H“ x fix-yr-AH'I . .. - .. - . - u. , .- - ',-.> A. . ‘ n I . . .‘ .3,” ‘.,I,..<,‘ l . “n“ W "m H ,. ”II? N- A II ‘.I.... 1.. . . . HI I, ' . ...—...... -.....-..-_ AN ANALYSIS OF PRINCIPAL BEHAVIOR IN PROBLEM‘SOLVING SITUATIONS WITH INDIVIDUAL TEACHERS Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEAN WALDFOGEL ' 1971 I Date [If LIB MAY ' I MI; j ”I, I. ”W II III 3 1293 01101 9894 Mich. gan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN ANALYSIS OF PRINCIPAL BEHAVIOR IN PROBLEM-SOLVING SITUATIONS WITH INDIVIDUAL TEACHERS presented by Dean Waldfogel has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Education (7 Mnjorp' ‘ A June 9, 1971 0-7639 ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF PRINCIPAL BEHAVIOR IN PROBLEM-SOLVING SITUATIONS WITH INDIVIDUAL TEACHERS By Dean Waldfogel Extensive study has been conducted which attempts to categorize administrative behavior according to overall administrative style. Lewins' work on the effects of laissez-faire, authoritarian, and democratic leadership styles and Hemphill's study which identified nine aspects of style are representative. However, the results of such style research have been inconclusive. An analogy can be made between the relationship of individual student differences and appropriately varied teacher behavior, to the relationship of individual teacher differences and appropriately varied administra- tor behavior. On the basis of these considerations, several questions seem appropriate and provide the basic thrust of the study: 1) Should a variety of administrative approaches and styles be utilized to deal most effectively with individual teachers? ' 2) Is it possible to identify patterns of administrative behavior using the specific problem under consideration or the 2 Dean Waldfogel individual organizational member as independent variables? 3) What are the variables within the total frame- work of the social system which are determinants of admin- istrative behavior? ' 4) Does administrative behavior vary within particular style categories, or do administrators intentionally vary their behavior across various style lines? Much of the past study devoted to administrative be- havior has been done from a broad, all-encompassing per- spective. This study utilizes a more atomistic approach, 1.6., the focus is on a limited aspect of administrative behavior. The study explores the nature of the behavior of secondary principals as they interact with teachers on a one-to-one basis in problem-solving or decision-making situations. The study attempts to answer the following questions: 1) Do individual secondary principals use both direct and indirect methods of dealing with teachers: --as perceived by the principal? --as perceived by the teacher? 2) Is there a relationship between teacher satis- faction with the contact and whether the administrator's approach is constant or variable? 3) Where both direct and indirect methods are employed, what factors determine the approach used by the administrator? The collection of data related to the major questions of the study was accomplished by interviewing teachers 3 Dean Waldfogel and principals regarding a one-to-one contact of a decision-making or problem-solving nature. The interview format, one outline for teachers and another for principals, was intentionally designed to be structured, but open, i.e., the basic outline was fol- lowed as much as possible, while the interviewer retained the flexibility to diverge from the outline. Relationships among the responses to selected pairs of teacher questions were analyzed using the chi-square test. Relationships between principal responses and teach- er responses were analyzed by a repeated analysis of vari- ance model. Answers to key interview questions provided the basis for identifying factors contributing to vari- ance in principal behavior. None of the statistical tests produced significant results. The following conclusions regarding Livonia Public Secondary Schools are made: 1) Principals use both direct and indirect methods of dealing with teachers as perceived by both principals and teachers. 2) There is no relationship between teacher satisfac- tion with teacher-principal interaction and whether the principal uses both direct and indirect approaches. 3) Myriad factors are cited by principals and teachers as being determinant of the approach used by principals during interaction with teachers. h Dean Waldfogel Based on the results of the study, an extension of the Getzels-Guba model of leader behavior is described. The entire discussion is limited to the framework of one- to-one problem-solving interaction between principal and teacher. Four major variables are proposed as determinants of administrative behavior in such situations: role expecta- tions as perceived by the administrator, the need-disposi- tions of the administrator, the definition of the problem as determined by the administrator, and the aggregate characteristics of the subordinate involved. The four variables which determine administrative behavior are posited as being in constant and dynamic interplay. Several propositions are offered which are deducible from the extended model. AN ANALYSIS OF PRINCIPAL BEHAVIOR IN PROBLEM-SOLVING SITUATIONS WITH INDIVIDUAL TEACHERS By Dean Waldfogel A THESIS . Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education Department of Administration and Higher Education 1971 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my deep gratitude to my advisor, Dr. James E. Heald, for the confidence in myself he generated, for the continual encouragement he supplied, and for his friendship, and to my wife for her patient support when it was needed most, for the many long hours she spent as typist and clerkin addition to performing admirably as wife and mother, and for understanding, believing in, and loving me through it all. ii LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 0.00..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC Need for the StUdy coco-00000000000000 Purpose of the Study ................. Definitions .0OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO... THEORETICAL BASIS FOR THE STUDY ........ Evolvement of Administrative Theory .. Behavioral Approach to the Study of LeaderShip coco.coo-000.000.000.000. Theories of Motivation ............... Getzels-Guba Model ................... R016 Theory .0.00000000000000000000000 Interpersonal Behavior ............... Flexibility of Administrative Behavior Overview of the Development of Ad- ministrative Theory ................ RESEARCH RELATED TO THE STUDY .......... IntrOdUCtion OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0000...... Flexibility of Administrative Behavior Communication Between Superordinates and Subordinates ................... Teacher Satisfaction with Administrap tive BehaVior coco-00000000000000... Overview of Related Research ......... RESEARCH DESIGN OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Collection of the Data ............... Analysis of the Data ................. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ............. Results of Data Analysis and Answers to Major queStionS ooocoocooeooooooo ConCIUSionS oooooooooo0000000000000... iii 4 F1 VI. VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES A. TOWARD A PARTIAL THEORY OF PRINCIPAL BEHAVIOR IN INDIVIDUAL TEACHER INTERACTIOIQ’ CCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...... InteruCtion ooooooooooooooooooooooooo Extension of the Getzels-Guba.Model .. Determinants of Behavior: Situation and IndiVidual oooooooooooooooooeooo Interaction of Four Behavior Deter- minant Variables ................... PrOpOSitiODS cococoo-00000000000000... The Broader MOdel 0.000000000000000... Summary cocoacooooooooooooooooocoooooo IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ....... RESPONSES TO ALL QUESTIONS, TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL, BY INDIVIDUAL TEACHER FOR SCHOOLS A'E 00000000000000.0000... CHI-SQUARE TABLES FOR EACH OF THE TEN 72 72 73 7A 78 80 87 89 9O 92 99 PAIR OF VARIABLES TESTED ............. 10h MEANS USED IN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TEACHER QUESTION RELATED TO "AMOUNT OF EXPLANATION", AND "REFERENCE TO POLICY" OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCCOO 109 COMPILATION OF KEY PHRASES FROM PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER INTERVIEW TRMISCRIPI‘ 00.000000000000000....00... 111+ iv A3 A5 LIST OF TABLES Summary of Teacher Responses by Question .......... Summary of Principal Responses by Question ........ Chi-Square Test and Correlation Coefficient Results for Ten Selected Pairs of Responses to Teacher Interview Questions .................. Amount of Explanation ............................. P01icy .000.0.0000...0.000.000.0000.........O...... Analysis of Variance Table for Teacher Question Regarding "Amount of Explanation" ............... Analysis of Variance Table for Teacher Question Regarding "Reference to Policy" ................. Responses to all Questions, Teacher and Principal, by Individual Teacher for School A ... Responses to all Questions, Teacher and Principal, by Individual Teacher for School B ... Responses to all Questions, Teacher and Principal, by Individual Teacher for School C ... Responses to all Questions, Teacher and Principal, by Individual Teacher for School D ... Responses to all Questions, Teacher and Principal, by Individual Teacher for School E ... 52 53 55 57 59 6O 61 99 100 101 102 103 LIST OF FIGURES Relationships Between Role and Personality Dimensions of Behavior .......................... Model of Major Dimensions of Social Behavior ...... The Situation and Individual Dimensions of Principal Behavior in One-to-One Interaction With TeaCherS ooooooooooooooooooooooocooooooooooo Varying Proportions of Situation and Individual Determinants 0f PrinCipal BehaVior 00000000000000 Interplay in Three-Dimensional Space of the Four Variables: Role, Personality, Situation, IndiVidual 00.0.0.0........OOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0.... The Triangu18tion Process 00000000000000ooooooooooo The S-Shaped Curve ....0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... The EXtended GetzelS-Guba Medal 0.0000000000000000. vi 11+ 16 ‘76 77 79 8O .84 88 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ‘Need for the Study Proceeding from the premise that differences exist among individual learners, educational researchers have attempted to identify factors which contribute to learn- ing, or the lack of it. Differences in such factors as age, socio-economic background, personality character- istics, physical characteristics, parental influence, self-concept, ad infinitum, have been studied. Research has shown that many of these factors are, indeed, related to learning. Studies are being conducted which examine the relationship between the learning style of the student and the teaching style utilized.‘ The hypothesis is that optimum learning results when the learning style is matched to the teaching style. The implications of such research are clear: Educas tors must develop and utilize a variety of means to accom- plish similar learning objectives. An analogy can be made between the relationship of individual student differences and appropriately varied teacher behavior, to the relationship of individual teacher differences and appropriately varied administrator behavior. The existence of differences among teachers has been docu- mented on a wide variety of factors.2 Beliefs, their l. J. E. Hill, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan. 2. David G. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers, I 2 classroom behavior patterns, their ages, their socio- economic backgrounds, their training all reflect a wide range of variance. Extensive study has also been conducted which attempts to categorize administrative behavior according to overall administrative style. Lewins' work on the effects of laissez-faire, authoritarian, and democratic leadership styles3 and Hemphill's study which identified communication, discussion, compliance, analysis, relationship, work organi- zation, and work-direction styles are representative.“ However, the results of such style research have been incon- clusive. In fact, Hemphill found considerable variance among and across the categories he identified. 0n the basis of these considerations, several questions seem appropriate: 1) If it is true that a variety of teaching methods and styles must be employed to most effectively deal with learners, may it also be true that a variety of adminis- trative approaches and styles should be utilized to deal most effectively with individual teachers? 2) If it is impossible to predict a given administrap tor's behavior on the basis of a particular style category, is it possible to identify patterns of behavior using the specific problem under consideration or the individual 3. Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt, and Ralph K. White, Journal of Social Psychology. A. John K. Hemphill, "Personal Variables and Admin- istrative Styles," Behavioral Science and Educational Administration. 3 organizational member as independent variables? 3) If, in fact, administrative behavior varies extensively, what are the variables within the total frame- work of the social system which are determinants of be- havior? Moreover, how much of the variance can be asso- ciated with a particular variable? 