32)
(1.42)
(1.42)
(1.46)
(1.87)
(1.50)
(1.43)
(1.44)

(133)
(135)
(1.63)

.16

.07
.08

.07
.10
.14

‘Scales ranged ham 0 to 6 where 0 means the goal is of no importance and 6

means the goal is of primary importance.

 

 

 

 

76

indices are aggregated. Intercorrelations among the goal ratings are given in

Appendix D. These intercorrelations tend to be low, indicating an independence

in goal ratings among goals, and between principals and teachers on goal ratings.
AltitudeSoalos

Ranges, means and standard deviations across all teachers on the attitude
scales are presented in Table 4. Internal consistency reliabilities for these scales
are also presented in Table 4. The reliabilities were good, ranging from .74 to
.85.

Qoaliloogmonso

Descriptive statistics on the four goal congruence terms are also given in
Table 4. The indices potentially range in value from 0 to about 22 as a function
of the number of items in the profile that are matched (in this case, fourteen),
and the range of the scale (in this case, six). The observed range was much more
restricted, particularly among the organizational terms (BCGC and WCGC). The
values in this table reflect the euclidean distance (D) between profiles. As such,
a higher score indicates a greater distance and, therefore, a greater incongruence.
Because the variables are labelled goal congruence, higher values should indicate
higher congruence. Therefore, for purposes of clarity, the sign was reversed for
any correlational analyses with these terms.

Although the principal and teacher means appear quite similar, the specific
interest of this research is the differences in profile matches. Two profile
comparisons are presented in Figures 3 and 4 which show the diversity of pattern
similarity between principal and teacher in the highest and lowest SSGC found,

respectively. Similar pattern comparisons in the other goal congruence

TABLE 4: Scale Statistics
Wm RANGE
Individual (13405 S N 5 14718)

Participation(4) 0—4
Satisfaction(9) 1-5
Commitment(12) 0—4
Intent to Quit(3) 0-4
Adjustment(6) 0-4
Stress(5) 0-4
SSGC(14) 0—22
MCGC( 14) 0-22

Organizational (328 s N s 354)
Size (# of teachers) 11-193

BCGC 0-22
WCGC 0-22
SD-SSGC‘ ~2-2

 

77

.82
3.22
2.96

.96
3.29
1.97
6.83
5.98

54.31
6.84
5.92

.46

SD;

.65
.63
.65
1.03
.52
.79
1.89
1. 11

31.27
.95
.56
.21

'Log of the standard deviation of SSGC by school.

 

WM

.74
.74
.83
.85
.75
.78

.12
.21
.17
.08

.08
.25
.23

 

78

Ratin s
e 9

    

 

 

 

o l l i l J 1 l I J I I l

1234567891011121314
Goals

 

““- Prlnclpal '5' Teacher

FIGURE 4: Highest Supervisor-Subordinate Goal Congruence

Ratin s
e g

 

 

 

 

 

1O 11 12 13 14

Goals

”l" Principal '5- Teacher

FIGURE 5: Lowest Supervisor-Subordinate Goal Congruence

 

79

terms cannot be illustrated because of the large number of comparisons made for
each case.
Size

The only other index used in this study was size of the school (i.e., number
of full-time equivalent teaching positions). Descriptive statistics on size are also
presented in Table 4.

Individual-Level Hypothesis
HmtltosiLQno

Hypothesis One was a prediction that all the individual-level attitude scales
would correlate with either SSGC, MCGC or the interaction of those two terms.
Table 5 contains correlations relevant to the hypothesized main effects in the
upper triangle. For the individual-level correlations, a stringent o of .001 was
used to establish significance. Nonetheless, a correlation of .03 (-.03) or greater
(less) was all that was required for significance. As indicated earlier, a
correlation of .10 was considered practically significant. Participation in decision
making climate, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention to quit
all correlated significantly and in the predicted direction with both SSGC and
MCGC. Perceived adjustment at work did not correlate significantly with either
individual-level goal congruence term. Perceptions of stress correlated
significantly with SSGC and MCGC, but at .05 and .07 respectively; therefore, the
practical meaningfulness of the relationship is questionable.

One note of caution, the intercorrelations among the attitude scales are
likely to be inflated due to common method bias. In terms of the relationships

with goal congruence, the goal congruence terms were derived through the D

 

80
TABLE 5: Scale Intercorrelation Matrix

(Individual Level Variables in Upper Triangle‘)
(Organizational Level Variable in Lower Triangle”)

5.91: 1 2 3 fl 5
1. Participation .-- .26 .27 -.16 .15
2. Satisfaction .38 .-- .57 -.41 .22
3. Commitment .29 .74 -53 .36 f
4. Intent to Quit -.22 -.53 -.57 .-- -.28
5. Adjustment .17 .35 .46 -.50 .--
6. Stress -.13 -.29 -.26 .42 -.34
7. BCGC‘ .08 .17 .17 -.09 .02
8. WCGC‘ .30 .41 .39 -.21 .05
9. Size -.23 .00 .05 -.15 .29
10. WCGCISize‘ .22 -.27 .09

 

‘For individual level correlations |r| > .03 is significant at p < .001

 

6

-.06
-.12
.14

-.13

$5952 MEGS”:
.10 .13
.19 .28
21 25
-.12 -.17
.02 .01
-.05 -.07
.62
.44 --
.06 .14

 

2

‘’For organizational level correlations |r| > .12 is significant at p < .01, |r| 2 .09

is significant at p < .05.
cGoal congruence terms. Signs are reversed.

‘WCGC controlling for Size.

 

I I

 

.

81
statistic; that is, respondents were not directly asked for their perceptions of
congruence. Therefore, it is not likely that common method bias would be an
issue. As noted earlier, signs on the goal congruence terms are reversed so that
higher values on the congruence variable are associated with higher congruence.
As a final note, size was not partialled from the tested relationships with MCGC
because it was uncorrelated with MCGC and the attitude variables at the
individual level.

The interaction of SSGC and MCGC was tested using moderated multiple
regression. The interaction term was significantly related to organizational
commitment only (change in R2 = .0028, p < .001). Although significant, the
magnitude of the effect did not warrant further consideration. The lack of
finding a multiplicative model for SSGC and MCGC in terms of their relationship
to the attitudes variables prompted consideration of the variables as additive. To
test the additive nature of SSGC and MCGC partial correlations were used.
These results are discussed in the section on partial correlations.

l- v

Two methods were used to test the organizational-level hypotheses. In one
method the attitude scales were aggregated by school and correlated with the
organizational goal congruence terms. For this method, the number of
observations was between 328 and 354. Eta’s were calculated for the attitude
scales prior to aggregation (see Table 4). The eta’s ranged from .06 for
Adjustment to .21 for Satisfaction with a mean eta“ of .12.

The second method used was to assign to each teacher the organizational-

level goal congruence values (BCGC and WCGC) of the school in which they

 

 

82

taught. The number of observations using this method was 13405. The results
from the two methods are described below.

The organizational-level hypotheses involved the goal congruence terms of
Between-Constituency Goal Congruence (BCGC) and Within-Constituency Goal
Congruence (WCGC). For both methods used to test the organizational-level
hypotheses described above, SSGC and MCGC were aggregated to form BCGC
and WCGC, respectively. Eta’s for SSGC and MCGC were .25 and .23
respectively.

It was suggested earlier that in schools where teachers are too incongruent
with each other to sustain a concerted level of disagreement (or agreement) with
the principal, the congruence of the teacher constituency with the principal is
meaningless and should not be attempted. That is, because of the attenuating
effects of low WCGC on BCGC, BCGC would not be related to the
organizational-level attitude scales in those schools with low WCGC. To assess
the possibility of this effect, coefficients of BCGC were recalculated after
dropping schools with lower than average WCGC. The resulting coefficients did
not improve, in fact they tended to drop. Therefore, it was not necessary to
eliminate any schools from analyses at the organizational level. This was true
regardless of method (i.e., organizational aggregation versus individual
assignment).

Hypothesisflo

Hypothesis Two required a test of the significance of the correlation

between BCGC -- the organization-level, between-constituency, goal-congruence

term -- and aggregates of climate for participation in decision making, job

 

 

83

satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intentions to quit. The lower
triangle in Table 5 contains the intercorrelations of the aggregated attitude scale.
To test the organizational correlations, a-levels of .01 and .05 were used. In
these cases the critical correlations were |.12| and |.09|, respectively. Thus,
because of the lower sample size at the organizational level, power and the
making of a Type II error were more germane.

The correlations of BCGC with satisfaction and commitment were
significant at the .01 level. The correlation between BCGC and intention to quit
was significant at .05. The correlation of -.08 for BCGC with climate for
participation in decision making was not significant. All the correlations were in
the predicted direction.

Correlations of BCGC using individual-level analysis are given in Table 6.
Although the same correlates remain significant, effect sizes dropped
precipitously. The relevant comparisons are the coefficients in the row labeled
BCGC in Table 5 and the oofum labeled BCGC in Table 6. The drop in effect
size was directly related to the eta of the attitude scales, such that multiplying the
individual-level correlation by eta (not eta’) gives the approximate value of the
organizational-level correlation. The value is only approximate because of the
unequal number of teachers surveyed in each school. In these calculations, eta
represents the amount of noise BCGC encounters within schools relative to the
amount of information encountered between schools. A similar drop was found
when correlations of WCGC with aggregated attitude scales are compared to

correlations of WCGC with non-aggregated attitude scales. Here the relevant

 

 

8.-
3.-
ON.
RN.
S.

00% 082

082

ssssss

050

S.-
8.
8.
we.
3.
3.

083

3.-
8.
8.-
3.
N.
3.
g

8.-

8.

8.

8.-
3.-
Ne.-
Wulwflumvlum

60992 03 mama.

mucus—oboe 3:03:00 :80 «ED-coozom com mama .1. z

assess 88288 :80 “39.5523 so 8mm 1 z

8.
a

ssss

mo.-

8.

ma.-

3.

3.

8.
01%

new w5=obooo u _

:5. v assuage a 8. A E

8.-
8.
2.-
Wm.
mm.
9.

3.-
8.
NH.-
3.
5.
ac.

 

8.- 325
8. 858:3
2.- .so a .85
as 85350
a. eouoémuam

S. 8:833.—

138 38a «an

moose—0:00 35m 55 «dove—0:00 mo commudeoU no 592.

:27.!."¢,- "
r;

 

“a???" 1

M F's"- .

 

 

  

 

85

comparisons are the coefficients in the row labeled WCGC in Table 5 and the
column labeled WCGC in Table 6.
Hmothosislhreo

The third hypothesis involved correlates of WCGC - Within-Constituency
Goal Congruence. Table 5 gives the correlations of WCGC with aggregated
attitude scales. WCGC was significantly (p < .01) correlated with all the scales
except perceptions of adjustment. WCGC was also significantly correlated with
size, and size was significantly correlated with participation in decision making,
intention to quit, perceptions of adjustment, and perceptions of stress (see Table
5). Partialling size from WCGC correlations did change coefficients for the
factors significantly related to size (see Table 5). Specifically, controlling for size
decreased the correlation of WCGC with participation in decision making, while
increasing the correlations of WCGC with intention to quit, and perceptions of
adjustment and stress.

When WCGC was assigned to individual teachers, size was again ignored
due to its low correlation with attitudes at the individual level. Correlations of
WCGC at the individual level are presented in Table 6. Again, statistical
significance is easily reached at r > |.03 | . Even so, the correlation of WCGC
with perceptions of adjustment was not significant. Correlations of WCGC with
intention to quit and perceptions of stress did not reach practical significance
(-.08 and -.04, respectively). Perceptions of participation in decision making just
reached practical significance (.10). Correlations of WCGC with job satisfaction
and organizational commitment remained practically significant but moderate (.22

and .19, respectively).

 

 

86

Partial Correlations

Table 6 gives all the simple correlations at the individual level. This table
is redundant with Table 5 for SSGC and MCGC, but all other coefficients are
unique. Also given are each goal type partialling out its other-level variable.
SSGC correlated with BCGC at r = .50; MCGC with WCGC at r = .46. The
partial correlations tended to show that correlations with individual-level goal
congruence terms do not change when their organizational-level counterparts are
partialled out. Correlations with BCGC dropped or changed sign when SSGC
was partialled out. Partial correlations of WCGC with MCGC partialled out
showed no consistent pattern relative to the zero-order correlations with WCGC.

Finally, for each individual-level goal congruence terms the other
individual-level term was partialled out. This analysis assessed the degree to
which MCGC and SSGC were additive in explaining attitude scale variance. The
results, given in Table 6, showed that the SSGC correlations with the attitude
variables dropped to zero when MCGC was partialled out. On the other hand,
correlations with MCGC maintained their levels (dropping only 1 to 5 points)
after partialling SSGC.

In the next section, I present a discussion of these results and their
meaning in terms of the composition models developed in the introduction.
Furthermore, the limitations of the current study are presented. Finally, a

discussion of possible future directions in goal congruence research is presented.

 

DISCUSSION

The central proposition underlying this study is that the agreement among
organizational members on the goals for that organization are related to the
attitudes of its members. In the Introduction, I argued that subgroups within the
organization must be considered when assessing agreement. From there I argued
that agreement 1) within and 2) between those subgroups (constituencies) are two
types of comparisons that could be examined for agreement. Finally, I argued
that within these two types of comparisons were two levels of conceptualizing
agreement -— individual and organizational. The results indicate that both type
and level are useful distinctions in that they provided a great deal of information
about whose agreement on goals was important.

Of the two types of comparison (within- and between-constituency) within-
constituency congruence (i.e., peer agreement) had the greatest impact on job
attitudes. Both individual and organizational-level goal congruence among peers
were correlated as predicted with job attitudes. Most notably, both showed a
meaningful, positive effect on job satisfaction and organizational commitment
even when the effects of the other types of goal congruence were statistically
controlled. Of the two within-constituency goal congruence terms, the individual-

level one maintained these relationships better.

87

88

The comparison of goals between subgroups showed relationships similar
to those of the within subgroup comparisons, but when other congruence effects
were controlled the partial correlations were near zero. For instance, the average
congruence between a supervisor and all of his or her subordinates was unrelated
to job attitudes when supewisor-subordinate congruence was partialled from the
relationships. Furthermore, individual supervisor-subordinate agreement was
overshadowed by peer agreement, but an individual’s congruence with his or her
supervisor did relate to numerous attitudes.

Taken together these findings underscore the need to examine the degree
to which colleagues agree on organizational priorities as a potential factor in job
attitude research. Closer examination of the findings of this study are discussed
below. Type of comparison and the level of conceptualization are examined first,
then the individual goal congruence terms are examined. These sections are
followed by discussions of levels of analysis issues, limitations with the study, and
future directions of research in the area of organizational goal congruence.

Between-Unit Compared to Within-Unit Goal Congruence

In general, the within-constituency goal congruence terms related to the
attitude scales better than the between-constituency terms. Although preliminary,
the findings in the current study demonstrate a relationship between differences
in goal priorities among peers and perception of participation in decision making,
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention to quit. Within the
context of organizational theory, this result implies that researchers may need to
focus on the interactions of individuals at the same hierarchical level within the

organization. Intra-group conflict, particularly on goal orientation issues, has not

 

 

 

89

received a great deal of attention. If one assumes that goal congruence causes
the attitudes, then teachers seem to care about the direction of the school and
when disagreement about that direction occurs among the teachers, they react
negatively. Goal-oriented conflict at the subordinate level gives credence to the
Theory Y description of involved employees, because it implies an involvement in
the outcome of the school, not just the size of a paycheck (McGregor, 1967).
Individual-Level Compared to Organizational-Level Goal Congruence
Because of the findings, modifications in the composition models
developed in the Introduction are required. Recall, the correlations between
BCGC and the attitudes scales dropped to zero when controlling for SSGC.
Thus, SSGC seems to be a mediator in the BCGC to attitude relationships.
Moreover, correlations between SSGC and the attitude scales dropped two points
at most when controlling for BCGC (see Table 6). Thus, Figure 5 shows the
more appropriate composition model for between-constituency goal congruence.
As such, the usefulness of BCGC as a construct seems limited. That is, BCGC

appears to be simply the sum of its parts.

 

Between-Constituency
Goal Congruence

l

Supervisor-Subordinate Individual
Goal Congruence Attitudes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIGURE 6: Between-Constituency Goal Congruence Model

 

90

With regards to the debate on the best level of analysis in the leadership
domain (Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984), these results provide support
for the dyad approach when the issue is organizational goals. Group-level
theorists frequently discriminate between consideration and initiating structure
behaviors of leaders (see, for example, Fleishman & Harris, 1962). The current
study speaks only to the initiating structure component by focusing on goals.

For the within-constituency goal congruence model the evidence is not as
clear. Although the correlations with WCGC dropped notably when MCGC was
controlled, meaningful partial correlations remained for job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Likewise, the moderate correlations of MCGC with
the attitude scales dropped two to seven points when WCGC was controlled.
Thus WCGC and MCGC share common variance with the attitude scales, but
both also seemed to directly and perhaps meaningfully affect individual attitudes.
For that reason, the model presented in Figure 6 is less parsimonious but more

interesting conceptually than the between-constituency model.

 

Within-Constituency
Goal Congruence

T .

Member-Constituency 1 Individual

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Goal Congruence Attitudes

 

 

 

 

FIGURE 7: Within-Constituency Goal Congruence Model
The variance in the attitude measures common to both MCGC and

WCGC can be given a post hoc conceptual explanation. WCGC may reflect a

 

91

sense of unity of purpose among the teachers. That sense of unity is likely to
bring about two conditions. One condition is the shared camaraderie manifest in
low levels of observed conflict among one’s peers. This observed unity is
manifested in WCGC only. The second condition is low conflict between oneself
and peers. This low conflict is manifested in both WCGC and MCGC. The first
condition still accounts for variance in teachers’ attitudes but is not as strong
when the second component is removed. The findings can be explained this way,
but it is important to note that there were no measures of "camaraderie" or
conflict, hence this speculation remains to be evaluated in future research.

Can a similar argument be made to explain the results when organizational
variance is partialled from individual relationships? When defining MCGC in the
Introduction, I described three types of low MCGC individuals. The first were
members of an incongruent school (low WCGC). The second were members of a
Splinter group (low to high WCGC depending on the relative sizes of the majority
and splinter groups and the congruence of the majority group). The last was the
aberrant individual in a cohesive constituency (high WCGC). Had WCGC
accounted for substantial MCGC-to-attitude variance, one could speculate that
the first type of condition was prominent and the latter two not so. Because
correlation coefficients dropped only slightly (2 to 7 points) for the MCGC-to-
attitude relationships when controlling for WCGC (see Table 6), some
speculations can be offered. First, it may be that many teachers are members of
splinter groups or aberrant from the majority relative to members of incongruent
schools. Second, that individuals whose goals are inconsistent with the other

members of a highly cohesive group have markedly lower attitudes about their

 

92

job and organization than individuals in non-cohesive groups. That is, the
individual who finds him or herself outside the in-group is more likely to have a
lower perception of participation in decision making, lower job satisfaction, lower
organizational commitment, and higher intentions to quit than the individual who
is among a non-cohesive group (i.e., one of the crowd). Thus, I would argue that
the psychological distress of disagreement with peers on the priority of
organizational goals is most acute when those peers agree among themselves.
Individual-Level Findings

When considered separately, correlations with the two individual-level goal
congruence terrrrs were consistent with most of their hypothesized attitude
variables. When considered together only MCGC maintained reasonable effect
sizes. They are first discussed jointly.

R l i n hi f n

The prediction that congruence with one’s supervisor might substitute for
peer congruence and vice versa did not receive support. For this reason partial
correlations were computed in which SSGC was partialled from MCGC-to-
attitude correlations and MCGC from SSGC-to-attitude correlations. The
findings were somewhat surprising given the relative attention paid to supervisor-
subordinate relations compared to peer relations. These partial correlations
showed that MCGC could retain its demonstrated relationships to the attitude
scales when SSGC was partialled out, but that SSGC could not when MCGC was
partialled out. Conceptually, we can interpret these findings to mean that the
agreement on organizational goals among peers is more important than the

agreement with one’s supervisor. Specifically, with regards to the substitution

  

~ ‘
.‘~\ I

      

.l
m? i

93
notion, it seems that agreeing with one’s peers on the goals for the organization
can substitute for agreement with one’s supervisor, but that agreement with one’s
supervisor does not substitute for agreement among one’s peers.
SSGC

Despite the results of the partial correlations discussed above, the
supervisor/ subordinate relationship as measured by goal congruence was related
to job satisfaction, organizational commitment and to a lesser extent participation
in decision making climate and intention to quit. It was not meaningfully related
to perceptions of work adjustment nor to stress. These findings deserve
discussion in their own right. Even if MCGC is a stronger type of congruence,
the data supported the hypothesis that SSGC related to subordinate attitudes.

Recall that the primary theoretical perspective for SSGC was LMX
(Leader-Member Exchange). Discussion of the LMX concept usually includes the
idea that leaders and member share goals (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). The results
support the importance of goal congruence as a component of LMX. The
relationships confirmed are most impressive given the method of measuring goal
congruence. Method bias can be virtually eliminated as a source for spurious
correlations.

With regards to specific attitudes, the findings help clarify discrepancies in
the literature. For example, as reported in the Introduction, the relationship
between LMX and decision influence (participation in decision making) varied.
Scandura et al. (1986) reported a correlation of .45 between these two variables.
Duchon et al. (1986) reported that they were not significantly related. Unlike the

Scandura et al. study, but like the Duchon et al. study, this study used a method

 

'

 

94
other than self-report to assess LMX. Also, the relationship in this study was low
(r = .10). Combining the findings fiom Duchon et al. (1986), Scandura et al.
(1986), and the current study leads to the conclusion that 1) when measuring
LMX, one should not use self-report measures because of method bias, and 2)
participation in decision making is only modestly related to LMX.

This study confirms previous research that indicates LMX and job
satisfaction are related. Moreover, the effect size found in this study, r = .19,
was similar to the effect sizes of Vecchio and Gobdel (1984), r = .25, and
Duchon et al. (1986), r = .25.

Organizational commitment had previously received only scant attention in
LMX research. This study is consistent with the few past studies of a positive
relationship (see Duchon et al., 1986; and Vroom, 1960) between organizational
commitment and LMX.

Intention to quit findings tend to parallel the participation in decision
making findings. As with participation in decision making, intention to quit
demonstrated a low but meaningful relationship with goal congruence, although in
a negative direction. In the case of intention to quit, one factor that has been
used to explain mixed findings is the level of the employee within the
organizational hierarchy (Vecchio, 1985). Vecchio (1985) suggested that only for
relatively high-level employees would LMX show the negative relationship with
intention to quit. The current findings are consistent with this interpretation if
one accepts the contention made in the Introduction that teachers represent an

operator constituency (i.e., professionals; Mintzberg, 1983).

 

95

 

Perceptions of stress and adjustment were not predicted to be related to
SSGC and were not.