4) Does administrative behavior vary within particu- lar style categories, or do administrators intentionally vary their behavior across various style lines? Much of the past study devoted to administrative be- havior has been done from a broad, all-encompassing perspective. The notable exception is an extensive amount of work done regarding the behavior of leaders vis-asvis members of a group. While the significance of contributions of such comprehensive studies to the development of admin- istrative theory cannot and should not be discounted, studies utilizing a more atomistic approach are needed, i.e., studies which focus on limited aspects of adminis- trative behavior and make critical observations of the leader behavior related to that specific focus. Purpose of the Study The study will explore the nature of the behavior of secondary principals as they interact with teachers on a one-to-one basis in problem-solving or decision-making situations. The study will achieve its purpose if the fol- lowing questions are answered: 1) Do individual secondary principals use both direct and indirect methods of dealing with teachers: --as perceived by the principal? ~~as perceived by the teacher? 2) Is there a relationship between teacher satisfac- tion with the contact and whether the administrator's approach is constant or variable? 3) Where both direct and indirect methods are employed, what factors determine the approach used by the adminis- trator? Equally as important, this study should make a con- tribution to the existing body of theoretical knowledge regarding leader behavior. Theory offered in idealized terms is rejected. The objective is a contribution to "theory" defined as the best and most accurate picture of how an organism actually works, a "representation of reali- ty."5 Definitions An indirect administrative approach is a method which encourages and/or suggests a change in teacher behavior and is accompanied by a rationale or extensive explanation for such a change. A direct administrative approach is a method which requests a change in teacher behavior by means of a directive, generally without rationale or explanation. 5. Robert G. Owens, Ogganizational Behavior in Schools, p. 35. Teacher satisfaction is a teacher-perceived positive feeling about the teacher-principal interaction as viewed in retrospect. CHAPTER II: THE THEORETICAL BASIS FOR THE STUDY Evolvement of Admihistrative Theory The study of administrative behavior and the develop- ment of administrative theory has virtually exploded during the past two decades. From the "scientific management" emphasis of Taylor and Weber during the early part of this century, administrative theory has evolved through the "human relations" approach of Follett's Creative Experienge and Nayo's Western Electric studies, to the synthesis and reconciliation of these two approaches which broadly cate- gorizes much of the work in the field since 1950. The "scientific management" view of administration emphasized its economic aspects. Basically, such a view required an analysis of the job to be done by dividing it. into its component tasks in an effort to develop means of performing these tasks as efficiently and effectively as possible. Gulick's acronym POSDCoRB is representative of the activity which was prevalent during this era. Each letter in the acronym, according to Gulick, represents an activity essential to the proper functioning of an execu- tive: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordina- ting, and budgeting.6 The era was characterized by such terms and concepts as line and staff, span of control, money as the prime motivator, and unit cost. 6. Luther Gulick and L. Urwick, eds., Papers on the Science of Administration, p. 13. 6 These early theorists pursued the concept that people who were successful in leadership roles were endowed with certain traits or characteristics, e.g., intelligence, imagination, perseverance, emotional stability, etc. "Classical theory" is a term commonly used to describe this network of ideas, and to the extent that these con- cepts retain their viability in current administrative operations, that description is accurate. Probably the chief weakness of the management view of administration was its focus on the organizational elements of adminis- tration to the neglect of human elements. The "human relations" movement was a reaction to the structural focus of scientific management. Emphasis was now placed on the importance of cooperation so that the viewpoints of all concerned could be integrated in the interest of reaching a common goal. The study at Western Electric's Hawthorne plant seemed to support the idea that human variability is an important determinant of productiv- ity; specifically, that improved interpersonal relation- ships between superordinate and subordinate and patient listening would result in improved work.7 Essentially, this theory proposed that the organization is a social system; that "involvement" of participants in the decision- making process is a prerequisite to efficient goal achieve- ment of the organization. The era was characterized by 7. Fritz J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson, Management and the Worker. l 'Ill‘f'l'tl |r "l‘ such terms and concepts as good human relations, demo- cratic leadership, group dynamics, human interaction, morale, and involvement. Disavowing the merits of a measurable traits approach to the study of leadership,* the possibility that common elements might exist which would ensure success in various situations was pursued. It was thought that perhaps certain skills could be identified 9 for certain situations. Behavioral ApproaCh to the Study opreadership The synthesis of the scientific management and human relations point of view is characterized by studies and treatises which attempt to describe the behavior of people in organizational settings. Chester Barnard's classic, The Functions of the Executive, provided what many feel to be the springboard for this change in perspective on adminis- trative behavior. In his book, he drew effectively on his own experience as an administrator, integrated several di- verse concepts which had been introduced earlier, and called for a social science approach to the study of administration.10 Simon's landmark work, Administrative Lehavior,ll * Stogdill's review of literature of the traits of leaders concluded that there was "...devastating evidence against the concept of the operatign of measurable traits in determining social interactions." 8. Ralph M. Stogdill, "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature,"quurnal of Ps cholo , 25, p. 71. 9. John K. Hemphill, Situational Factors in Leadership. 10. Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive. 11. Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior. followed closely the direction set by Barnard and opened the study of human behavior in organization. The central concept with which he dealt was "decision-making." According to Simon, the fundamental aim of organizations is to maximize "rational" decisions. Specifically, the task of rational decision-making is to select that one strategy which will lead to the one preferred set of con- sequences.12 Though his work reflects his basic organi- zational orientation, he is nevertheless credited, in Etzioni's words, with "...opening a whdle new vista of administration."13 The behavioral approach to the study of leadership, then, does not focus as early theorists did upon under- lying capacities or potentialities as determinants of behavior. Neither does it deal solely with the situational aspects of leader behavior. Instead, the focus is upon observed behavior, per se. As Halpin aptly points out, No'g priori assumptions are made that the leader behavior which the leader exhibits in one group situation will be manifest in other group situations, ...nor does the term behavioral approach suggest that this behavior is determined either innately or situationally. Either determinant is possible, as is any com- bination of the two, but the concept of leader behavior does not itself predispose us to accept one in opposition to the other.14 12. Ibid., p. 68. 13. Armitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations, p. 30. 14. A. W. Halpin, Administrative Theory in Educa— tion, p. 123. lO Theories of Motivation During the fifties and sixties, many significant contributions have been made to the development and re- finement of the behavioral approach to the study of lead- ership. Several of theSe theories have already proven viable as demonstrated by supportive research and the logical, deductive extension of original statements. The hierarchy of needs developed by Maslow is a theory of individual motivation which provides a base for and integrates well with other theory in the field of leader behavior. Maslow describes five levels of needs and posits that new levels of need surface as more basic need levels are met. In order from lowest to highest level of need, the categories are: 1. Physiological requirements, e.g., thirst, shelter. 2. Safety or security requirement (physical or emo- tional), e.g., preference for familiar and known. 3. Love, affection, and belonging needS. A. Esteem needs, e.g., high value of self, self respect, self esteem, esteem for others. 5. Self-actualization needs, e.g., at peace with self, self fulfillment. According to Maslow's theory, man strives with great intensity to meet individual needs at whatever level he finds himself in the hierarchy. As his needs at one given level are met, he works for fulfillment of the needs at the 11 next highest level with similar intensity.15 This interaction between need satisfaction and need activation has significance from Getzels' viewpoint for understanding that "...the flux of behavior in a social 16 system...is not static, but dynamic." In other words, gratification of one need may call out other needs that then must be taken into account. Parallel to, but later than Maslow, Herzberg writes that man's needs fall into two basic categories. The lower, or "animal" category includes such needs as safety, food, avoidance of pain, and "hygiene factors" which are defined by Herzberg to mean "the rewards which the organiza- tion offers to meet lower needs," e.g., working conditions, pay, pension, job security.17 The second and higher category relates to "man's compelling urge to realize his own potential by continuous psychological growth." This category includes needs such as maintaining individuality, being creative, and growing 18 intellectually. According to Herzberg, the categories provide a useful model for understanding individual behavior 15. A. H. Maslow,qutivation and Personality, pp 0 80-92 0 16. Jacob N. Getzels, James M. Lipham, and Roald F. Campbell, Educational Administration as a Social Process, p. 76. 17. Frederick Herzberg, Work and the Nature opran, pp. H4'560 18. Ibid. 12 and for determining how to get the maximum contribution from each participant once you have identified the category in which the individual's greatest needs exist.* As was pointed out previously, more recent theory tends to provide a balance between organizational and human elements. McGregor's "Theory Y" view of the nature of man provides for an integration of individual and organizational goals. In direct contrast to his Theory X's traditional view of man, Theory Y is based on assumptions such as the following: 1. The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as rest or play. 2. Man will exercise self-direction and self-control in the service of objectives to which he is committed. 3. A commitment to objectives is a function of re- wards associated with their achievement. A. The average human being learns, under proper con- ditions, not only to accept, but to seek responsibility. 5. The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity, in the solution of organizational problems is widely, not narrowly, distribu- ted in the population.19 McGregor mentions three means for achieving the appro- priate balance between individual and organizational goals. * In a complementary statement, Stern indicates that needs are revealed by an individual's modes of behavior or from observations of interaction. 19. Douglas M. McGregor, The Human Side of the Enter- rise, pp. LI- "1+8. 13 They are l) self-control or internalization of standards of behavior, 2) collaboration between superordinate and subordinate. 3) integration of task requirements and individual growth which he states involves trading, nego- tiations, and accomodation.2O Argyris further defines the relationship between individuals and organizations. He argues that there is a fundamental and inevitable incongruity between the needs and goals of an individual and the needs and goals of a formal organization.21 Both the individual and the organization always strive for self-actualization. The effort of the organization to impress its pattern upon the individual is defined by Getzels as the "socializing process." The "personalizing process" is defined by Getzels as the individual's attempt to impress his pattern of behavior upon the organization.22 Argyris concludes that effective lead- ership is the fusing together of individual and organizes tional needs so that they are simultaneously fulfilled.23 'getzels-Guba Model The well-known and comprehensive GetzelséGuba model of organizational behavior is also based on two similar 20. lpig. 21. Chris Argyris, Personality and Organization, p. 211. 22. Getzels, Lipham, and Campbell, pp. g;§., p. A7. 23. Argyris, pp. gi§., p. 13. 14 dimensions. Within the framework of a social system, the model separates the phenomena into two classes: the nomothetic and idiographic. The nomothetic factor is defined as "the normative dimension of activity" and includes the roles and expectations associated with the institution or organization. The idiographic factor is defined as "the personal dimension of activity" and in~ cludes the need-dispositions and personalities of the individuals within the organization.2h Getzels treats these two dimensions as being at once independent and interactive. If the character and inter- action of these elements is understood, then the nature of the resulting behavior may be predicted and controlled. The equation B : f(R x P), where B a behavior, R z role, and P a personality, summarizes the relationship between the two factors. The diagram below illustrates pictorially the interplay between role and personality. Role Personality FIGURE 1 Relationships Between Role and Personality Dimensions of Behavior On the horizontal axis, the further to the right a given point is selected, the more the resulting social behavior 24. J. W. Getzels, and E. G. Guba, ”Social Behavior and the Administrative Process," School Review, LXV, p. 424. 