In general, the findings support the past evidence and further elucidate the
types of contingencies researchers and practitioners have been seeing in LMX
research. The consistency of the current findings with past LMX research seems
to emphasize the importance of goal agreement as a central aspect of the
supervisor/ subordinate relationship. Recall that the LMX concept was composed
of three components: 1) perceived contribution of the exchange, 2) loyalty, and
3) mutual affection. The first two incorporated notions of goal congruence. The
current findings support inclusion of these notions in the measurement of the
leader-member relationship. Furthermore, the current study measured this
component without asking direct questions of the leader or member about the
relafionshio between them. Therefore, susceptibility to method bias, a problem in
other measures of LMX (Dienesch & Liden, 1986), is not a problem here.
Implications of the dyad versus group level approach to leadership research are
discussed in the individual- versus organizational-level comparisons below.

mono

The least precise theoretical work is available on the concept of MCGC,
yet MCGC was related to the attitude variables more strongly than the other goal
congruence terms. MCGC correlated substantially with participation in decision
making climate, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention to
quit. These findings show that as a person’s agreement with his or her peers on
goals for the group or organization increases, the person’s positive attitudes

increase and negative attitudes decrease. If one is tempted to conclude from the

 

96

SSGC findings that team-building need only focus on the supervisor-subordinate
dyad, the findings with regards to MCGC should temper the temptation. The
strength of peer goal congruence was most notable for job satisfaction and
organizational commitment, but participation in decision making and intention to
quit were also meaningfully related to MCGC. Size of the group did not seem to
be a factor. Size was used as a covariate but was not sufficiently related to
MCGC or the non-aggregated attitude scales to explain correlations between
MCGC and attitudes. Issues regarding size as a variable are discussed in the
limitations section.

In the Introduction, I argued that MCGC represented the task orientation
component of group cohesion. The advantage of this conceptualization is found
in the ability to use group cohesion and related social psychological concepts on a
more specific collectivity -- the organizational constituency. Constituency
membership is more specific in that it is defined, at least in this study, by
membership in a single hierarchical level in an organization. Parallel
organizational constructs were identified for the social psychological constructs
that have been found to be correlated with group cohesion. The parallelism
included willingness to participate in group interaction which translated to
participation in decision making climate, satisfaction with the group which
translated to job satisfaction, commitment to the group which translated to
organizational commitment, and attraction to the group which translated to
intentions to remain. All these associations were confirmed by the results.

Finally, these findings tend to confirm the importance of climate

discrepancy (Joyce & Slocum, 1982). Climate discrepancy focuses on the

 

   

" I
I
. . ‘
I

97
difference between one individual’s level on a particular variable and the levels of
his or her peers, rather than just the level on the particular variable for that
individual. Although in the current study it was goals rather than climate
perceptions that were compared, I am arguing that goal inconsistency among
peers creates psychological distress.
Organizational-Level Findings
BCGC

Most of the hypotheses regarding BCGC were unconfirmed. Even when
BCGC was significantly related to an attitude, the attitude was predicted better
by each of the other goal congruence terms, regardless of whether the attitude
scale was aggregated or not. Furthermore, when partialling SSGC from
relationships with BCGC and the attitudes, the original meager coefficients drop
to zero. ‘

Limitations regarding the quality of the BCGC term can be addressed
readily. The intercorrelation matrices between the principals’ and teachers’ goal
ratings, and teachers’ goal ratings among themselves (Appendix D) show low
associations on each goal among these individuals. High associations would have
indicated little range for variance. Furthermore, BCGC had the highest eta2 (.25)
of the variables studied. These two points indicate that the psychometric quality
of BCGC is not an issue.

Another factor that might have produced these disappointing results for
BCGC was the exact weighting of constituencies used in the calculation of BCGC.
In this study, I separated the supervisor (principal) from his /her subordinates
(teachers). For the BCGC term this weighted the supervisor’s goal rating as

 

98

equal to the sum of an the teachers’ ratings. Thus, like a dictatorship, the
opinion of a single leader equalled the opinion of the masses. Perhaps this over-
emphasis (or under-emphasis) on the principal in the current calculation of
BCGC did not properly reflect influence. Continuing the metaphor, WCGC
represented a mutinous ship where only the crew’s opinion remained salient.
Toward the mutinous end of this power-distribution metaphor, is a pure
democracy, where the principal’s importance ratings are weighted the same as all
the others. Still at other points on the continuum are the republic, the
aristocracy, the oligarchy, and the monarchy, each representing increasingly
disproportionate difference in the salience of the leaders’ goal ratings relative to
those of the subordinates. A more complex understanding of the influence or
power of various persons or parties (i.e., weighting) may be necessary.

For instance, weighting may be contingent on the organization. Flat
organizations may be more amenable to unit weighting the individual goal ratings.
Unit centrality or resource control may also add complications. Those
constituencies which are central to the organization or control scarce resources
may require greater weighting than constituencies tangential to the organization,
because incongruence is more salient with core constituencies. Incongruence in
tangential units may be more easily tolerated.

Specific events or environmental factors may also affect the salience of a
particular constituency’s goals. Union votes, power struggles, and short- and long-
term conflicts may galvanize certain groups and the goals they represent.
Underlying these constructs is the issue of control of goal attainment. A union

vote may temporarily give employees some control over some organizational goal.

 

 

99

These issues are developed more fully in the section on future directions for
research.
use

WCGC produced the most ambiguous findings. Correlations between
WCGC and the aggregated attitude scales were the largest of the four congruence
measures studied. Moreover, size of school did not greatly affect these
associations when size was controlled. However, partialling MCGC from the
WCGC-attitudes relationships yielded small partial correlations. The meaning of
these findings was discussed earlier in the section on individual- vs organizational-
level goal congruence.

The correlations with size were not always as expected (see Table 5).
Teachers in larger schools did report lower levels of participation in decision
making and higher stress perceptions, but they also reported less intention to quit
and greater adjustment problems.

The effect of controlling size deserves attention as well. Though no
specific predictions were made, it is interesting to note that partialling lowered
the correlation of WCGC with perceptions of participation in decision making
and raised the correlation of WCGC with intention to quit, adjustment and stress.

Levels of Analysis Issues

A primary concern facing organizational researchers is determining the
proper level of analysis. Dansereau et al. (1984) developed the Variant
Approach in an attempt to answer the question of proper level. Within the
approach they developed a test and cutoff values to determine the appropriate

level of analysis. The 30% test, their most liberal, requires an eta2 of .33 or

 

Tm .._
a. o.“ - f $13-42."— a;
-._

 

 

100

higher if a researcher is to conclude that an organizational-level variable (whole,
in their terms) is valid. Neither BCGC nor WCGC came close to this level.

On the other hand, James (1982) reported a median eta’ of .12. The goal
congruence terms easily surpassed this level. James’ data imply that high eta‘s
are difficult to find and that meaningful information can be gleaned from
aggregated variables whose etaz are relatively low (cf. Mossholder & Bedeian,
1983).

These opinions reveal the lack of consensus on what is an appropriate
level for the etaz of an individual variable to be aggregated. One perspective is
that eta2 is like reliability (James, 1982) in that low values indicate a ceiling for
validity (i.e., correlation). Therefore, obtaining correlations of some level of
practical meaningfulness indicates that the eta2 was sufficient. This was the case
with WCGC. Since BCGC had a similar eta“, its value does not adequately
explain the low correlations found with BCGC. These arguments are purely
statistical, not conceptual. That is, they speak to the measurement model (i.e.,
the association of instruments to the constructs they are designed to measure).
There is agreement that conceptual rationale must exist before a variable
collected from individual units can be aggregated. Moreover, a rationale must be
established for the predicted association as well as the construct itself. BCGC
may have failed because the conceptual model (i.e., the predicted association of
constructs) was inadequate. This study was exploratory, perhaps the findings

indicate that one should not expect that BCGC be related to individual attitudes.

 

101

Limitations

Many of the possible limitations associated with this study have been
discussed in the sections on the specific goal congruence terms. However, some
general limitations need to be addressed. Among these are selection issues,
method bias in the attitude scales, and generalizability. Each are discussed in
turn.

Selection

One limitation involves the selection of study subjects. Although schools
were selected based on a procedure designed to insure representativeness, some
declined and were replaced by other schools fitting the selection criteria. It may
be that the schools (their principals to be specific) had reasons to refuse to
participate that were related to the studied variables that skewed the results.
Fortunately this number was quite small.

At the individual level the selection issue may be greater. Respondents
(teachers) within schools were selected by the principal. Although sampling was
requested only in schools with over 75 teachers, there is no guarantee that
sampling within smaller schools did not occur. Nor is it guaranteed that when
sampling did occur it was random, despite instructions to the principal to use
random sampling. Selection bias may have occurred in the form of avoidance of
disliked teachers. Such an occurrence would have restricted the range of the goal
congruence measure (particularly the between-unit measures). More likely,
convenience issues affected the randomness of selection, which would probably

have no strong effect on the studied variables.

 

 

102

Relationships with regards to size - indicated by the number of full time
teachers - were the most threatened by selection bias. Because sampling was
most likely to occur in large schools, the composition of the respondents in those
schools may not have reflected true composition. Perhaps, size would have had a
more substantial effect in this study if sampling was within the control of the
researchers.

Methodlias

Although method bias was not a likely problem with the goal congruence
measures, the attitude variables were all assessed in a self-report manner.
Because self-report was used, the high intercorrelations between the attitude
scales (see Table 5) may be partially attributable to the data collection method.
These high intercorrelations are also reflected in the similarity of patterns in the
correlations in the goal congruence correlations. Different or more divergent
patterns may have resulted had numerous methods been used. However, many of
these variables have been shown to be highly related in previous research using
various methods of data collection (see, for example, Steers & Mowday, 1981).
Therefore, the high intercorrelations may simple reflect their conceptual
similarity, and are not particularly surprising.

Q l' l .1.

The generalizability of these findings beyond teachers needs further
investigation. Teachers are a unique class of employees. They perform in a
highly demanding atmosphere for relatively low wages. Confirmation across
occupations will be necessary before one can address the generalizability of the

findings.

 

_, NEIL" ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another issue is causal linkage. This study was cross-sectional and

exploratory. A longitudinal or time lag study would be necessary to determine
whether goal congruence causes job attitudes, whether the reverse is true, or
whether some form of reciprocal causality occurs. For instance, the findings with
regards to SSGC imply that, when a supervisor’s and subordinate’s goals are
congruent, there is a high level of leader-member exchange. But what happens
first? Does high goal congruence lead the supervisor to increase exchange (cf.
Vroom & Yetton, 1973)? Or, do increases in the exchange relationship,
presumably because of the supervisor’s perceptions of subordinate competence,
increase goal congruence and goal acceptance (cf. Ulrich et al., 1988)?

The same questions can be posed with regard to MCGC and participation
in decision making. Advocates of CD suggest the use of participation in decision
making to increase cohesion, goal acceptance and presumably congruence (e.g.,
Leavitt, 1965). Shaw (1981), on the other hand, suggested that cohesive groups
are a consequence of members holding similar goals. Now that there is support
for associations between these variables, confirmatory and experimental studies
should be conducted.

Implications and Future Directions of Research

The goal congruence terms in this study were based on the consideration
of multiple goals and multiple constituencies. Continued research in goal
congruence needs to examine further the definitions of both organizational goals

and constituencies.

 

In this study all goals and overall attitudes were considered. Fourteen

goals were rated by all constituencies and members alike. Perhaps, disagreement
on one or some goals is more critical than disagreement on others. For example,
disagreement on customer relations within a unit which has control over customer
relations may be more important than disagreement on building maintenance. It
is also possible that some goals had no relevance for some of the schools in the
sample (i.e., integration of the school’s student body). Perhaps by focusing on a
specific goal, using goal accomplishment and examining the congruence on just
the one goal, outcomes would be more tractable. Such a procedure would make
direct goal comparisons between units difficult. On the other hand, perhaps
comparisons between constituencies should only be done on those functions (and
their goals) for which there is overlap between the constituencies.

Goal salience can also be affected by control over goal accomplishment
and the ability to monitor progress. Organizational-level control concepts have
recently been introduced by Green and Welsh (1988). They discussed the
constraints on establishing control systems at the organizational level. Along with
these constraints, traditional goal-setting issues must be considered, like goal
acceptance and an effector (ability to affect goal accomplishment). Goal
acceptance takes on a whole new meaning at the organizational level. This study
examined differences in the level of goal acceptance at the organizational level by
focusing on who is doing the accepting and what are the consequences of
differences in this acceptance. These issues must be considered by anyone trying

to use control theory concepts at the organizational level.

 

105
DE. 1C.

One general assumption of this study is that objective membership can be

a meaningful categorization tool. Recall, constituencies were defined by job title
(teacher, principal). However, constituency membership may have subjective as
well as objective dimensions. For instance, it may be that social identification
(cf., Ashforth & Mael, 1989) would differentially weight the importance of goal
congruence for the individuals in an organization. However, categorizing based
on complicated weighting schemes quickly becomes intractable. Even though the
current study lacked data on subgroups and coalitions, easily interpretable results
were obtained.

Further investigation into goal congruence needs to focus on the
subgrouping structure with special attention to the outliers. Is the aberrant
member under more psychological distress than the member of an inconguence
organization? Clustering procedures may be able to identify the subgroups, but
more information needs to be collected to understand the nature of the
subgrouping (i.e., is it structural or belief based?). Perhaps the best approach is
to focus on how the subgrouping comes about. Cognitive perspectives, discussed
next, may help understand these processes.

Combining the issues related to goal specificity and constituency
membership highlights an added dimension of goal congruence - intensity of the
goal strength. Goals for which constituency members have the greatest control,
define the specific duties of the unit and provide meaning for the members are
likely to be the most salient. Incongruence on these goals are likely to have the

greatest impact on job attitudes.

 

106

Weick and Bougon (1986) described organizations as objects of the minds

that consider them. Physical or objective reality is not nearly as important as the
organizational members’ perceptions of reality. It is the mutual, "consensually
validated" perceptions of the members that make a group of people an
organization (Weick, 1979), in other words, congruence. But when does this
"consensual validation" process begin? For most members it begins upon entering
the organization. When is it complete? Probably never, but when some level of
congruence is reached between a newcomer and incumbents, consensual
validation may have reached an equilibrium.

The process of acquiring a perception of the organization is often referred
to as organizational socialization. Interest in organizational socialization as an
issue for psychological research is only just beginning. Schein (1965) has
described socialization as the process of newcomers "learning the ropes" of the
organization they enter. Others have described socialization as sense-making
(Louis, 1980), and the process of role acquisition, development of work skills and
adjustment to a work group’s norms and values (Feldman, 1981; Nicholson, 1984).
Fisher (1986) stated that organizational socialization "focuses on the learning of
organization-specific modes of behaving and thinking" (p. 102). In Weickian
terms, what is learned are the perceptions of the current members in the
organization. Specifically, "the ropes" include organizational goals and the
acceptance or level of importance associated with these goals by other

organizational members.

n‘

 

 

 

107

It is important to note two features of socialization. One, is that it is a
process and therefore happens over time (Katz, 1980). Two, is that if
organizations are viewed as consensual entities, the congruence of perceptions
between members is the critical feature of an organization.

The results of this study demonstrated to some extent that failure to
consolidate can have negative consequences for the organization and its
membership. What the study does not address is the process of acquiring (or not
acquiring) that consolidation. What are the specific tactics, policies,
circumstances that lead to congruence (MCGC) among teachers? For instance
are smoking policies within the school affecting WCGC? While conducting this
study, I was told of a school in which two factions existed. One faction was
composed of smokers, the other non-smokers. Apparently the teachers’ lounges
were on the opposite ends of the school. In one lounge smoking was allowed, in
the other it was not. Groups formed based on which lounge one typically used.
Finally, an interesting line of research might focus on the moves by groups to
achieve congruence (lander, 1985, p. 6; Hackman, 1976).

Conclusion

When organizational strategists suggest organizations should articulate a
clear mission and objectives, they may be on to something. This study confirms
the idea that agreement on organizational goals is associated with positive
attitudes, intentions and perceptions. Most importantly is the agreement among
peers. Specifically the study found the following:

. Supervisor-subordinate goal congruence is positively related to

attitudes regarding participation in decision making, job satisfaction,

 

108

organizational commitment, and negatively related to intention to
quit.

- Member-constituency goal congruence is positively related to
attitudes regarding participation in decision making, job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and negatively related to intention to
quit.

- Between-constituency goal congruence is positively related to job
satisfaction and organizational commitment only when job
satisfaction and organizational commitment are aggregated to the
school level.

. Within-constituency goal congruence is positively related to
participation in decision making, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and negatively related to intention to quit and stress
when stress is aggregated to the school.

With the exception of BCGC, the findings represent associations with
congruence between and among different constituencies. The view of
organizations as a collection of constituencies and members with multiple goals
and multiple priorities produced research results that indicate the importance of
peer goal congruence - a construct that has been relatively neglected by
organizational behavior researchers. Further investigation, centered at
understanding specific findings within this study are required to move from the
exploratory stage to the confirmatory stage. These investigations may help us to
understand how to make organizations into teams, and the consequences of such

team formation.

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A

 

 

109

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINClPALS

COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT
OF SCHOOL ENVIRONMENTS

CASE
INFORMATION

MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM

 

NATIONAL NORMATIVE STUDY

NOVEMBER 9 - DECEMBER 4. 1987

 

PRINCIPAL FORM

 

 

 

COPYRIGHTED OR PREPUBLICATlON MATERIALS. ALL RlGHTS
RESERVED. No PART OF THlS PACKET MAY BE REPRODUCED
OR HODlFlED NITHOUT PRIOR NASSP APPROVAL.

 

   

110

Comprehensive Assessment of School Environments (CASE)
Principal Report

This survey asks questions about the school and/or the school district. ANSUIRS
SHOULD I! PROVIDED I! run PRINCIPAL 01 SCHOOL BEADHASTIR OR A KROUL£DGEADL3
RIPRZSENTAIIVI. Please mark your answers on the separate computer answer sheer
furnished with your survey. Use only a No. 2 pencil and do 321 fold your answer
sheet or make any stray marks on it. Mark your answer to question 1 on the
answer sheet next to the No. 1. then No. 2. etc.

1. Which of the following nooolesfon_oasego;fos best describes the locale of
the high school in which you are principal?

City. more than 1,000,000

City. 150,000 - 999,999

Suburban. related to city of 150,000 or more

City. 25,000 - 149,999, distinct from a metropolitan area
City. 5,000 - 24,999. not suburban

Town under 4,999 or rural

U‘fiUNO-‘O

Using the scale below. indicate how importanc_each of the following goals are

for your aohool.

Of primary importance

Highly important. but not of most importance

Important, more important than many other goals

Average importance among all the other goals the

school must meet

2 - Somewhat important. must be considered, but other
goals are more important

1 - Little importance, can' t be ignored, but most other
goals are more important

0 - Of no importance

6
5
a
3

2. Increasing basic skills of students (reading. writing. and math)
3. Increasing the breadth of courses offered
4. Enhancing school athletic programs

5. Enhancing other cocurricular activities such as clubs and intramural
programs

6. Upgrading staff development and lnservice programs

7. Increasing the cost effectiveness of the school's programs

8. Upgrading the physical resources of the school

9. Achieving full racial integration

10. Developing better policies and procedures to maximize instructional time

11. Upgrading programs for special education. gifted,and/or low-functioning
students

l7.

 

111

Upgrading discipline plans and practices

Increasing parent/community involvement

Upgrading college preparation and other academic programs for students
Upgrading vocational education programs for students

How would you classify your school’s governing structure?

0. Public
1. Private. church-related
2. Private, nonchurch~related

How many years has your current superintendent (or the person in a similar
leadership role if the school is not a public school) served as
superintendent in your district?

0. Less than one year
1. More than one year. but less than two
2. More than two years, but less than three
3. More than three years, but less than four
4. Hora than four years, but less than five
5. More than five years. but less than eight
6. Eight or more years
Use the scale below to answer the following questions about your role in the
district.
4 - Always
3 - Often
2 - Sometimes
I - Seldom
0 - Never
18. How frequently do you participate in the decision to hire new staff?
19. How frequently do you participate in decisions on the promotion of any of
the professional staff?
20. How frequently do you participate in decisions on the adoption of new
policies?
21. How frequently do you participate in decisions on the adoption of new

programs?

 

112

Use the scale below to respond to the following statements about practices in
your district.

22.
23.
24.

25.
26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

3 - Definitely true
2 - True

1 - False

o -

Definitely false

There can be little action taken here until a supervisor approves a
decision.

A person who wants.to make his/her own decisions would be quickly
discouraged here.

Even small matters have to be referred to someone higher up for a final
answer. .

I have to ask my supervisor before I do almost anything.

Any decision I make has to have my superior's approval.

How old is your school building?

less than 5 years
5-9 years

lO-l4 years

15-l9 years

20-24 years

25-29 years
30-49 years
50-74 years
75-99 years
More than 100 years

(FUND-'0
OOVO‘UI

How long has it been since some structural renovation took place at your
school (other than scheduled maintenance)? .

0. Less than 1 year 5. 13-15 years
1. 1-3 years 6. 16-18 years
2. 4-6 years 7. l9-21 years
3. 7-9 years 8. 22-25 years
4. 10-12 years 9.

More than 25 years

How many security personnel are employed in your school?

0. None 5. five

1. one 6. six

2. two .7. seven

3. three 8. eight

4. {our 9. nine or more

How many years has the current principal or headmaster served your school
in this role?

Less than one year

Hora than one year. but less than two
More than two years. but less than three
Hore than three years. but less than four
More than four years. but less than five
Hora than five years. but less than eight
Eight or more years

o~u1~uNHO

WW” .

 

 

 

   

113

31. How many principals or headmasters have served your school in the last

decade?

0. one 5. six

1. two 6. seven

2. three 7. eight

3. four 8. nine or more
4. five

32. What is your sex (i.e., the school principal's sex)?
0. Hale - 1. Female

33. What is your ethnic status (i.e., the school principal's ethnic status)?

0. American Indian/Eskimo I 3. hispanic
1. Asian American 4. White
2. Black 5. Other

To what degree does the school distrigg specify the regulation of the academic
program? Use the following scale for the next three items.

- Very extensive regulation
3 - Extensive regulation
2 - Moderate regulation
1 - Some regulation
0 - Little regulation

34. The Qggxigglgm (Formal plan for teaching/learning activities; subject
matter courses of study)

35. Insgxggsigngl_£;gg;gg;;§ (Teaching methods. strategies,and classroom

organization)

36. £23131319n_5221235h35 (Curriculum design. program effectiveness. teacher
performance. student grade reporting)

To what degree does the school (principal. administrative team) require
adherence to the following? Use the following scale for the next three items.