15 would be determined by increased influence of personality needs and decreased influence of organizational constraints.25 Three types of leadership style are deduced from the Getzels‘Guba model. The nomothetic or normative leadership style is indicative of behavior in which the influence of role and role expectations is maximized. The basic assump— tion of the style is that institutional purposes can best be accomplished by creating appropriate procedures that will implement the purpose. Authority is vested rather than entrusted and the predominant conflict likely to be dealt with is role conflict.26 If the influence of personality and need-dispositions is maximized, an idiographic leadership style results. The basic assumption of this style is that the greatest accom- plishment will occur by making it possible for each person to contribute what is most meaningful to him. Authority is entrusted rather than vested, and the predominant con- flict is likely to be personality conflict.27 A third leadership style, which Getzels calls "trans- actional," is defined as leadership behavior in which the emphasis on role and personality are maximized or minimized as the situation requires. The basic goal of their lead- ership style is a thorough awareness of the limits of 25 0 Ibid 0 ’ PP. “21"wa o 26. Getzels, Lipham, and Campbell, 2p. gi§., pp. #6-47. 27. Ibide . PP. 11+?‘148 e l6 institutional and individual resources and demands within which administrative action must function. Authority is either vested or entrusted, and sensitivity exists to all types of conflicts.28 Extending the concepts of socialization and personali- zation, Getzels defines an adjusted individual as one who @ performs up to the expectations determined by his role. i, An individual who fulfills all of his personal needs is defined as integrated.29 The following diagram represents an overall view of N the Getzels-Cuba model. On each of the two horizontal axis, each term is the determinant and the source of definition for the term succeeding it.3O / Institution —> Role —-> Expectations \ Social Social System Behavior \\\‘ Individual-——> Personality -—v Need— ’//' Dispositions FIGURE 2 Model of Major Dimensions of Social Behavior The dyadic nature of the model yields interesting definitions of effectiveness and efficiency. Effectiveness 28. Ibid., pp. INS-150. 29. Getzels, and Guba,.gp. cit., p. #31. 30. Ibid., p. 429. 17 is defined as a "measure of the congruence of the role behavior and the role expectations." Likewise, efficiency is defined as "...a function of the congruence between behavior and need dispositions."31 Interestingly, Barnard also viewed effectiveness as being related to the accom- plishment of the purpose of the organization and efficiency B related to the satisfaction of individual motives.32 I Getzels' definitions are refinements of those developed by Barnard in that Getzels offers a criterion for the measure- I ment of effectiveness, viz., the role expectations as i ultimately defined by the institution, and he lucidly describes the relationship between efficiency and the strain or expendi- ture of psychic energy.33 Role Theory To facilitate understanding of the Getzels-Cuba model, a working knowledge of basic concepts of role theory which the model utilizes extensively is necessary. The concepts of "social system" and "role" merit further discussion not only because they are key concepts in the work of Getzels and Cuba, but because of their centrality in the work of other theorists such as Bennis, Griffiths, Lonsdale, Benne, Parsons, Simon, etc. The concept of social system provides a view of organizations with quite a different perspective from that 31' M0: Po [+300 32. Bernard, 9p. cit., p. 60. 33. Getzels, Lipham, and Campbell, op. cit., p. 129. 18 of the traditional line and staff chart. Formal definitions of the term social system vary directly with the author. Carr defines social system as "an aggregation of individuals and institutional organizations located in an identifiable, geographical locality and functioning in various degrees of interdependence as a permanent organized unit of the social order."3’+ Homans states that ...the activities, interactions, and sentiments of the group members together with the mutual relations of these elements with one another miniatfifiaiimiaiieRESET;a§§é¥2mfiii§§tute Griffiths succinctly states that a social system, "...may be simply defined as a complex of elements in mutual inter- action."36 Regardless of the definition adopted, the con- cept of social system is a fruitful one irrespective of the level or size of the system under consideration. The concept forces consideration of the complex milieu within which the interaction occurs and is applicable to such diverse systems as a small committee, or an entire community. A social syStem may be a subsystem to some larger system within its environment and may also be a suprasystem to a system within its span of influence.37 3#. L. J. Carr, Anal tical Sociolo , p. 167. 35. G. C. Homans, The Human Group, p. 87. 36. Daniel E. Griffiths, "Administrative Theory and Change in Organizations," Innovation in Education, p. A28. 370 Elm—go, P0 4300 19 Any discussion of role theory requires prior agree- ment on at least the more commonly used terms. 1. Role may be defined as a position within a social system with which is associated a more or less obligatory pattern of behavior. 2. Role expectations refer to behavior that should or should not occur in given situations as perceived by other members of the social system or institution. 3. Rolepperformance or role description or role enactment may be defined as the actual behavior of an individual within a given role. A. Role_perception refers to the role incumbent's own views of the expectations for his role. 5. Role set refers to the relevant audiences or the prime communicators related to a given role. Role enactment is then, to a greater or lesser degree, delimited by the role expectations ascribed to that role by members of the role set. In Goffman's words, When an individual makes an appearance in a given position, he will be the person that the position allows and obliges him to be and will continue to be this per- son during role enactment. The performer will attempt to make the expressions that occur consistent with the identity imputed to him. He will feel compelled to conggol and police the expressions that occur. The role expectation, as described by Bidwell, is a complementary relationship such that the actions and Q 38. Erving Goffman, Encounters, p. 99. 20 expectations of the role incumbent are oriented toward the expectations of the role-other, while the role-others' ex- pectations act at sanctions to the role incumbent. Thus, the role expectations organize the need-dispositions of a number of individuals into a systematic whole so that social ends are maximized.39 Role expectations also influence the behavior of those with whom the role incumbent interacts. To the extent that the role expectations are well defined, they may actually facilitate interaction. If role expectations are ambiguous, interaction is likely to be ineffective and dissatisfying.‘+0 Returning to our discussion of the Getzels-Cuba model, the nomothetic or normative dimension of the model explains social behavior to be influenced to a lesser or greater extent by the expectations or norms of a given position or role as determined by an institution which is itself a subsystem of a larger social system. The term "need-dispositions" in the idiographic dimen- sion of the model includes both affective and cognitive factors. It refers both to a tendency to fulfill some 39. Charles E. Bidwell, "The Administrative Role and Satisfaction in Teaching," Journal of Edpcational Sociolo , p. #1. NO. Theodore R. Sarbin, "Role Theory," Handbook of Social Psychology, I, Theory and Method, p. 553. 21 requirement of the organism, and the dispositions to structure experience and activities in certain ways.’+1 The need portion of the dyad refers to the aim or goal of the specific behavior, while the disposition factor refers to the manner in which he perceives the environ- ment and the structure he ascribes to it.42 This con- cept, so defined, provides ready utilization for the needs theories of Maslow and Herzberg discussed earlier. Familiar concepts such as preference, interest, attitude, drive, etc., are part of the internal forces which make up an individual's need-dispositions. As defined by Getzels, personality is "the dynamic organization within the individual of those need-disposi- tions and capacities that determine his unique interaction with the environmentfl“3 Intentionally omitted are defini- tions of personality such as "the sum total of ones ob- served behavior" and "the social stimulus value of one individual for other individuals or groups." The defini- tion as stated, stresses the evolving and changing aspects of personality, its initiating as well as its reactive capacity, and hinges chiefly on the concept of need-dispo- sitions. In summary, the idiographic dimension of the Getzels- Guba model purports individual behavior to be influenced “I. Getzels, Lipham, and Campbell, 220 SEE-£0, PP. 68-690 #2. Ibido 43. Ibid., p. 69. 22 to a lesser or greater extent by the need-dispositions comprising the personality of a unique individual acting within a social system. Interpersonal Behavior A theory of interpersonal behavior offered by William C. Schutz falls within the purview of the Getzels- Guba model and provides a framework for the discussion of interaction among individuals. The basic postulate of Schutz' three-dimensional theory of personal behavior is that each person has three interpersonal needs: inclusion, control, and affection.44 Inclusion is defined as the need to feel that the self is significant and worthwhile. In other words, "...the need to establish and maintain a sat- isfactory relation with p60p1e with respect to interaction and association."’+5 The need to always or never be controlled and the ability to respect the self is defined as control.“6 Affection is defined as the need to initiate and maintain close, personal relationships, to be able to love others, and to have others love the selffl7 According to Schutz, each person has the need to estab- lish and maintain a satisfactory relationship with other 44. William C. Schutz, FIRO: A Three-Dimensional Theory of Personal Behavior, pp. 18-25. 45. Ibid., p. 18. 46. Ibid., pp. 18-200 47. Ibid., p. 20. 23 people in each of these areas. In each area, any given behavior may be ideal, efficient, excessive or pathological, and tends to be conditioned by the nature of interpersonal relations experienced in childhood be- tween parents and children.48 He further theorizes that ...every interpersonal relation follows the same general deve10pmental sequence. Interaction begins with inclusion be- havior, is followed by control behavior, and finally by affection behavicr. This cycle may recur. When the relation approaches termination, it reverses direction, and investment from the re- lation is withdrawn in the order affection, control, and inclusion.it Theory related to a one-to-one, superordinate-sub- ordinate interaction is extremely limited. As Goffman points out, sociologists have traditionally studied face-to-face interaction as part of the area of collective behavior.50 Literature in the area of group dynamics is extensive and has been conducted by people such as Homans, Thalen, and Bales, to name only a few. Though the defini- tions of the term "group" offered by these authors frequently include groups of size two, the vast majority of their theory and research relates to groups larger than two. Even less group work has been done which would apply to groups of two where one member has a superordinate role and the A8- 2222- l+90 MO, Po 200. 50. Goffman, pp. cit., p. 7. all other a subordinate role. Nevertheless, several propositions offered by Homans merit our attention because of their applicability to the specific situation under discussion, i.e., one-to-one, su- perordinate-subordinate interaction. The following selected propositions offer not only a theoretical explana- tion for the type of behavior exhibited, but also for the frequency with which the behavior occurs. If in the past the occurence of a particular stimulus-situation has been the occasion on which a man's activity has been rewarded then the more similar the present stimulus-Si u- ation is to the past one, the more likely he is to emit the activity or some similar activi— ty now.51 The more often within a given period of time a man's activity rewards the activity of another, 52 the more often the other will emit the activity. The more valuable to a man a unit of the activi- ty another gives him, the more often he will emit aggivity rewarded by the activity of the Other 0 The more severely the distribution of rewards and costs between persons places a man at a dis- advantage, the more likely he is g8 display the emotional behavior we call anger. Several corollaries are also noteworthy. The more valuable to the other members of a group the activities a man emits to them are, 51. George C. Homans, Social Behavior-~Its Elemen- t Forms, p. 53. 52. Ibid., P. 5A. 530 IRES-o P0 55- 54. Ibid., P. 75. 