Very strict adherence
Strict adherence
Hoderate adherence
Some adherence

Little adherence

37. The £g5gh1i;hg§_§nxxisglun (Formal plan for teaching/learning activities;_,

subject matter courses of study)

38. WW (Inching methods. strait-sin. and

classroom organisation) '

39. aggg11gg_£ggluagign_bnnxggghgs (Curriculum design. program effectiveness.

teacher performance. student grade reporting)

c>r-eauo&-
lllll

 

114

Use the scale below to indicate the extent to which written statements or rules
-and regulations apply to the following.

3 - Uritten rules are strictly enforced

2 - Uritten rules are sometimes enforced

l - Uritten rules exist. but are not enforced
O - No written rules

40. Student attendance

41. Student dress

42. Student employment

43. Teacher/staff attendance

44. Teacher/staff dress

Indicate for each of the following activities whether budgeted resources are
available. Hark 0 if no budgetary resources are available; l'if a separate
budget exists for the item.

45. Priority setting for the school (needs assessment)

0 - No
l - Yes

46. Honitoring of student activities

0 - No
l - Yes

47. Student discipline

0 - No
l - Yes

48. SuperVision of instruction

0 - ho
l - Yes

49. Teacher evaluation

0 - No
l - Yes

50. Staff development

0 - No
l - Yes

_51.

$2.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

 

115

Program evaluation

0 - No
l - Yes

Curriculum review and update

0 - No
l - Yes

Review of instructional materials

0 - No
l - Yes

Review of instructional methods

0 - No
1 - Yes

School improvement plans

0 - No
l - Yes

Student recognition and reward

0 - No
l - Yes

Teacher recognition and reward

0 - No
l - Yes

Parental involvement

0 - No
1 - Yes

Use of volunteers in the school

0 - No
l - Yes

Public information and community relations

0 - No
l - Yes

 

 

 

 

116

Indicate in the next three questions whether teachers are provided curriculum
guidance and supervision by each of the following? On the

answer sheet. mark 0 if the answer is NO; 1 if the answer isYES.

61. District personnel

0. No
1. Yes

62. Principal or assistant principal

0. No
1. Yes

63. Department chairperson:

0. No
1. Yes

64. How many scheduled periods does your school have each day?

0. 5 or fewer 3. 8
l. 6 4. 9
2. 7 5. 10 or more

How many electives (total) are available to your students in each of the
following subject areas? Use the scale below for items 65-73.

0 0 5. 5
l l 6. 6
2 2 7. 7
3 3 8. 8
4 4 9. 9 or more

65. English/language arts

66. Fine Arts (music. art. theatre)
67. Foreign languages

68. Mathematics

69. Physical and health education

70. Science

71. Social studies

72. Vocational and technical education

73. Interdisciplinary approaches

 

   

117

what percentage of your students are enrolled in the programs below? Use the
following scale for your responses:

0 - Less than lOt 5 - 50-59t
1 - 10-l9t 6 - 60-69t
2 - 20-29t 7 - 70-79.
3 - 30-39t 8 - 80-89t
4 - 40-49t 9 - 90t or more

74. Remedial programs
75. Vocational/technical
76. College preparatory

77. What percentage of households in your school attendance area have
school-age children?

0. Less than 5‘ 5. 25-29t

1. 5-9‘ 6. 30-39!
.2. 10-l4t 7. 40-59t

3. 15-19t 8. 60-79t

4. 20-244 9. 80‘ or more

The scale below is designed to assess important aspects of the performance of
your school's g§n1n13513312g_§g§n (principal with other administrators as
defined by school or district). Read the definition of the various performance
dimensions and use the following scale for your evaluation.

5 - Exemplary

4 - Superior

3 - Good

2 - Satisfactory

1 - Needs improvement
0 - Unsatisfactory

78- WWW - the can ambush” Procedures.

sets expectations and goals. monitors the degree to which the school's
academic objectives and individual progress goals are met.

79. WW - tho teen takes responsibility for

approving. and in some instances. initiating. supervising. participating
in. and evaluating student activities.

80. n1xggsign_g£_§ggngxs_§3xziggi -'the team assumes appropriate responsibility

for direction and supervision of cafeteria. bus service. school
maintenance. various support staff. etc.

81. Q11ggs1ng_ghg_§ghgzigg_2£_§;y§gngg - the team sets guidelines for student
behavior and enforces them objectively; maintains up-to-date procedural
manuals. and monitors observance.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.
87.
88.

89.

90.

91.

 

118

WWW - the tan stuns“ for obstt‘VItions.
conferences. feedback. goal setting. and appropriate development activities
related to staff performance.

ggnmgnigy_nglg;12ns - the team works to promote parental and community
involvement in the school and to develop positive relationships between the
school and parents/community.

WWW - the tons int-nets
effectively with other persons; is aware of the effect of its behavior and
decisions on persons inside and outside of the school; attempts to address
the needs. concerns. and problems of other parties.

WW - tho tan ”with! hooded
input and cooperative action toward a coordinated educational program in
the district's schools and other educationally related agencies.

- the team manages monetary resources
effectively and fairly.

- the team provides for needed maintenance and
enlists help of faculty and students in maintaining an attractive facility.

W of the Idainistntivs tun in your

school.

What percent of the total number of your students received disciplinary
referrals 1135 year? (Divide number of students who received one or more
referrals by total number of students.)

0. Less than 1‘ 5. 9-10‘

1. l-2t 6. ll-th

2. 3-4t 7. 13-l4t

3. 5-6t 8. 15. or more
4. 7-8t

What percent of your students received suspensions 13;; year? (Divide
number of students who received.one or more suspensions by total number of
students.)

0. Less than 1. 5. 9-10t

l. l-2t 6. 11-12t

2. 3-4t ' 7. l3-l4t

3. 5-6t 8. 15‘ or more
4. 7-88

What percent of students were involved in counseling referrals for
disciplinary reasons? (Divide number of gsgggngs who received one or more
referrals by total number of students.)

0. Less than 1‘ 5. 9-10t.

l. l-2t ' 6. ll-th

2. 3-4t 7. l3-l4t

3. 5-6t 8. 15‘ or more-
4. 7-8t

92.

 

119

10

How many serious incidents of vandalism occurred at YO“? ‘¢h°°1 1133 year?

0. None 5. 9-10

1. 1-2 6. 11-12

2. 3-4 7. 13-14

3. 5-6 8. 15 or more
4. 7-8

Introducing change in school organizational structures or programs can be
difficult. The statements below describe various attitudes or conditions that
may be present in your school. Use the following scale to indicate the extent'
of your agreement or disagreement with items 93-107.

93.

94.

95.
96.
97.

98.

99.

100.

101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.

107.

4 - Strongly agree

3 - Agree

2 - Undecided

1 - Disagree .
0 - Strongly disagree

Our school staff tries to understand the needs of our students.

We try to find out how the people who will be affected feel about proposed
new programs.

We carefully evaluate our programs.
Our school staff is effective in introducing changes.
Our administrators and faculty do not trust each other.

Our administrators and faculty often talk about changing things at the
school.

Our administrators participate actively in school improvement efforts.

Our school staff is free to propose improvements even when funding is needed
for the changes.

Our administrators and teachers are open to student or parent suggestions.
Some of our school procedures or programs need to be changed.

I favor implementing new programs that support our total program.

I favor new programs that realistically can be implemented in our school.
I am uneasy about programs that are really new.

I am most comfortable with what we are already doing.

What is your general reaction to making defensible program changes?
Strongly supportive

Supportive

Undecided

Cautious
Very cautious

CDF‘hthlt‘
lllll

 

120

11

 

'SCHOOL CODE: Your school code numberfom'this CASE national validation study is
printed at the upper left corner of your address label. just above your name.

The number has nine digits. Please ignore other codes and numbers printed elsewhere
on this label.

Before_proceding;with the final pages of this report. g9 to numbers 116-123 on
SIDE 2 ofpyour computer answer sheet and blacken the correct circles for each of
the nine digits of this code. Use #ll6 for the first number of the code. #117 for
the second number. and so on until you have completed all nine digits(at 1124)..

f ‘

 

 

 

THE REMAINDER OF THE ITEMS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY ON THIS AND THE FOLLOWING
PAGES. IN THE SPACES PROVIDED. BY THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL OR HEADMASTER OR A KNOWLEDGEABLE
REPRESENTATIVE. PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT YOUR RESPONSES AND RETURN THESE THREE PAGES
WITH THE COMPUTER ANSWER SHEET.

In what state is your school located?

 

How many square feet in your school building?

 

What was your total school budget minus capital expenditures for last year
(1986-1987)?

 

What is the average per pupil expenditure in your school for the current school
year (exclusive of capital outlay)?

 

What is the average teacher salary in your school this year?

 

What has been the average annual cost of vandalism at your school over the last
three years?

 

How many people (professional staff plus aides, secretaries. janitors. cooks.
and other support staff) are employed at your school?

 

How many professional staff (teachers. counselors. administrators, etc.) are
employed at your school?

 

How many teacher full-time equivalents (FTEs) are employed at your school?

How many students are enrolled in your school?

 

How many of your students are non-minority?

 

List the percentages of students in your school in each of these racial/ethnic

groups.
American Indian/Eskimo Hispanic
Asian American White
Black Other

How many of the students in your school speak English as their primary language?

 

 

 

121

12

How many students in your school receive free or reduced-price lunches?

How many students transferred into your school last year (1986-1987)?

How many students transferred out of your school last year?

 

What was the average daily attendance in your school last year? Report as a
percent.

How many students dropped out of your school last year; i.e.. quit school
without transferring to another school?

 

How many students did not drop out of your school last year; i.e.. completed the
school year or transferred to another school?

 

Of the students enrolled in all courses last year. what percentage passed them?

Of the students enrolled in college preparatory courses last year. what
percentage passed them?‘

Of the students enrolled in vocational courses last year. what percentage completed
them with a grade of 8 or better?

 

In the tables below. please report standardized achievement test scores for all
grades in your school from 6 to 12. Give average percentiles or average normalized
curve equivalent scores (NCES).

READING COMPREHENSION

Reading Type of Score Test Used. Test
Grade Comprehension Reported: NCES Form and
Level Score or percentile? Publication Date

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lllllll

 

 

 

 

_. -..;. 3:

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

Grade
Level

MATH

Total
Hath
Score

SCIENCE

Total
Science
Score

122

Type of Score
Reported: NCES

or percentile?

Type of Score
Reported: NCES

or percentile?

Test Used, Test
Form and
Publication Date

Hill

Test Used. Test
Form and
Publication Date

lHl

 

APPENDIX B

 

123

The National Association of Secondary School Principals
1904 Association Drive - Reston. Virginia 22091 - Tel: 703-860-0200

October 1987

Dear Teacher:

The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) is pilot
testing measures for the Comprehensive Assessment of School Environments
(CASE) in order to examine the determinants of school effectiveness. Data are
being collected from principals. teachers.and students in selected schools
throughout the country. We believe this project is extremely important and
urge your serious participation.

This short survey asks questions about the characteristics of your school and
your own feelings about the school. Please respond to the survey items by
marking your answers on the separate answer sheet. Use only a No. 2 pencil on
the answer sheet. Please do NOT fold the answer sheet. There T? n3 need to
write your name; your responsE?’ are confidential. Instructions for
completing the items are printed in the survey.

When you have completed the survey, please return your answer sheet to your

principal.who will mail it to us. Your help and cooperation is greatly
appreciated.

James H. Keefe. Ed.D.
Director of Research

0864

Serving all Administrators in Middle Level and High School Education

 

124

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT
OF SCHOOL ENVIRONMENTS

CASE
INFORMATION

MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM

 

NATIONAL NORMATIVE STUDY

NOVEMBER 9 - DECEMBER 4. 1987

 

TEACHER FORM 1

 

 

COPYRIGHTED OR PREPUBLlCATION MATERIALS. ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS PACKET MAY BE REPRODUCED
OR MODIFIED WITHOUT PRIOR NASSP APPROVAL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

125

Comprehensive Assessment of School Environments (CASE)
Teacher Report

 

This survey asks questions about your perceptions of the school and your job.
Please mark your answers on the separate computer answer sheet furnished with
your survey. Use only a No. 2 pencil and do E91 fold your answer sheet or make
any stray marks on it. Mark your answer to question 1 on the answer sheet next
to the No. 1. then No. 2. etc.

Using the scale below. indicate how important each of the following goals (items
l-l4) are for your school.

10.

ll.
12.
l3.

l4.

6 - Of primary importance

5 - Highly important. but not of most importance

4 - Important. more important than many other goals

3 - Average importance among all the other goals the
district must meet

2 - Somewhat important. must be considered. but other

goals are more important
1 - Little importance. can't be ignored. but most
other goals are more important
0 - Of no importance
Increasing basic skills of students (reading. writing. and math)
Increasing the breadth of courses offered

Enhancing school athletic programs

Enhancing other cocurricular activities such as clubs and intramural
programs

Upgrading staff development and inservice programs
Increasing the cost effectiveness of the school's programs
Upgrading the physical resources of the school

Achieving full racial integration

Developing better policies and procedures to maximize instructional
time

Upgrading programs for special education. gifted.and/or low-functioning
students

Upgrading discipline plans and practices
Increasing parent/community involvement
Upgrading college preparation and other academic programs for students

Upgrading vocational education programs for students

 

126

Use the scale below to respond to items 15-32.

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

20.

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.

32.

4 - Strongly agree

3 - Agree

2 - Neither agree nor disagree
1 - Disagree

0 - Strongly disagree

I feel very little loyalty to this school.

I am proud to tell others that I am a teacher at this school.

For me. this is the best of all possible schools in which to work.
Deciding to work for this school was a definite mistake on my part.
I really care about the fate of this school.

Often. I find it difficult to agree with this school's policies on
important matters relating to its employees. teachers.or students.

I find that my values and the school's values are very similar.
I am committed to achieving the goals this school sets.

I really feel that the school's problems are my problems.
I often think about quitting.

I will probably look for a new job in the next year.

I will actively look for a new job in the next year.

I feel I have the respect of the people with whom I work.
I feel sure of myself in this teaching position.

I feel I've adjusted well to working in this school.

I don't think my fellow teachers feel relaxed around me.
I think I work well with other teachers.

I feel that I have a good system for doing my job.

 

127

Use the scale below for items 33-37 to indicate how often you have experienced
the following circumstances during this school year.

33.

34.

35.
'36.

.37.

4 - Quite often

3 - Frequently

2 - Occasionally

l - Rarely. just once or twice
0 - Never

Feeling that you have too heavy a workload. one you can't possibly finish
in an ordinary work day.

Thinking that you'll not be able to satisfy the conflicting demands of
various people for your time.

Feeling that you're not fully qualified to handle your job.
Feeling that your job tends to interfere with your family/personal life.

Generally feeling stress from your job.

Use the scale below to answer items 38-41 about your decision making role in the

district/school.
4 - Always
3 - Often
2 - Sometimes
l - Seldom
O - Never
38. How frequently do you participate in the decision to hire new staff?
39. How freqently do you participate in decisions on the promotion of any of
the professional staff?
40. How frequently do you participate in decisions on the adoption of new
policies?
41. How frequently do you participate in the decisions on the adoption of new

programs?

Use the scale below to respond to the following statements about practice; in
your district/school.

42.

43.

Definitely true
True

False

Definitely false

(Dr-Lana

Little action can be taken here until a supervisor approves a decision.

A person who wants to make his/her own decisions would be quickly
discouraged here.

44.

~4.5.

46.

 

128

'Even small matters have to be referred to someone higher up for a final

answer.
I have to ask my supervisor before I do almost anything.

Any decision I make has to have my superior‘s approval.

Introducing change in school organizational structures or programs can be
difficult. The statements below describe various attitudes or conditions that
may be present in your school. Use the following scale to indicate the extent
of your agreement or disagreement with items 47-61.

47.

48.

49.
50.
51.

52.

53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.

61.

Strongly agree
Agree

Undecided
Disagree
Strongly disagree

(Dh‘hahl&*
I I I I I

Our school staff tries to understand the needs of our students.

We try to find out how the people who will be affected feel about proposed
new programs.

We carefully evaluate our programs.
Our school staff is effective in introducing changes.
Our administrators and faculty do not trust each other.

Our administrators and faculty often talk about changing things at the
school.

Our administrators participate actively in school improvement efforts.

Our school staff is free to propose improvements even when funding is needed
for the changes.

Our administrators and teachers are open to student or parent suggestions..
Some of our school procedures or programs need to be changed.

I favor implementing new programs that support our total program.

I favor new programs that realistically can be implemented in our school.

I am uneasy about programs that are really new.

I am most comfortable with what we are already doing.

What is your general reaction to making defensible program changes?
Strongly supportive

Supportive

Undecided

Cautious
Very cautious

OHNUS‘
IIIII

 

 

129

Use the scale below to select the answer that best describes how :23 feel .bOQt
the following aspecs of your school.

62.
63.
64.
65.
66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

l - I am 3g;1_1111g;1;{1gg with this aspect of the school.
2 I am gigggpigfiigfi with this aspect of the school.

3 - I In W with this “Pent of the
school.

4 - I am ggsigfiigg with this aspect of the school.

5 - I am zgxy_satisfiig§ with this aspect of the school.

6 - I dgn;;_kngg how I feel about this aspect of the school. or I

ggn;;_kngg whether this statement fits my school.
The administrators in your school. '
Your pay. fringe benefits.and other compensation.

Your opportunities for career advancement in your school or district.
Student discipline and sense of responsibility.

The school curriculum and your job duties.

The competence. commitment. and level of cooperation of your fellow
teachers.

Community and parent support for your school and its programs.

The availability and quality of school facilities. supplies. and
maintenance. '

The extent and quality of communication about school matters within the
school and the district.

Choose the answer from the following scale that you think most people in your
school and community would pick to describe your school. Use this scale for
items 71-82.

71.
72.
73.
74.
75.

76.

Host people would g;;gngly_§1sgg;gg with this statement.
Host people would 111531;; with this statement.

Host people would ngithg;_ggxgg_ngg_gisggggg with this statement.
Host people would ggggg with this statement.

Host people would g;;gngly_ggxgg with this statement.

I ggn;;_knpg what most people think about this statement.or I
ggn;;_kngg whether this statement fits the school.

chunky-aur-
IIIIII

Teachers are patient and make extra efforts to help students.

Teachers understand and meet the needs of each student.

Students and teachers are safe in the school building.

The school is kept neat and attractive.

The administrators listen to teachers and students when making decisions.

Students work hard on their studies.

 

 

 

 

 

77.
78.
79.
80.
81.

82.

 

130

Host people would sttgng11_dissgtgg with this statement.
Host people would gigggzgg with this statement.

Host people would ngishgr_sgrgg_n2x_§i§§gxgg with this statement.

Host people would ggggg with this statement.
Host people would i;;ggg1y_1g;gg with this statement.

civic-easie-
IIIIII

I fign;;_kngg what most people think about this statement.or I
dgn;;_kngg whether this statement fits the school.

Students are well-behaved.

Students can get help and advice from teachers or counselors.
Students care about and respect each other.

Parents and members of the community attend school meetings and activities.
Host classroom time is spent in learning activities.

Students are able to take part in school activities that interest them.

 

 

SCHOOL CODE: Now go to numbers 107-l15 on your computer answer sheet and
blacken the circles for the nine-digit school code which your principal

has given you. Use #107 for the first number of the Code. #108 for the second
number. and so on until you have completed all nine digits (at #115).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

131
Goals (Principals and Teachers)

Instructions: Using the scale below, indicate how important each of the following
goals (items 1-14) are for your school.

11.
12.
13.
14.

6 = Of primary importance

5 = Highly important, but not of most importance

4 = Important, more important than many other goals

3 = Average importance among all the other goals the district
must meet

2 = Somewhat important, must be considered, but other goals are
more important

1 - Little importance, can’t be ignored, but most other goals are
more important

0 = Of no importance

Increasing basic skills of students (reading, writing, and math)
Increasing the breadth of courses offered
Enhancing school athletic programs

Enhancing other cocurricular activities such as clubs and intramural
programs

Upgrading staff development and inservice programs

Increasing the cost effectiveness of the school’s programs

Upgrading the physical resources of the school

Achieving full racial integration

Developing better policies and procedures to maximize instructional time

Upgrading programs for special education, gifted, and/or low-functioning
students

Upgrading discipline plans and practices
Increasing parent/community involvement
Upgrading college preparation and other academic programs for students

Upgrading vocational education programs for students

 

 

132

Participative Climate (Teachers)

Instructions: Use the scale below to answer items 38-41 about your decision
making role in the district/school.

38.
39.

40.

41.

4 = Always

3 = Often

2 = Sometimes
I = Seldom

O = Never

How frequently do you participate in the decision to hire new staff?

How frequently do you participate in decisions on the promotion of any of
the professional staff?

How frequently do you participate in the decisions on the adoption of new
policies?

How frequently do you participate in the decisions on the adoption of new
programs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

133

Satisfaction (Teachers)

Instructions: Use the scale below to select the answer that best describes how
10;; feel about the following aspects of your school.

I am mm with this aspect of the school.

I am dissatisfied with this aspect of the school.

I am neither satisfied net rdissati sfied with this aspect of the school.
I am satisfied with this aspect of the school.

I am very satisfied with this aspect of the school.

I den’t knew how I feel about this aspect of the school, or I 519m
LIKE whether this statement fits my school.

GUIAWNI—l

62. The administrators in your school.

63. Your pay, fringe benefits, and other compensation.

64. Your opportunities for career advancement in your school or district.
65. Student discipline and sense of responsibility.

66. The school curriculum and your job duties.

67. The competence, commitment, and level of cooperation of your fellow
teachers.

68. Community and parent support for you school and its programs.
69. The availability and quality of school facilities, supplies, and maintenance.

70. The extent and quality of communication about school matters within the
school and the district.

 

 

 

 

 

 

134

Commitment (Teachers)

Instructions: Use the scale to respond to items 15-23.

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

21.
22.

Strongly agree
ee

Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
0 = Strongly disagree

4
3
2
1

I feel very little loyalty to this school.

I am proud to tell others that I am a teacher at this school.

For me, this is the best of all possible schools in which to work.
Deciding to work for this school was a definite mistake on my part.
I really care about the fate of this school.

Often, I find it difficult to agree with this school’s policies on important
matters relating to its employees, teachers, or students.

I find that my values and the school’s values are very similar.
I am committed to achieving the goals this schools sets.

I really feel that the school’s problems are my problems.

 

135
Intention to Quit (Teachers)
Instructions: Use the scale to respond to items 24-26.

4 = Strongly agree

3 = Agree

2 = Neither agree nor disagree
1 = Disagree

0 = Strongly disagree

24. I often think about quitting.
25. I will probably look for a new job in the next year.

26. I will actively look for a new job in the next year.

 

136

Adjustment (Teachers)

Instructions: Use the scale to respond to items 27-32.

27.

29.
30.
3 1.
32.