25 the higher is the esteem in which they hold him.55 (Esteem is defined as "expressed social approval.") The more valuable to a man the activity another gives him, the more valuable the approval he gives the other and the ggre‘ often he emits activity to the other. The more a man intgracts with another, the more he likes him. The more a man likeg another, the more he interacts with him. 8 When a man interacts with another and the other's activity punishes him, but he does not break interaction off, then the inter-59 action is not associated with much liking. The more similar the values held by two men, 60 the more likely they are to like one another. Flexibility of Admipiggrative Behavior As noted earlier, the behavioral approach to the study of administrative theory has no: been characterized by an analysis of simplistic relationships between admin- istrative behavior and personal traits or situational factors. On the contrary, theoretical models which ade- quately explain behavior in the real world must account for a plethora of major variables. Halpin suggests that perhaps in our enthusiasm with the human relations 55. 3:13.. pp. 149-162. 56. ,gp;g., p. 182. 57. mg" pp. 181-183. 58. 523., pp. 181-183. 59. 2243-: PP. 186-187. 60. mg" pp. 240-260. 26 x approach, which he views in part as a protest against authoritarian leadership style, perhaps we have permitted the pendulum to swing too far. He calls for a re-exam- ination of our ideas about the proper balance between human relations and structure. He warns that ...some principles may apply to both kinds of groups, but there is insuf- ficient research evidence to permit us to assume a priori that leadership styles that succeed in informal autonomous groups will be equally effective in formally organized work groups. 1 Some speculative writers such as Owens recommend intentional variance of leadership style. The extent to which he (the adminis- trator) can vary his leadership style-- both deliberately and consistently-- to suit 1) the situation, 2) the faculty group, and 3) his own personality, will determine his success.... How well he integrates, blends, and adjusts the components of his style in harmony with the situation, the group, and his personal being will largely determine his impact as a leader in the school.62 Hamachek suggests that leader behavior should be a function of "personal" and/or "situational" needs. He argues that "functionally competent" leaders are preferable in situations where a specific goal is in sight, where a specific task must be done, or 61. Andrew W. Halpin, Theggy and Research in Administration, p. 123. 62. Robert G. Owens, Organizational Behavior in Schools, pp. 135-136. 27 where an immediate problem must be solved. Contrarywise, psychological assistance, friendly sympathy, acceptance, and support may be more important under other circum- stances. In other words, a leader must have "a built-in elasticity" if he is to adequately meet the multiple needs of his followers.63 A certain amount of inconsistency in behavior is naturally to be expected. Parsons and Schills describe the flexibility of behavior which can be tolerated as follows. An important feature of a large proportion of social roles is that the actions which make them up are not minutely prescribed and that a certain range of variability is regarded as legitimate. Sanctions are not invoked against deviants within certain limits. This range of freedom makes it possible for actors with different person- alities to fulfill within considerable limits the expectations associated with Eoughly the same roles without undue strain.6 Sarbin offers a similar statement. Although in general people do seem to con- form to role expectations, we should again emphasize that role behavior does not con- sist of the rigid following of specific directives. Most role expectations re- quire only that some end result be accomplished within some limits. This allows the actor considerable freedom in the specific types of acts he can employ to accomplish the end. In other cases, the stylistic or ritual qualities . 63. B. E. Hamachek, "Leadership Styles, Decision Makggg and the Principal," National Elementary Principal, p. . 6h. Talcott Parsons, and Edward A. Schills, Toward A General Theory of Action, p. 24. 28 of role behavior are important permitting little variation from role expectations. Even in the most formal roles, however, sty- listic variations unique to the individual may be permitted or even encouraged. Spontaneity occurs more often and is approved more often in the course of valid gole enactment than one might at first assume.6 Role performances, according to Goffman, depend on: 1. interpretation of role by incumbent 2. the kind of person he is and what he brings to the role 3. the dynamic interplay with other people 4. expectations of those in controlling roles such as directors 5. expectations of those in non-controlling roles sggh as colleagues and other reference groups. Flexibility in administrative behavior is also discussed by Simon. He perceived role incumbents as being continually confronted with a large number of alternate behaviors, some of which are present in consciousness and some of which are not. Decision...is the process by which one of these alternatives for each moments be- havior is selected to be carried out. The sum of such decisions which determine behavior over some6§tretch of time may be called a strategy. Viewing the selection of behavior, not as decision- making, but, as an assumption of a role, Carr identifies three phases of situational adjustment. In order of occurrence, they are: 65. Sarbin, 9_p_. 3:13., p. 503. 66. Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, pp. 10-46.‘——’ 67. Simon, 22..git., p. 67. 29 l. Gestalt awareness-~awareness that a combination or pattern of human relationships and circumstances exists or is forming. 2. Definition of the situation--the ascription of meaning to the combination or pattern, either recognizing familiar cues to identify a stereotype situation or re- combining familiar cues to achieve a new synthesis of mean- ing. 3. Assumption bf role-~selection of the "part" one is to play in the situation as defined.68 Many theorists have discussed the balanced use of authority and involvement techniques by administrators. In Functions of the Executive, Barnard uses the term "zone of indifference", to point out that there are some areas in which the administrator's decision would be accepted without question.69 This idea has been extended by Bridges who states that "excessive involvement of teachers can produce resentment and resistance."70 Moreover, he sug- gests guidelines by which administrators can determine the appropriateness of teacher involvement in the decision- making process. 1) The test of relevance-~if the teacher's personal stakes are high and if interest and participation 68. Carr, op. cit., p. 39. 69. Barnard, op. cit., pp. 167-170. 70. Edwin M. Bridges, "A Model for Shared Decision- Making in the School Principalship," Educational Adminis- tration, III, p. 51. 30 is high, then involvement is appropriate, and 2) the test cf expertise--if the teacher has the necessary competency to make a productive contribution to the decision, then involvement is appropriate.71 Simon viewed influence as an alternative to the use of authority. In reality, however, the use of influence or suggestion as seen by Simon is not distinct from the use of authority. Though persuasion and suggestion were for him viable means of making decisions, his strong emphasis upon rational decision-making led him to the conclusion that if a disagreement could not be solved by suggestion and persuasion or other means of conviction, then it must be decided by authority.72 Depending upon the kind of organization and the kind of decision, Dill discusses the need for variant patterns of participation which won‘4 be appropriate to such goals as: l. control--to ensure decisions do get made, 2. motivation-~to make decisions in ways that people who carry them out feel identified with their successful implementation, 3. quality--to involve those who have the most to contribute, 4. training-~to develop skills in those likely to move into positions of leadership, 5. efficiency--to make decisions quickly and with as little waste of manpower as possible.73 71. Ibid., p. 52. 72. Simon, 5220 Cite, Pp. 126-129. 73. William R. Dill, "Decision-Making," Behavioral Science and Educational Administration, p. 216: 31 In his discussion of Theory Y, McGregor stresses the need for "selective adaptation."7# He further states that ...authority is an appropriate means for control under certain circumstances-- particularly where genuine commitment to objectives cannot be achieved. The assumptions of Theory Y do not deny the appropriateness of authority, but they do deny that it is appropriate for all , purposes and under all circumstances. 5 j Leavitt cites the need for differentiated adminis- trative behavior within organizations so that sometimes Taylor's approach of organizing and controlling would be %.. used, while at other times the participative approach of 4 making jobs more challenging and novel would be used.76 Specifically, he views the adminiStrator as having access to three classes of organizational controls: structural, technical, and human. The structural controls include communication systems, authority systems, work flow and assignment systems. Mechanized equipment, including the computer, make up Leavitt's technical controls category. Included in his category of human controls are affective qualities such as trust, interest, confidence, challenge, and excitement. He suggests that the control to be uti- lized is dependent upon the goal to be achieved. If, for 0 7L}. MCGI‘egOI', .92. Cj.to, P. U. 75- lhléo: P— 56- 76. Harold J. Leavitt, "Unhuman Organization," Harvard Business Review, XL, p. 97. 32 example, the goal is within the domain of control, order and certainty, then structural controls should be employed first, followed by human controls. If on the other hand, the desired goal is in the area of creativity, adaptability, flexibility, imaginativeness, etc., then human controls should be applied first, followed by structural controls. He concludes with a cautionary note that the controls of such a system are extremely complex; moreover, they are interrelated.77 The value of adaptable administrative behavior is E also discussed by Lickert in New Patterns of Management.78 He concludes that "to be effective and to communicate as intended, a leader must always adapt his behavior to take into account the expectations, values, and interpersonal skills of those with whom he is interacting." Moreover, he maintains that this general rule pertains not only in situations where leaders are interacting with subordinates, but in situations where leaders are interacting with super- ordinates as well. Indeed, the general rule holds for interaction between any two persons. qugview of the Development of Administrative Theory The deve10pment of administrative theory in this century has progressed through three somewhat distinct phases. 77. Harold J. Leavitt, "Consequences of Executive Behavior; The Administrative Two Step and Other Seemly Dances for Administrators,? NASSP, pp. 167-176. 78. Rensis Lickert, New Patterns of Management, p. 05. 33 In the early part of the century, scientific management emphasized the structural and organizational aspects of administrative operations. In reaction to that focus, the human relations movement emphasized involvement techniques, group dynamics, and democratic leadership. The synthesis of these two approaches is found in _ what may be called the behavioral approach to the study ta of administration. This approach concerns itself with ,actual descriptions of leader behavior and attempts to provide a balance for the structural and personal aspects W "5“" of administration. Theories of individual motivation including Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Herzberg's animal and self-actualizar tion needs categories, and McGregor's Theory Y which deals with the nature of man, provide useful background for understanding behavior in organization. The comprehensive Getzels-Guba model of organizational behavior provides a framework within which much of the existing body of administrative theory can be discussed. The basic premise of the Getzels-Guba model is that social behavior is determined by a fluctuating balance between personal need-dispositions and role expectations, or the idiographic and nomothetic dimensions of behavior. Though theory related specifically to one-to-one, superordinate-subordinate interaction is extremely limited, Schutz’s three-dimensional theory of personal behavior and several appropriate propositions developed by Homans are relevant. 3# Extensive conjectures are found in the literature relating to the need for flexibility in administrative behavior. Many of the concepts available to assist in this discussion, though developed independently, can be reduced to two dimensions of behavior--one organizational in nature and the other personal in nature. For example, the organizational-personality dyad corresponds to Getzels' nomothetic-idiographic, to Barnard's effectiveness- efficiency, to Cartwright's group achievement-group maintenance,79 to Ohio State Leadership Studies' initiating 8O structure-consideration, to Bale's task--socio-emotiona1, and to even broader categories such as authority-freedom, and sociological-psychological.81 Perhaps Bennis' statement is a representative summary of the emphasis giVen to an appropriate balance between these two dimensions. "It is my contention that effective leadership depends primarily upon mediating between the individual and the organization in such a way that both 82 can obtain maximum satisfaction." 79. Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander, Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, p. 466. 80. Carroll Shartle, Executive Performance and Leadership, pp. 115-122. 88%. R. F. Bales, Interaction Process Analysis, pp- ' 90 82. Warren G. Bennie, Changing Organizations, p.66. "ixflE! W ft A. m; if; _ CHAPTER III: RESEARCH RELATED TO THE STUDY Introduction AlthOugh research related directly to administrative behavior on a one-to-one, superordinate-subordinate basis is virtually non-existent, research does exist which bears directly on various component factors of that situation. Pa Existing research which is relevant may be divided into I three categories: a) flexibility of administrative be- havior, b) communication between superordinates and sub- F. ordinates, and c) teacher satisfaction with administrative behavior. Flexibility of Administrative Behavior In research of a situational nature, Leavitt varied the interaction and communication pattern for certain tasks and evaluated the accomplishments against criteria such as speed, clarity of organization, parsimonious use of paper, acceptance of creativity, flexibility in dealing with problems, high morale, loyalty, etc. Under the first con- dition, group members were permitted to interact only with the leader and were prohibited from interacting with other group members. The same tasks under the second condition were pursued within an interaction structure which placed participants in circle arrangement, but per- mitted a given member to communicate with either the group member to his immediate right or left, The leader was assigned a position at random in the circle. Assessment of the tasks in terms of the criteria mentioned above led 35 36 Leavitt to conclude that the highly routinized, noninvolving, centralized communication network seemed to work best by certain industrial engineering criteria such as speed, clarity, efficiency, etc. However, if the criteria for effectiveness is of a more general nature, e.g., acceptance, flexibility, morale, etc., then the egalitarian or decen- tralized network seemed to work better. He concluded that administrative structure, therefore, ought to be a function _ of the goal.83 a The Ohio State Leadership Studies, headed by Carroll Shartle, attempted to identify Various dimensions of administrative behavior. Beginning with nine proposed dimensions, factor analysis of their initial study immedi- ately reduced the nine to only three valid categories and further studies proved conclusively that all of the nine dimensions could be accounted for on the basis of two prOperly defined dimensions: initiation structure, and consideration. Consideration is defined as the extent to which, while getting work done, the administrator is con- siderate of members of his staff. The category is indica- tive of trust, respect, warm interrelationship, etc. Initiation structure is indicative of how well the admin- istrator defines the relationship between himself and his staff, how well he defines.the role he expects the staff to assume, and how well defined his patterns of organization 830 Leafitt, _O_Bo £2320, PP. 94’950 37 are, his channels of communication, and his ways of getting jobs done.81+ Shartle views the two dimensions, consideration and initiation structure, as being "...com- plementary aspects of performance."85 The administrator uses both of them, usually in an integrated fashion. In some instances, initiation structure is emphasized; in other situations, it will be consideration. In related studies at Ohio State, attempts were made to account for variance in administrative behavior. They concluded that, in fact, some stability does exist in both organizational and individual behavior. This was especially true of the more repetitious events where well develOped procedures and work habits seem to account for the consis- tency of behavior. Nevertheless, they found it impossible to predict the behavior 01 a given person even on the basis of certain specific event or situations. Even in the more repetitious events, given individuals tended to behave in slightly different ways. Shartle concluded that accurate prediction of behavior depended upon certain independent, antecedent variables, such as: 1. value patterns 2. situational patterns 3. measures of aptitude, knowledge, and skill A. measures of personality and interest 5. measures of physical energy and capacity 0, 6. past individual and organizational performance.U0 8h. Shartle, gp. cit., p. 81. 85. Ibid., p. 124. 860 Halpin, 5220 9&0, Pp. 75-81%. 38 As part of the Ohio State leadership studies, Stogdill designed a study using armed services personnel to deter- mine if behavior patterns remained consistent from one job to another. In spite of extensive data, researchers were unable to make accurate predictions regarding the transferees behavior, and concluded that both the man and the job were valid determinants of job performance. Beyond that, Stogdill concluded that the type of organization, the level in the organizational structure, and the type of position exerts specific conditioning effects upon per- formance.87 The expectations which teachers assign to the role of principal reflect the desirability of flexible adminis- trative behavior. In a study by Sharma of the Midwest Administration Center, teachers were asked to indicate what individual or group 01 individuals should have decision- making power in each of 35 problem areas. The results demonstrated significantly that teachers felt their involve- ment should be greater in activities related to the instruc- tional program, to teaching load, to reporting pupil progress to parents, to pupil conduct, and to extra-cur- ricular activities. On the other hand, teachers did not expect to be involved in activities relating to determina- tion of budget, determination of policies relating to teaching load, determination of personnel policies, deter- mination of needs for new construction, and establishment 87. Ralph Stogdill, gg.‘a;., AwPredictive Study_og Administrative Work Patterns. 39 88 of standards for building maintenance. Several studies have been done involving the personality and/or need patterns of teachers. While Guba and Jackson found need patterns of teachers to be a function of experience, Goldman, in a later study, found these same patterns to also be a function of age. Goldman hypothesized that ...the differences in need patterns of teachers with varying degrees of experi- ence are largely a result of increasing age and of the problemg it brings to people in our society. 9 From this hypothesis he extrapolates still further, It is therefore.necessary, for school administrators and principals in particular, to accomodate their be- havioral approaches to the needs of the specific group with which tBey are dealing at any given time.9 Lewin's prolific studies in the field of administrative behavior have been largely in the areas of group decision- making and other participatory techniques. He has also done extensive work on administrative style. He observed what happened when adult leaders of hobby clubs deliberately engaged in different leadership styles: democratic, auto- cratic, and laissez-faire. The well-known results are that democratic leadership produced higher morale and greater 88. Chiranzi Lal Sharma, "Who Should Make What Decisions?" Administrators Notebook, III. 89. Harvey Goldman and James E. Heald, "Teacher's Need Patterns and the Administrator”, NASSP, p. 102. 90. Ibid. #0 achievement than either of the other two types.91 How- ever, researchers have been unable to consistently replicate the results of his study in other situations. This failure has led to the conclusion that situational factors alone fail to account for the total variance in the behavior of leaders. F1 Hemphill, in his extensive study of the behavior of principals, identified eight administrative styles.* In spite of the fact that the administrative styles identified ET were his own, he concluded that, ...only on rare occasions could one find an actual principal who would exhibit behavior in complete agreement with one of these styles. Far more often principals would be found whose work would be best described as a mixture of two or more of these styles. It would also be expected that many principals would show flexibility in their behavior, so 91. Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt, and Ralph K. White, "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in EXperimentally Created "Social Climates",9 Journal of Social Psychology, 10, PP- 271-299. 7“ * The eight administrative styles identified were: 1) High communication style-~stressed communi- cating with others problems encountered. 2) High discussion style—-extensive use of face to face discussion. 3) High compliance style--follows suggestions of others. 7 4) High analysis style-~spend more effort in analyzing situations surrounding problems. 5) High relationship style--concern for main- taining organizational relationships, especially with superiors. High work organization style--emphasis upon scheduling and organizing his own work. 7) High outside orientation style--readiness to respond to ressures from outside the school. High work direction style-~stressed importance to giving instructions to others. 41 that on some occasions their behavior would correspond with one of the styles and on other occasions would fit another.9 Communication Between Superordinates and Subordinates Several researchers have examined the relationship between communication and administrative behavior. Mellin- ger, for example, found that lack of trust was an important factor keeping subordinates from communicating with their superiors.93 These results were confirmed by Lickert who found a high correlation between perceived "unreasonable" pressure for better performance from the supervisor and willingness to take complaints and grievances to their supervisor. He found that hostility, fear, distrust, and other similar unfavorable attitudes on the part of members of the organization, created a serious blockage to trans- mission and acceptance of information, particularly upward bound information.9# Subordinates tended to be unwilling to bring their problems to a man who had major control over their destiny in the organization. The men were willing to share successes, but were relectant to share weaknesses 92. John K. Hemphill, "Personal Variables and Admin- istrative Styles," Behavioral Science and Educational Administration, p. 197. 93. C. D. Mellinger "Interpersonal Trust as a Factor in Communication," Journal oprbnormal Social Psychology, 529 PP. 304-309. 94. Lickert, 22..g;£., p. 45. 42 or failures.95 He concluded that if the communication process was to function effectively, reciprocal confi- dence and trust on the part of members of the organization was necessary. In a similar study conducted by Peoples, a signifi- cant relationship was found between the initiation of up- E5 ward-bound communication for the purpose of problem-solving I and the leader behavior of the principal. Using the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, principals were placed into four categories depending upon a high E or low score received on each of the dimensions of the ques- tionnaire-~consideration and initiation structure. The categories distinguished among principals rated low on both dimension (-, -); those rated high on initiating structure, but low on consideration (+, -); those rated low on initiating structure, but high on consideration (-. +): and those rated high on both dimensions (+, +). The hypothe- sis was that principals in the category (-, -) would receive less upward bound communication than principals in the (+, -) category who in turn would receive less communication than principals in the (-, +), who, finally, would receive less upward-bound communication than principals rated high on both dimensions. The study confirmed the hypothesis. In other words, upward-bound communication fer the purpose of problem-solving is much more likely to occur when leader behavior is perceived favorably on both consideration and initiating structure. 95. Ibid., p. 53. 1+3 Based on the theory of complementary needs, Goldman investigated an hypothesis that principals would most prefer to work with teachers whose personal need patterns were complementary to their own. Principals were asked to list the one-fourth of the staff they would most like to work with and the one-fourth they would least like to work with. Both teachers and principals were administered the Edwards' Personal Preference Scale. Analysis of the data, however, failed to support the hypothesis.96 The Western Electric Studies were also responsible for providing impetus to the study of communication. Argyris, in summarizing the implications of the study, suggested that "...one needs to learn how to listen, to recognize his and other people's feelings, and to ask questions that help to understand the situation."97 Similar conclusions are stated by Culbertson and Rogers.98 Teacher Satisfaction with Administrative Behavior Teacher satisfaction with administrative behavior has received extensive study partly because of the ease with which such information may be obtained and partly because it is indicative of the value placed by many school admin- istrators on the development and maintenance of positive 96. Harvey Goldman, A Study of the Teacher-Adminis- trator Relationship and the Influence offlNeed Patterns. 97. Argyris, gp. cit., p. 213. 98. Jack A. Culbertson, Administrative Relationshi s, PP. 392-393. 