4 = Strongly agree
3 = Agree
2 = Neither agree nor disagree
1 = Disagree
0 = Strongly disagree
I feel I have the respect of the people with whom I work.
I feel sure of myself in this teaching position.
I feel I’ve adjusted well to working in this school.
I don’t think my fellow teachers feel relaxed around me.

I think I work well with other teachers.

I feel that I have good system for doing my job.

rJ-J~

     

 

 

137
Stress (Teachers)

Instructions: Use the scale below for items 33-37 to indicate how often you have
experienced the following circumstances during this school year.

4 = Quite often

3 = Frequently

2 = Occasionally

l = Rarely, just once or twice
0 = Never

33. Feeling that you have too heavy a workload, one you can’t possibly finish
in an ordinary work day.

34. Thinking that you’ll not be able to satisfy the conflicting demands of
various people for you time.

35 Feeling that you’re not fully qualified to handle your job.
36 Feeling that your job tends to interfere with your family/personal life.

37. Generally feeling stress from your job.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

138

Size (Principals)

Instructions: THE REMAINDER OF THE ITEMS SHOULD BE ANSWERED
DIRECTLY ON THIS AND THE FOLLOWING PAGES, IN THE SPACES
PROVIDED, BY THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL OR HEADMASTER OR A
KNOWLEDGEABLE REPRESENTATIVE.

How many teaelle; full-time equivalents (FTEs) are employed at your school?

 

     

APPENDIX D

 

 

 

139

Intercorrelations Among Principal’s‘ and Among Teacher's" Ratings of Importance on 14 Goals

 

$1951: .1. 2 2 1 2 9 Z 3 2 .19 Ll 12 L1 1.4.
1 - 16 10 13 14 14 14 12 12 26 17 27 12 22
2 20 - 34 22 20 13 18 14 30 32 33 19 40 26
3 -06 17 — 42 12 25 25 23 19 27 35 14 34 33
4 0’7 28 42 - 27 24 26 21 Z) 26 24 27 14 14
5 19 22 03 23 - 30 16 13 37 36 17 34 10 O7
6 14 18 14 17 29 - 31 13 26 30 26 28 15 14
7 16 23 06 21 25 3O — 16 23 24 19 28 15 16
8 13 20 12 20 20 18 17 - 29 34 36 22 28 33
9 28 24 -09 12 32 25 29 29 - 49 42 41 37 22
10 20 25 09 20 28 20 20 3O 34 - 50 39 32 33
11 23 19 -01 14 22 23 28 17 43 29 - 39 32 34
12 16 22 O9 23 29 25 24 22 3O 31 37 — 24 24
13 22 32 12 17 22 23 21 21 31 28 28 37 — 44
14 20 24 -04 16 20 18 26 19 29 32 35 25 27 —
'Principal’s goal intercorrelations are in the upper triangle.
t’I‘eacher’s goal intercorrelations are in the lower triangle.
Intercorrelations Among Principal’s and Teacher's Rating of Importance on 14 Goals
P R I N C I P A L ’ S G O A L S
996.; l 2 3 5 2 9 2 § 2 1.9 11 12 12 1:1
T 1 O4 -02 ~01 -02 01 -01 01 02 oo 02 00 01 00 -01
E 2 -01 05 03 -01 -02 01 02 (I) 00 01 01 -01 05 00
A 3 01 04 (B 00 ~04 (I) 02 02 -01 -O2 03 -01 05 02
C 4 02 01 03 05 -01 00 01 04 no (I) 01 «01 02 01
H 5 03 -Ol -02 03 (B 00 00 (I) 02 02 -03 01 -01 01
E 6 03 00 05 -02 (I) 06 03 03 03 02 01 01 04 03
R 7 02 O4 00 00 -01 01 11 02 01 01 01 01 03 04
’S 8 O4 02 06 O6 02 oo 07 20 04 07 O7 06 03 07
9 02 (X) (I) 01 04 02 02 06 07 05 02 04 02 01
G 10 04 oo oo 01 01 -02 01 02 03 07 01 03 00 04
O 11 03 -01 02 01 (I) 01 03 04 03 04 06 03 01 06
A 12 01 02 01 01 O3 02 O4 03 04 04 06 02 03
L 13 -02 05 09 00 -Ol 04 O6 05 05 O3 04 03 13 03
S 14 07 04 -03 -02 -02 01 02 00 05 05 05 02 18

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

REFERENCES

Wng ‘

‘f'l'iJ‘

 

 

REFERENCES

Allport, F. (1924). Seeiaflsyeholggy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Angle, H. L, & Perry, J. L (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational
commitment and organizational effectiveness. Widener.
M2112, 21, 1-14.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization.
Academy Qf Management Begiew, 13, 20-39.

Avi-Itzhak, T. E. (1985). The effect of membership in status group and

disciplinary area on perception of university goals: A comparative

analysis. WW. 12(4) 361-369-
Back, K. (1951). Influence through social communication. mm

W- 4.6. 9-23.

Barkhaus, R. S. (1974). An analysis of institutional goals held by faculty,
administrative personnel, student personnel practitioners,
undergraduates students and graduate students. (Doctoral dissertation,
Purdue University, 1974). WWW, 7049A.

Beckhard, R., & Lake, D. G. (1971). Short— and long-range effects of a team
development effort. In H. Hornstein, B. Bunker, W. Burke, M. Grindes,
& R. Lewicki (598-). WWW
men. New York: Free Press.

140

 

 

"“ la

 

 

 

Bennis, w. G. (1969). ' ' v m

 

mm. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Blackmail, C. A., Crowell, R., Bollmann, L, & Mester, W. (1988). Mel
interaetien as stimulus fer Leflegien f9; 393m. Paper presented at the
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Boston.

Bluedom, A. C. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human.
Belatigns, 21, 73-79.

Boland, R. J. Jr. (1984). Sense-making of accounting data as a technique of
organizational diagnosis. Managememfienee. 3_Q, 868-882.

Bourgeois, L. J., III (1985). Strategic goals, perceived uncertainty, and economic
performance in volatile environments. AeademLQLManagemtmt.
1mm, 3, 548-573.

Brown, L D., Aram, J. D., & Bachner, D. J. (1974). Interorganizational
information sharing: A successful intervention that failed. JenmaLof
Appli_ed_B¢haziszr_S_ci.encs. 19, 533-554-

Buller, P. F., & Bell, C. H. (1986). Effects of teambuilding and goal setting on
productivity. W1, 22, 305—328.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan
organizational assessment questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and
considerations. Wm. 4(2), 123-138.

Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1953). Wm.

Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson.

 

 

 

 

I’d-“i

 

 

 

 

142

Cartwright. D.. & lander. A (1968)- W (3rd
ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Cohen, J- (1977) WWW (Rev, ed)-
New York: Academic Press.

Cronbach, L J ., & Gleser, G. C. (1953). Assessing similarity between profiles.

WM 5.9. 456-473-

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). MW. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.

Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984). W
MW Englewood Cliffs. NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-Member exchange model of
leadership: A critique and further development. Aeademygf
Managsmsnussxim. 11. 618-634. I

Donaldson. L (1985). [MW
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Donnelly, Gibson, & Ivancevich. (1987). W (6th Ed).
Plano, TX: Business Publications, Inc.

Dow, I. 1., (1981). Participatory supervision in education: A must for the
Eighties. WWW 21(4) 375-386

Duchon, D., Green, S. G., & Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A

longitudinal assessment of antecedents, measures, and consequences.

W 11.. 56.60.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

143

Eden, D. (1985). Team development: A true field experiment at three levels of
rigor. MAW 10, 94-100.

Etzioni, A. (1961). W. New York:
Free Press.

Etzioni, A. (1964). Wm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.
Exline, R. V. (1957). Group climate as a factor in the relevance and
accuracy of social perception. MW
12m, 55, 382-388.

Feldman, DC. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members.
Aeademy Qf Management Review, 5, 309-318.

Festinger, L. (1954), A theory of social comparison processes. Human RelatiQns,
1, 117-140.

Fisher, C. D. (1982). Identifia'ng the Qategmes Qf seeializatigg; TWQ stttdiee
(Tech. Rep. No. TR-ONR-8). Office of Naval Research.

Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. In K. M.
Rolank & G. R. Ferris (Eds), W
W 4. Greenwich, CT: JA1 Press.

Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related
to employee grievances and turnover. mm 15, 43-56.

Franklin, J. L. (1975). Power and commitment: An empirical assessment. 11mg
Relating 23, 737-753.

Friedlander, F. (1967). The impact of organization training laboratories upon the
effectiveness and interaction of ongoing workgroups. Lemme;

Emission. 211. 289-309.

 

 

 

 

 

.. ‘fil

 

 

 

144
Glick, W. H. (1988). Response: Organizations are not central tendencies:
Shadowboxing in the dark. AeademLQfMaaagemtmLRexim, 15, 133-
137.
Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E., & Schminke, M. (1987). Understanding groups in

organizations. In W 2. 121-173.
Graen, G., Liden, R., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee

withdrawal process. MW 61, 868-872.

Graen, G., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal
organizations: A development approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L Larson
(Eds), Leadetshflmntjets (pp. 143-165). Kent, OH: Kent State
University Press.

Green, S. G., & Welsh, M. A. (1988). Cybernetics and dependence: Reframing
the control concept. MW, 13, 287-301.

Griffith, J. (1989). The army’s new unit personnel replacement and its
relationship to unit cohesion and social support. WW, 1,
17-34.

Gross, E. (1954). Primary functions of the small group. W
Saddlggy, d9, 24-30.

Gross, B. M. (1965). What are your organization’s objectives? Humanfielatidns,
13, 195-215.

Hackman, J. R. (1976). Group influences on individuals. In M. D. Dunnette

 

., 0.1 ho 0'4. (pp. 1455-

1525. Chicago: Rand McNally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

145

Hage, J ., & Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of centralization to other structural

preperties. WM 12. 72-92.
Hall, R. H. (1980). Effectiveness theory and organizational effectiveness. Jamaal
f 1' B vi r l ' 15, 536-545.

Hand, H. H., Estafen, B. D., & Sims, H. P. (1975). How effective is data survey

and feedback as a technique of organization development? An

eXperiment. mm 1.1. 333-347.
Hannan. M. T- (1971)- MW Lexington.

Mass.: Heath-Lexington.

Homans, G. C. (1961). Seeial behaviQr; Its elementaty farms. New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World.

Horwitz, M. (1954). The recall of interrupted group tasks: An experimental study
of individual motivation to group goals. mm, 1, 3-38.

Hughes, R. L, Rosenbach, W. E., & Clover, W. H. (1983). Team development
in an intact, ongoing work group: A quasi-field experiment. CLrQutLaad
Winn—Swims. 8(2). 161-186-

Wheeless, L R., Wheeless, V. E., & Dickson-Markman, F. (1982). A research
note: The relations among social and task perceptions in small groups.
Smail Gretta Behavidt. 13(3), 373-384.

James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement.
MW 61. 219-229-

James, L R., Demaree, R. G., & Hater, J. J. (1980). A statistical rationale for
relating situational variables and individual differences. Qrganigtimtat
fiehan'QLaniflumanEcrfonnanse. 25. 354-364.

 

m1: ‘

 

 

 

 

 

146

James, L R., Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. W. Jr. (1988). Comment: Organizations

do not cognize. AeademLQLManagemenLBejefl, 13, 129-132.

Janis, I. L (1972). MW. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Jauch, L R., Osborn, R. N., & Terpening, W. D. (1980). Goal congruence and
employee orientation: The substitution effect. AeademiManagement
1011:1121. 23(3), 544-550.