44 teacher attitudes. Bidwell in his study of satisfaction in teaching hypothesized that "convergence of teachers role expectations toward the administrator and their per- ceptions of his behavior will be accompanied by an expres- sion by these teachers of satisfaction with the teaching situation." With admitted weaknesses in his questionnaire- interview technique, the hypothesis was accepted.99 As a tangential part of his study, Sharma found also that teachers' expressions of satisfaction with their positions was re- 5‘ lated directly to the extent to which "current practices in decision-making in their schools conformed to the practices they felt should be followed."100 Similar results were attained by Haralick who found that teacher satisfaction with their position was not so much related to the administrator's democratic or auto- cratic style, as it was to the teachers' "perception of the principal's positive compliance with the end norms."101 End norms were defined by Haralick as norms concerning what constitutes acceptable behavior by the principal, especially in the area of supporting teachers in front of parents and students, or, in other words, the "role expec- tations" ascribed to that situation by the teachers.102 99. Bidwell, 22. cit., pp. 41-47. 100. Sharma, loc. cit. lOl. Joy Gold Haralick, "Teacher Acceptance of Adminis- trative Action," Journal of Experimental Education, p. 40. 102. Ibid. 45 An interesting study by Prince revealed a relationship between the congruence of values held by principal and teachers, and the teacher's confidence in the principal's leadership and evaluation of his effectiveness. Teachers with traditional values tended to have most confidence in and perceive as most effective a principal who also held traditional values. On the other hand, principals who held emergent values were perceived as most effective and with the greatest degree of confidence by teachers who held emergent values. Prince concluded that it is not the values themselves, but their fit in the role set that seems important in the teacher's estimate of the principal's per- formance.103 Overview of Related Research Research which bears directly on the topic under study is virtually nonexistent, hough some research can be con- sidered relevant since it may potentially provide explana- tion for certain aspects of the phenomena. Studies can be cited which indicate teacher expectation of variance of administrative behavior from situation to situation. The evidence regarding stability of administrative behavior within a given situation, and from one situation to another is in- clusive. (Perhaps this is so because an adequate conceptual framework for analyzing behavior patterns has not yet been built). Evidence supporting the need for flexibility of 103. Richard Prince, A Study of_the Relationship Be- tween Individual Values and’AdministrAtive Effectiveness in the School Situation, pp. 95-97. 46 administrative behavior to be dependent upon the goal is of an experimental nature only. Research evidence does support the proposition that communication between superordinate and subordinate is much more likely to occur if trust and other positive attitudes between superordinate and subordinate are favor- able. Teacher satisfaction with their position has been found to be related to a congruence between teacher ex- pectations for administrative behavior and perceptions of actual administrative behavior. Teacher confidence in administrative behavior has been shown to be related to the congruence of values held by teacher and principal. - lulu-lug" r V J) CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH DESIGN ‘ggllection of the Data The collection of data related to the major questions of the study was accomplished by interviewing teachers and principals. The major questions of the study were: 1) Do individual secondary principals use both direct El and indirect methods of dealing with teachers: --as perceived by the principal? --as perceived by the teacher? I g 2) Is there a relationship between teacher satisfac- tion with the contact and whether the administrator's approach is constant or variable? 3) Where both direct and indirect methods are employed, what factors determine the approach used by the administrator? Two interview outlines, one for teachers and one for principals, were developed. The interview questions were developed so that information regarding the major purposes of the study would be elicited. Other questions were developed to provide interesting, related, but tangential information. The interview format was intentionally designed to be structured, but open, i.e., the basic outline was fol- lowed as much as possible, while the interviewer retained the flexibility to diverge from the format. This approach had the advantage of permitting the interviewer to omit a given question if it was irrelevant to the situation 47 48 under discussion or to pursue in depth a facet of a situ- ation not fully clarified or promising fruition if expanded. The interview method of collecting data was chosen in order to minimize the distortion frequently resulting from the imposition of artificial experimental conditions, and to maximize the disclosure of a wide range of complex data and variables potentially associated with the major questions. The interview outlines were tested on one secondary principal and two teachers. With minor modification in the order in which questions were raised, the interview out- line was adopted as originally proposed. Five secondary schools were selected at random from among those in the Livonia Public Schools, Livonia, Michigan. Upon approval of the study by the Livonia Public Schools, the cooperation of the five principals was solicited. All principals agreed to cooperate. The principals were asked to name, as of the time of contact, the most recent ten teachers in their schools with whom they had had individual appointments of a decision- making or problem-solving nature. Confidentiality of all responses was assured, and personal interviews of each of the five principals ensued. The interview outline for the principals appears below. Each of the questions in the principal outline numbered one through six was designed to be asked in regard to each of the ten teachers identified. Questions in the principal 49 outline numbered seven through nine provided the basis for a general discussion after questions one through six had been answered relative to each of the teachers identified by a given principal. The entire interview was recorded on audio tape. Principals were arbitrarily assigned latters A, B, C, D, and E for reference purposes. ‘Pgincipal Interview Outline 1) Did small talk precede the discussion of the problem? 2) Who stated the problem? 3) Was there a restatement of the problem? 4) Was the expressed problem different from the real problem? 5) Was an attempt made to help the teacher understand the basis for the decision or was the decision given directly without rationale? If without rationale, why? (press of time, previOus experience with the teacher, Written policy?) 6) Did you feel the teacher understood the basis for the decision? (whether or not there was agreement.) 7) Do you behave differently with different teachers who have the same problem? If so, in what way? 8) Do you behave differently if a given teacher has different problems? 9) Under what conditions do you vary approaches? 50 Subsequent to the principal interview, the ten teachers identified by each principal were interviewed. One teacher at each of two schools was unwilling to participate. Each of the questions in the teacher outline numbered one through nine was designed to be asked of each of the teachers inter- viewed. Again, confidentiality was assured and the inter- views were recorded on audio tape. The interview outline for teachers appears below. Teachers were arbitrarily assigned numbers one through ten as well as the letter of their principal for reference purposes, e.g., teacher B-3 symbolizes the third teacher identified by principal B. Teacher Interview Outline 1) Did you feel at ease when talking with him? 2) Did you feel he listened to you? 3) Did he ask your thoughts or your position? 4) Do you feel he understood your position? 5) Was the expressed problem different from the real problem? 6) Did he offer the decision with a great deal of explanation or with little explanation? 7) Did he mention existing policy as a basis for the action? 8) Did you have a good feeling about the conference? 9) Do you think the principal might have behaved dif- ferently if some other teacher had come to him with the same problem? If so, why? 51 Analysis of_the Data The raw data from the transcripts of the interviews received refinement in the following manner. Responses to both principal and teacher questions were generally prefaced with a "yes" or "no." Where the yes-no preface did not occur, answers were forced into a yes-no dichotomy by the interviewer for purposes of analysis. A summary of responses to the questions by teachers in each school appears in Table l. The responses by principals to ques- tions are summarized in Table 2. The specific data by teacher summarized in Tables I and 2 appear in Appendix A.- The responses of all teachers to selected questions were analyzed for relationships among the questions. This portion of the data analysis was a direct attempt to deter- mine the existence of relationships between teacher satis- faction with the teacher-principal contact, and teacher- perceived principal behavior. Ten selected pairs of questions were analyzed. The analysis was made by means of the chi-square formula using Yates correction for small sample size. The level of significance required for the experiment was set prior to the analysis at .10 level. Since ten tests were being made on the same population, actual testing for each pair was performed at .01 level. Specific entries in each cell of the chi-square table for each pair of variables are found in Appendix B. 52 Table 1 SUMMARY OF TEACHER RESPONSES BY QUESTION Teacher Question Response Ease No Yes Listened No Yes Ask Ho Thoughts Yes Understood No Yes Lbfipresse 1 1‘70 :31] If} 3 Explanation now Hi 3h Policy Ho Yes Good Feeling No Yes Behave No Different Yes * School N0;_of Teachers A‘X‘ PUT \YH l-‘\] O\\N NW 000 OOH 001—l \00 lth s1 F4 s4 \OH 00 CO CO [.4 HO 014 mm \NW 00 O \00 454?“ 4743' \N-LT' 000 000 001-4 \lN \NO\ D — \OO #0 \N-C' 47R) N‘Q -F‘\n OOl--' \OF‘I OON .113. H H \n\n \OI--'l \nUl 47‘4?’ OO \Ot-J 00 00 00 Total 4 44 3 45 2 41+ 7 38 36 7 18 21 23 l9 9 38 25 22 ** "High" categorized as positive response. Percent Positive Response i 92 92 96 84 16 54** 45 81 47 53 Table 2 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL RESPONSES BY QUESTION Percent Principal No. of Teachers PosItive QuestiOn Response ‘A* ‘B .Q .2 .3 Total Response Small Talk No 5 4 6’ 4 5 24 Yes 4 3 2 6 l 16 4O Restatement No l 3 4 2 2 12 Yes 5 4 2 3 6 20 63 Expressed No 2 8 8 6 6 30 Real Yes 7 l l 4 4 17 36 Rational Low 3 3 4 3 5 18 High 4 4 5 4 3 20 52** Understood No l O l 5 O 7 Yes 6 7 5 4 8 3O 81 * Principal ** "High" categorized as positive response. 54 In this situation, the chi-square test answers whether or not there was a change in the individual teacher's response from one question to another. The null hypothesis for the test was that a teacher's response to one question is independent of the response given to another question. A correlation coefficient was determined for each pair of variables using the formula ‘:&3 z E. The ten pairs of variables selected and the corresgonding chi-square and correlation coefficient are displayed in Table 3. Only one pair of variables produced a statistically significant result, viz., the relationship between teacher-perceived positive or negative feelings about the interaction, and teacher perception of whether or not the principal understood the teacher's position and feelings regarding the issue under discussion. However, the expected frequency in one of the cells was less than three, viz., 1.2, so confidence in the result is questionable. The relationship between principal responses and teacher responses was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of variance model. The analysis encompassed two independent variables: I) principals, and 2) teacher type, which was determined by the yes-no responses of teachers to individual teacher questions. The dependent variable was the principals' answers to principal questions. The teachers in the design acted as repeated stimulii to prin- cipals for answers to principal questions. Table 3 55 CHI-SQUARE TEST AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENT RESULTS FOR TEN SELECTED PAIRS OF RESPONSES TO TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Pairs of Variables Tested Ease (1)1/Good Feeling (8) Understood (4)/Difference Expressed-Real (5) Understood (4)/Good Feeling (8) Understood (4)/Behave Differently (9) Explanation (6)/Difference Expressed-Real (5) Difference Expressed- Real (5)/Good Feeling (8) Explanation (6)/Policy (7) Explanation (6)/Good Feeling (8 Explanation (6)/Behave Differently (9) Good Feeling (8)/Behave Differently (9) 1 Teacher question number. 2 Significant at .10 level. Chi- Square 3 .11184 .12772 20.959 1.37068 .56767 .24766 1.01250 .46744 .1554? 1.29608 Correlation F Coefficient , .04 .057 .682 .17 .13 .07 .16 .11 .03 .16 Expected frequency in one cell 1.2, so confidence is questionable. 3 Specific entries in each cell of the chi-square table for each pair of variables are found in Appendix B. 56 In this situation, the test answers whether or not there is a relationship between the principal's responses to certain questions and certain teacher types. The null hypothesis was that principal's answers to questions were independent of teacher's answers to certain other questions or, that the means of the principals' responses are iden- tical regardless of teacher type. To ensure an adequate n in each cell, two arbitrary criteria were imposed: l) the responses to teacher ques- tions in a given school must be distributed so that at least three of the ten teachers responded in each of the two, yes—no, categories, and 2) at least four of the five schools must meet the above criterion for a given teacher question. Based on these criteria, only teacher questions number six and number seven, amount of explanation and refer- ence to policy, qualified for analysis. For teacher question number six, only principals A, B, C, and E were eligible. Eligibility for question number seven was limited to prin- cipals B, C, D, and E. Where more than three teachers of a given principal were of the same type, i.e., more than three teachers answered the teacher question similarly, three were selected at random for analysis of variance. ‘purposes. Table 4 displays the data on which the analysis of 'variance was conducted for teacher question number six, .amount of explanation. The two teacher types were determined (hi the basis of a high-low dichotomy into which the answers 57 Table it AMOUNT OF EXPLANATION* Principal Question Principal ‘Teacher Type Teacher Ql_ IQ; '93 .9E 'Qj T1 1 l 0 1 l Yl** T2 1 1 O l 1 T3 0 0 0 0 1 P1 T4 0 O 1 0 0 Y2 T5 0 l 1 l 1 T6 1 0 0 1 1 T7 0 0 O l 1 Y1 T8 1 0 0 1 1 . T9 0 0 1 1 1 P2 T10 0 l O 0 0 Y2 Tll 1 0 0 0 l T12 O 0 0 l l T13 l 0 0 1 0 Y1 T14 O 1 O O 1 T15 0 O 0 0 1 P3 T16 0 1 l 1 0 Y2 T17 l O 0 l O T18 0 0 0 1 O T19 0 l 1 0 1 Y1 T20 0 1 O 0 l T21 0 1 O O 1 P4 T22 0 l 0 l 1 Y2 T23 0 O l l 1 T24. C O l O O *- Principal responses to questions related to teachers who were selected at random from among those who answered teacher question regarding "amount of explanation" in a given manner. -** Y' a Teacher negative response.(0) Y2 r Teacher positive response (1) 58 to the teacher question about amount of explanation were forced. Table 4 displays the principals' answers to all principal questions, number one through number five for the teachers. A positive response is indicated by "l", a negative response by "0“. Table 5 displays similar data for teacher question number seven, reference to policy. The alpha level for the total experiment was set at .10, thereby requiring each individual experiment to be tested at an alpha level of .05. The analysis of variance data for teacher question number six, amount of explanation, are reported in Table 6. The results for the analysis of variance related to teacher question number seven, reference to policy, are found in Table 7. Back-up data for both analysis of variance tables are reported in Appendix C. Also possible under the analysis of variance is the testing of other hypotheses not related to the formal hypotheses of the study. How- ever, none of the results, either those intentionally or ‘unintentionally studied, was statistically significant. The last three questions of the principal interview outline and the last question of the teacher interview out- line yielded, as anticipated, a wide variety of responses. fThese responses and similar responses found elsewhere in the :interview transcripts were crucial to the identification of factors determinant of principal behavioral fluctuation. .A list of key phrases, mostly relating to factors influ- enicing principal behavior, appears in Appendix D. 59 Table 5 POLICY* Principal Question Principal Teacher Type Teacher ‘gl .g; ‘Q3 ‘Q4 ‘Q2 T1 0 l 0 0 0 Y1** T2 0 1 0 0 0 T3 0 O 0 l 1 P1 T4 0 0 0 l 1 Y2 T5 1 O O O 1 T6 1 0 0 l 1 T7 0 O 0 0 1 Y1 T8 0 0 O l 1 T9 0 0 0 1 0 P2 . T10 1 0 0 1 0 Y T11 O l O O l 2 T12 0 0 o o 1 T13 l 1 0 l 1 Y1 T14 l 0 O l l T15 0 0 0 0 1 P3 T16 0 0 1 0 0 Y2 T17 1 0 0 0 1 T18 l l 1 l 0 T19 0 l 1 0 1 Y1 T20 0 0 l 1 l T21 O l 0 l 1 P4 T22 0 l l l 1 Y2 T23 0 l 0 0 l T24 l O 0 0 0 * Principal responses to questions related to teachers who were selected at random from among those who answered teacher question regarding "reference to policy" in a given manner. ** Yl : Teacher negative response (0) Y2 a Teacher positive response (1) 60 Twfle6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TEACHER QUESTION REGARDING ”AMOUNT OF EXPLANATION” Source of _S_1_1_m Mean Variance Square ‘25 S uare F Ratio* P Principals .625 3 .208333 .925924 Y** Teacher Type .075 1 .075000 .333333 PY Principals x Teacher Type .292 3 .097222 .432097 T(PY) ERROR 3.600 16 .225000 /////// Q Questions (Principal) 3.250 4 .812500 3.786413 PQ Principals x Questions 3.083 12 .256944 1.197410 YQ Teacher Type x Questions 1.717 4 .429167 2.000004 PYQ Principal x Teacher type x Questions 3.417 12 .284722 1.326861 QT(PY) ERROR 13.733 64 .214583 //////// TOTAL 29 .792 119 /////// //////// * No F ratio was statistically significant ** Variable of primary interest P Y** T(PY) q Po. YQ PYQ QT(PY) TOTAL 61 Tana? ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TEACHER QUESTION REGARDING "REFERENCE TO POLICY" Source of 'Variance Principals Teacher Type Principals x Teacher Type ERROR Questions (Principal) Principals x Questions Teacher Type x Questions Principal x Teacher Type Questions ERROR Sum Souare 1.092 .008 .492 3.335 3.45) U *1] OK)! PM 12 64 119 Mean Square .363889 .008333 .163889 .208333 .862500 .162500 .237500 .281944 .229167 /////// * No F ratio was statistically significant ** Variable of primary interest F Ratio* 1.746669 o039998 .786236 //////// 3.765630 .709089 1.036362 1.230299 //////// //////// 1". .,, 62 Many of the key phrases were either directly mentioned more than once or were mentioned using different words to express a similar idea. Further refinement was given to this information by a categorization process. The key phrases were forced into arbitrary categories by the author. The arbitrary categories for principal and teacher responses appear below. In general, categories receiving more numerous mention are listed in the outline prior to categories receiv- ing less frequent mention. FACTORS IDENTIFIED BY PRINCIPALS AS BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR VARIANCE IN PRINCIPAL BEHAVIOR IN ONE-TO-ONE INTERACTION WITH TEACHERS I. Factors related to the specific situation A. Nature of the problem 1. Urgency and/or severity (5)* 2. Complexity (number of interrelated factors, number of pe0ple affected, etc.) (4) 3. Controversiality 4. Familiarity 5. Relationshi to existing policy and/or practice (3) a. Technical, mechanical b. Immediacy and/or availability of solution B. Teacher relationship to problem 1. Personal commitment to solution and/or professional growth desirable (6) 2. Teacher recommendation presented (2) 3. Requested information presented II. Factors related to specific person A. Personality characteristics (14) 1. Rigid 2. Authoritarian * A parenthetical number following a particular category indicates that mention of this category during the interviews occurred more than once. The number refers to the specific number of times it received mention. III. 63 3. Sensitive 4. Open 5. Emotional . Likeable 7 o I‘Tature B. Perception of other subjective personal character- istics 1. Confidence in teacher's abilities (8) 2. Perceived feelings regarding specific problem (5) 3. Anticipated feelings resulting from a given administrative action (4) 4. Educational philosophy 3) 5. Loyalty to principal (2) C. Teacher relationship to principal 1. Previous working relationship (3) 2. Personal relationship (2) D. Personal information 1. Family and/or personal problems (5) 2. Age-experience 3. Sex of teacher General A. Time availability B. Administrative experience C. Personal, emotional disposition FACTORS IDENTIFIED BY TEACHERS AS BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR VARIANCE IN PRINCIPAL BEHAVIOR 1. II. III. IN ONE-TO-ONE INTERACTION WITH TEACHERS Relationship of teacher to principal A. Personal (6 B. Working (5) C. Principal's confidence in teacher ability and productivity (3) Personal characteristics of teacher A. Age and experience of teacher (6) B. Personality (2) Other A. Extent of teacher concern and involvement in the problem (2) B. EXpressed interest in school program by teacher C. Approach desired by teacher D. Sex of teacher CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS Results of Data Analysis and Answers to Major Questions The correlation coefficient results for the ten pairs of teachers questions selected reveal the highest corre- lation between the paired responses of teacher questions occurred on teacher responses to 1) whether or not teachers F felt the principal understood their position and 2) whether or not teachers felt satisfaction at the conclusion of the conference. The correlation was positive, indicating the responses tended to be in the same direction on both items. Correlation, of course, does not necessarily indicate a cause-effect relationship. If the correlation reflected a real cause-effect relationship, implications for the be- havior of secondary principals must be considered. For example, if teacher satiSfaction at the conclusion of a conference is a primary objective of a principal, and if satisfaction is determined by teacher-perceived principal understanding of the problem, the principal might deliber- ately choose to spend interaction time with the teacher in an effort to assure the teacher that he, the principal, does in fact have a full and broad-based understanding of the problem. On the other hand, both factors, teacher-perceived understanding of the problem and teacher satisfaction, could be related to still another factor, e.g., the congruence of the principal's decision to the desires of the teacher. Teacher perception that the principal understands the 64 65 problem fully may well be directly contingent upon whether or not the principal's solution or decision is compatible with the decision or Solution desired by the teacher. The relationship of these two factors bears some similarity to the conclusions of Haralick's study discussed in Chapter III, i.e., teacher satisfaction is related to teacher's perception of the principal's positive compliance with and norms. The correlation of these two factors may also parallel Bidwell's conclusion (Chapter III) that teacher satisfaction is dependent upon convergence of ‘5'? I... w; teacher's role expectations for administrators and teacher perception of administrative behavior. A logical integration of the statistically signifi- cant correlation found in this study and the conclusion of the Haralick study might be the following: If the principal understands the teacher's position, then the principal will behave in the teacher-expected or teacher- accepted manner and consequently, teacher satisfaction will be increased. Teacher satisfaction at the end of the conference did not correlate well with any other factor tested. Because of the direct relationship to one of the primary purposes of the study, viz., the relationship between teacher sat- isfaction and the constancy or variability of the admin- istrator's approach, attention is drawn to the fact that the correlation between teacher satisfaction and amount of explanation given is low, and not statistically significant. 66 A fair conclusion would be that the use by a principal of only one technique--only high explanation or only low-- will not maximize teacher satisfaction. An examination of Table 2 or Appendix A reveals that high levels of teacher satisfaction occur both in schools and situations where the amount of explanation perceived by teachers is limited, E: where the amount of explanation is extensive, or where principal behavior varies from one to the other. UK" .‘h‘ IFL o . ‘1 However, the evidence is inadequate to conclude that appropriate selection by the principal of the strategy of ‘35—...— high or low amounts of explanation is per se a good pre- dictor of teacher satisfaction. The explanation for these results might lay in one of two extremes: 1) each of the principals involved was highly skilled in determining the appropriate approach to be used for the individual teacher and situation under consideration, or 2) teacher satis- faction with principal-teacher interaction is not at all related to the use of an apprOpriate approach. Further, note that no relationship exists between reference to school policy and the amount of explanation. One might have hypothesized, for example, that reference to policy might have been accompanied by low amount of explanation and conversely. An analysis of the frequency of various responses as shown in Tables 2 and 3 provides additional evidence related to the major purposes of the study. The responses 67 to teacher question number six regarding the amount of explanation given by the principal, and principal question number four regarding the amount of rationale for the de- cision provided also bear directly on the first of three major purposes of the study, i.e., are principals perceived as using both direct and indirect approaches with teachers? F1 Fifty-four percent of the teachers viewed the amount of E explanation given them as high, while principals perceived themselwes as providing a high degree of rationale for I decisions or solutions in 52% of the cases. Not only are E; these two percentages remarkably close, but the proximity to 50% provides evidence that teachers and principals agree that principals tend to use both direct and indirect methods of approaching teacher problems. The fact that teachers recalled a mention of school policy in 45% of the cases and that principals recalled making a restatement of the problem 63% of the time provides further evidence that principals' behavior reflects a range of variance across situations and individuals. Principal behavior was remarkably consistent as per- ceived by teachers on the questions regarding whether the principal had listened to them and whether he had asked their thoughts or feelings on the issue. Ninety-two percent of the teachers felt that the principals had listened to them, and 96% said that the principal had asked for their feelings or thoughts on the issue under discussion. On these dimensions of administrative behavior, the group of 68 principals in the study were more homogeneous in