Johnston, H. R. (1976). A new conceptualization of source of organizational

climate. WM 21. 95-103.
Joyce W. F ., & Slocum, J. (1982). Climate discrepancy: Refining the concepts of

psychological and organizational climate. Hamanfielatidm, 35, 951-972.
Kahn, R. L, Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D. & Rosenthal, R. (1964).

W New York:
Wiley.

Katz, R. (1980). Time and Work: Toward an integrative perspective. In B. M.
Straw & L L Cummings (Eds). Remunmmmmmm. .2..
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Keefe, J. W., Kelley, E. A., & Miller, S. K. (1985). School climate: Clear
definitions and a model for a larger setting. HAW 52, 70-77.

Keeley, M. (1984). Impartiality and participant-interest theories of organizational
effectiveness. Wm. 22, 1-25.

Kelly, B. A., Glover, Keefe, J. W., Halderson, Sorenson, & Speth, (1986). 5ehe91
W. Reston, VA.: National Association of Secondary School
Principals.

 

 

_hl ll- -‘ f g . I-

147

Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Participative management in the college classroom.
W 5.2. 337-338.

Kochan, T. A., Cummings, L L, & Huber, G. P. (1976). Operationalizing the
concepts of goals and goal incompatibilities in organizational behavior
research. flamatLRelatigns, 22(6) 527-544

Kochan, T. A., Huber, G. P., & Cummings, L L (1975). Determinants of
intraorganizational conflict in collective bargaining in the public sector.
WM 29. 10-23.

Koontz, H., & Weihrich, H. (1988). Mamgement (9th Ed). New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). W. New York:
Springer.

Leana, C. R. (1986). Predictors and consequences of delegation. Aeadm
Managemenunumal. 22(4). 754-774- I

Ieavitt, H. J. (1965). Applied organizational change in industry: Structural,
technological and humanistic approaches. In J. March (Ed.) Handhmk
W. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Lewin. K (1951). W New York: Harper.
Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology:
Concepts and methods. MW 45, 868-897.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense-making: What newcomers experience in
entering unfamiliar organizational settings. WM

Quarmlx. 25. 226-251.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E! I
\y ‘ i ,
:1 , t I
l 7?.

     

148

Marquis, D. G., Guetzkow, H., & Heyns, R. W. (1951). A social psychological
study of the decision-making conference. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.),
W (pp. 55-67). Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.

McGregor, D. (1967). W. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McKelvey, B. & Kilmann, R. H. (1975). Organization design: A participative
multivariate approach. Administmtiyefieieneeflnaflefly, 20, 24-36.

Miner, J. (1980). W- I-Iinsdale, IL: Dryden.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). W. Englewood Cliffs, N. J .:
Prentice-Hall.

Mobley, W.H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglimo, B. M. (1979). Review
and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Esyehgldgjeal
Bul_lettn, 85, 493-522.

Mohr, L B. (1973). The concept of organizational goal. Amerieanjdfitieal
mm. 62, 470-481. '

Morrow, P. C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case
of work commitment. AeademynganagemenLBexiew, 8, 486-500.

Mossholder, K. W., & Bedeian, A. G. (1983). Cross-Level inference and
organizational research: Perspectives on interpretation and application.
MW 6, 547-558.

N adler, D. A., & Pecorella, P. A. (1975). Differential effects of multiple
interventions in an organization. W,
11. 348-366. \

Napier, R. W., & Gershenfeld, M. K. (1981). W9;
(2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

 

 

149
Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Adrmm’eratjxcLSgettce

Quarterly. 22. 172-191.
OSUOff» C- 1- (1987). HLWWmflmdMM

hehamrsandjttimdeumganizations Unpublished dissertation.
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Ostroff, C. L, & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1987). The utility of composition theories

for elaborating models of organizational phenomena. Unpublished
manuscript.

Papandreou, A. G. (1952). Some basic problems in the theory of the firm. In B.
F. Haley (Ed.), A Sargey Qf Qantemperaty Eedndmies, Vol. 2.
Homewood, 111.: Irwin.

Patten, T. H., Dorey, L E. (1977). Long-range results of a team building OD
effort. Rublie Betsdnael Management, 6(1), 31-50.

Payne, R. L, & Mansfield, R. M. (1973). Relationships of perceptions of
organizational climate to organizational structure, context, and
hierarchical position. mummy, 18, 515-526.

Pennings, J. M., & Goodman, P. S. (1977). Toward a workable framework. In P.
5- Goodman et al- (Eds) W31
Effectjxeness (pp. 146-184). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perrow, C. (1961). Goals in complex organizations. AmefieanMglggieal
Regiew, 26,854-865.

PerrOW. C. (1986). W- New York: Random

House.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

150

Porras, I. J., & Berg, PD. (1978). The impact of organization development.
Wm. 13. 249-266-

Porter, L W. & Smith, F. J. (1970). The etiology of organizational commitment
and managerial turnover. Unpublished paper, University of California
at Irvine.

Porter, L W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974).

Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among

psychiatric technician. MAW. 52. 603-609.
Price, J. L (1977). W. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University
Press.

Rabbie, J. M., Benoist, F., Oosterbaan, H., & Visser, L (1974). Differential
power and effects of expected competitive and cooperative intergroup
interaction on intragroup and outgroup attitudes. MW

'lP hl ,3fl,46-56.
Raven, B. H., & Rietsema, J. (1957). The effects of varied clarity of group goal

and group path upon the individual and his relation to the group.
Human Relatieus, 10, 29-44.

Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational
commitment. MW. 19, 465-476.

Reichers, E. A. (1986). Conflict and organizational commitments. J_o_umal_Qf
W 11. 508-514.

Roberts, K. H., Hulin, C. L, & Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Mm
W. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

151

Rosen, N. (1989). w

 

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rousseau, D. M. (1988). The construction of climate in organizational research.
In C. L Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds), WM

[ndustnflnndflrgamzamnaLBmhnlm (Pp. 139-158). New York:
Wiley & Sons.

Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decides

not to decide autocratically: An investigation of leader-member

exchange and decision influence. MW 11.
579-584.

Schein, E. H. (1965). MW. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.:
Prentice-Hall.

Schien, E. H. (1980). Watchdog (3rd Ed). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall. V

Schien, E. H. (1985). Wm (1st Ed). San
Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Schmink, P. D. (1985). The identification and analyses of the educational goal
orientations in a single school district. (Doctoral dissertation, Illinois
State U). W 16. (S-A)-

Schmitt, N., & Doherty, M. (1988). MW

.!_.:" ,' 7. 1.1.1,!"!'!. 11'! 0 3.1. 'll'l..!!'.!r.

Reston, VA.: National Association for Secondary School Principals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

152
Schmitt. N-. & Ostroff. C. (1937) WNW

,. . 10110‘1'1-‘-.- ~ _u- o _1001'1101_nf..
Reston, VA.: National Association for Secondary School Principals.

Schmitt. N-. & Loher. B- (1934)- W
W. Reston, VA.: National Association for
Secondary School Principals.

Schmuck, R. A., Runkel, P. J ., & Langmeyer, D. (1971). Using group problem-
solving procedures. In R. A. Schmuck & M. B. Miles (Eds.),
WW. Palo Alto, Calif.: National Press
Books.

Schmuck, R. A., Runkel, P. J., & Langmeyer, D. (1969). Improving
organizational problem solving in a school faculty. jabs, 5, 455-482.

Schmuck, R. A., Murray, D., Smith, M. A., Schwartz, M., & Runkel, M. (1975).

0!...20! o 1101‘ 00_ 09,0 1r '1- 1111. .
Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy and Management.

Schneider, B. (1972). Organizational climate: Individual preferences and
organizational realities. W 56, 211-217.

Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climate: Individual preferences and
organizational realities revisited. MW 69,
459-465.

Seashore. S. E. (1954)- Qmmhesixencsunthundustfialmkmn Ann
Arbor, ML: The University of Michigan Press.

 

153

Seashore, S. E. (1969). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group:
Summary and conclusions. In R. A. Sutermeister (Ed.), Beam
PLQdugLvm (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shaw. M. E. (1981). W
(3rd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sheikh, A. A., & Koch, R. J. (1977). Recall of group tasks as a function of group
cohesiveness and interruption of tasks. WM, 59, 275-
278.

Sherman, J. D. (1986). The relationship between factors in the work environment
and turnover propensities among engineering and technical support
personnel. WWW M21.
72-78.

Silverman, D. (1970). W New
York: Basic Books.

Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. (1981). Employee turnover and post-decision
accommodation processes. In L L Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),

Researchimanizafimalhehaxiqr 3. 235-281. Greenwich. Conn: JAI

Press.

Steiner, D. D., & Dobbins, G. H. (1986). W519:
membemehange. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.

Stern. G- (1978). W
W. New York: Wiley &' Sons.

 

154

Stewart, D. W., & Latham, D. R. (1980). A preference mapping of organizational
objectives of sports franchise executives. WW,
65(5).

Strauss, G., Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., & Tannenbaum, A. S. (1974).

Qrganizationamehaxinnfiesearchandjssues Industrial Relations
Research Assn, iv, 236.

Sutermeister, R. A. (1969). Eeaplaaadataduetjaity (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Tannenbaum, A. S. (1966). SagaLpsxehalagyaLthaflatLatgagtaattag. Belmont,
CA.: Brooks/Cole.

Tannenbaum, A. S. (1968). Wags. New York: McGraw Hill.

Taylor, W. L, & Cangemi, J. P. (1983). Participative management and the
Scanlon plan: A perspective on its philosophy and psychology.
WWW 21X 1). 43-46

Tsouderos, J. (1955). Organizational change in terms of a series of selected
variables. W 29, 207-210.

Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., & Yeung, A. (1988). Willis)!
0 ~..1-_..1_ u. .q1"- .rs.11.ion , i t‘ln' .1. .1- .1-alv-
W. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Academy of Management, Los Angeles, CA.

Vecchio, R., & Gobdel, B. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership:

Problems and prospects. WW
Performance :3. 5-20.

 

   

155

Vecchio, R. (1982). A further test of leadership effects due to between-group
variation and within-group variation. Wm 61,
200-208.

Vecchio, R. (1985). Predicting employee turnover from leader-member exchange:

A failure to replicate. AaadamxaLMagagemmlaumal, 28, 478-485.
Von Bertalanffy, L (1975). W- New York:

Braziller.

Vroom, V. H. (1960). The effects of attitudes on perception of organizational
goals. Watts 13, 229-240.

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, E. W. (1973). WWW.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Weick, K. E., Jr. (1969). Wang. Reading Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.

Weick, K E. (1979).Ihc_s9331_lzsxcholoa_c_f_org3mmg Reading.

Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Weick, K. E., & Bougon, M. G. (1986). Organizations as cognitive maps. In H. P.
Suiss, Jr., & D. A. Gioia, (Eds.), W San
Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Wicker, A. W. (1969). Size of church membership and members’ support of
church behavior settings. MW
15, 278-288.

Woodman, R. W., & Sherwood, J. J. (1980). Effects of team development

intervention: A field experiment. laurgaLaLApnMBehayimal
Seiagae, 16, 211-227.

 

156

Yukelson, D., Weinberg, R., & Jackson, A. (1984). A multidimensional group
cohesion instrument for intercollegiate basketball teams. laumaLof
mm. 6(1), 103-117.

Zammuto, R. F. (1984). A comparison of multiple constituency models of
organizational effectiveness. AeademyaLMaaagetgegtBejfl. 2, 604-
616.

Zander, A. (1985). W. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

leigarnik, B. (1927). Das Behalten erledigter Handlungen. W, 2,
1-85 [Summarized in K. Lewin, W. New
York: Harper, 1951].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mae-

 

 

“iiillilill‘lilii