their be- havior. However, the responses to these questions did not correlate well with teacher satisfaction regarding the conference. The analysis of variance treatment rendered no statis- tically significant results. No significant differences were found among principals in their answers to the five principal questions. Differences of principal responses within teacher type, as determined by the teachers positive- negative response to a given teacher question, were also insignificant. In both teacher questions analyzed, graphing reveals interaction between teacher type and principal responses; however, the statistical analysis failed to demonstrate significance. Interestingly, the results imply no relationship exists betieen teacher-perceived amount of explanation and princi"'—perceived amount of explanation. Similarly, no relationship exists between principal perceptions regarding the degree to which the teacher understood the de- cision, and the teacher—perceived amount of explanation offered. The verbal responses of principals and teachers to questions regarding fluctuation in principal behavior covered a wide range of factors. Principals, in general, perceived themselves as intentionally varying their behavior from one situation to another, as well as from one person to another. The issue of behavior variance elicited a response from the principals which reflected the view that behavior fluctua- tion was desirable. Moreover, the principals comments 69 left the interviewer with the impression that a skilled principal had the ability to determine the most appropriate approach for a given situation or teacher. Predictably, principals were able to verbalize many more factors which they perceived as being determinants of their own behavior than were the teachers. Outside of factors over which a principals had little control, e.g., time availability and their own emotional disposition, the factors cited by prin- z cipals tended to fall into two major categories, one related to the specific situation, and the other related to the E specific person. (See Chapter IV, pp. 62-63.) The personality characteristics of the teachers, them- selves, or the principal's confidence in the abilities of a given teacher were mentioned by principals with a great degree of frequency as factors which influenced the prin- cipal's behavior with a given teacher. In spite of the individual teacher involved, however, principals also saw themselves as varying their approach depending upon the nature of the problem involved. The most frequently men- tioned aspects of the problem which principals perceived as affecting their behavior were the urgency or severity of the problem, the complexity of the problem, and the desirap bility of a teacher commitment to the solution of the problem. The comments of teachers in response to the question of fluctuatiOn of administrative behavior reflected quite a different view of principal behavior variability. Teachers tended to feel that any variance in principal behavior 70 based on the fact that a different teacher was involved, reflected inconsistency--a definite sign of weakness. Teacher responses generally reflected a defensiveness of their own principal's behavior, e.g., "our principal treats everyone the same." Similar comments and the tone in which they were offered are the basis for the above conclusion. The few teachers who did perceive a change in principal behavior dependent upon the teacher involved, tended to base the expected behavioral change on their own personal and/or working relationship with the principal rather than any personal characteristics of their own or any aspects of the situation under consideration. If, as principals and teachers agree, principal behavior is directly affected by the personal and/or working relay tionship of the teacher to the principal, and if the tacit assumption that the better the personal relationship between teacher and principal, the higher the satisfaction with teacher-principal interaction is valid, then the inference can be made that principals should intentionally create situations which will foster the develOpment of personal relationships with the teachers. As was pointed out in Chapter II, there is a growing body of research which confirms the existence of a rela- tionship between teacher expectation of principal behavior and teacher satisfaction with principal behavior. The discrepancy noted above between the value placed by princi- pals on fluctuation of behavior and the value placed by 71 teachers on the same item, would lead to the conclusion that principals might spend valuable time helping teachers appre- ciate the need to use a variety of administrative approaches, as well as the advantages of doing so. Conclusions- Based on the data presented in the study relative to the major questions of the study, the following conclusions regarding Livonia Public Secondary Schools are made: 1) Principals use both direct and indirect methods of dealing with teachers as perceived by both principals and teaChers. ' 2) There is no relationship between teacher satisfac- tion with teacher-principal interaction and whether the principal uses both direct and indirect approaches. 3) Myriad factors are cited by principals and teachers as being determinant of the approach used by principals during interaction with teachers. Principals and teachers agree that the personal and/or working relationship of the teacher with the principal is a crucial factor. Principals list significantly more factors responsible for behavior fluctuation than do teachers. Included in the principal list of factors are other personal characteristics of the individual teacher as well as characteristics of the specific situation or problem under consideration. CHAPTER VI: TOWARD A PARTIAL THEORY OF PRINCIPAL BEHAVIOR IN INDIVIDUAL TEACHER INTERACTION Intggduction Administrative theory, unfortunately has fallen into extensive disrepute among practicing school administrators. They complain that theory has little, if any, relevance to the problems they face and the responsibilities they bear on the job on a day-to-day basis. Flippant use of the term "ivory tower" to emphasize the irrelevance of theory and the gap between theory and practice, is unusually common. It must be pointed out, however, that existing administra- tive theory, even at the current stage of its development, has had notable effects upon leader behavior. The Human Relations movement with its emphasis upon group dynamics and involvement is a case in point. Nevertheless, criticism of administrative theory must be accepted for whatever element of truth it possesses. Few theoreticians would describe the current stage of theory development as anything but primitive, and would admit openly to many of its weaknesses. Much of the theory which has been offered is extremely fragmented. No acceptable framework has yet been offered for even those theories which have passed the test of research. Moreover, leading theor- ists themselves are unable to agree upon the most profitable approach to the development of further theory. Views espoused regarding the solution to the problem range from additional observation of raw behavior to the development and refinement of a comprehensive theory of administration. 72 73 Carr's statement on the development of a comprehensive theory of leadership summarizes the parameters within which such development must occur. Any comprehensive theory of leadership must incorporate and integrate all the major variables which are now known to be involved, namely, 1) the personality of the leader, 2) the fol- lowers, with their attitudes, needs, and problems, 3) the group itself as regarding both a) struc- ture of interpersonal relations and b) group characteristics, and 4) the situation as deter- mined by physical setting, nature of task, etc. Furthermore, any satisfactory theory must recognize that it is not these variables per se that enter into the leadership relation, but rather the perception of the leader by himself and by others, the leader's perception of those others, and the shared perception by the leader and others.of the group and the situation. What is needed is a conception in which the complex 10h interaction of these factors can be incorporated. Extension of the Getzels-Guba Model One of the most general theoretical models presented to date is the Getzels-Guba model discussed earlier in this paper (See pp. 13-17). As noted earlier, this model offers two dimensions as determinants of behavior--the nomothetic or role and its accompanying expectations, and the idio- graphic or personality and its unique set of need-dis- positions. The dynamic interaction of the two dimensions receives extensive treatment as does each dimension inde- pendently. Nevertheless,the model as it exists, even with its degree of comprehensiveness and the extensive research which supports it, does not meet Carr's criterion of 104. Carr, 9p. cit., p. 261. 7Q incorporating and integrating all the major variables which are known to be involved in administrative behavior. Indeed, the model's creators Openly discuss its limitay tions. For example, it does not fully account for either the followers with their related attitudes, needs, and problems, nor the situation as determined by physical set- pg ting, nature of the task, etc. The study described in this [ paper has shown that in principal-teacher, face-to-face E interaction, factors related to the subordinate individual i and factors related to the task or problem under discussion L: are extremely important determinants of principal behavior. In this section an attempt will be made to extend the Getzels-Guba model to meet the objections raised above. The extension is made only within the purview of this study, i.e., principal-teacher, one-to-one interaction. No violation of the existing Getzels-Guba model is intended. The attempt is simply designed to account for some of the "individual lati- tude" which the Getzels-Guba model permits. Getzels' states: ...behavior...is a function of both role and personality.... When role is maximized, be- havior still retains some personal aspects be- cause no role is ever so closely defined as to eliminate all individual latitude. When person- ality is maximized, social behavior iotll cannot be free from some role prescription. Determinants of Behavior: Situation and Individual According to the Getzels' formula, behavior is a function of role and personality; more specifically, it 105. Getzels, op. cit., p. 83. 75 is a function of role expectations and need-dispositions. Within the parameters outlined above and based on the results of the study, two other variables.must be con- sidered determinants of behavior. For purposes of this discussion, the variables will be called situation and individual. The term situation may be defined as the nature of the problem or task under consideration. Terms such as F? urgency, complexity, controversiality, familiarity, and relationship to existing policy and practice, serve as ‘ examples of possible dimensions which define the nature of -i the problem. The use of categorical factors such as these complemented with other factual and opinion data related to the situation combine to create the administrator's definition of the problem. It is the administrator's per- ception of the problem which has the potential of influ- encing his behavior. The term individual shall refer to the unique person associated with the specific situation under consideration. Associated with the individual, is a broad and extensive array of characteristics perceived by the administrator which are unique to the person. Some of these characteristics, such as age, experience, sex, etc., are part of a factual bank of data related to the individual. Still other characteris- tics are derivations of behavioral cues. These cues eminate from a variety of sources including actual observed behavior, previous personal interaction, verbal feedback from other members of the organization, etc. From these cues, the_ 76 administrator ascribes to the individual attitudes, beliefs, values, philosophies, expectations, need-dispositions, inter- personal skills, a degree of confidence in his work and so forth. This aggregation of characteristics perceived by the administrator, regardless of the accuracy of that per- ception, may have a direct impact on the actual behavior of the administrator. Definition ‘/////I of Problem ¢———-——- Situation Administrative Behavior ‘\\\\\\‘ Aggregate Characteristics ‘—'—'— Individual FIGURE 3 The Situation and Individual Dimensions of Principal Behavior in One-to-One Interaction with Teachers A pictorial representation of the two variables under discussion is seen in Figure 3. Each term in the figure devolves from the one on its right in the sense that the administrative behavior is determined by giving consideration to each of the categories in the order indicated. Varying degrees of emphasis given to particular aspects of the preceding category.finally determine the actual behavior. As in the Getzels-Guba model, there is a dynamic interplay of the two major factors in determining administrative be- havior, in this case, situation and individual. In some_ circumstances, the individual administrator will give greater 77 emphasis to situational factors than to individual factors. The emphasis under different conditions may be reversed. If the situation is one which clearly relates to existing policy, then administrative behavior is likely to emphasize the situational dimension. If, on the other hand, the problem may be resolved by means of several viable linJ alternatives, administrative behavior may give emphasis to the personal dimension. Perhaps no problem can be fully associated with one dimension to the exclusion of the other. For example, even in situations which fall within the pur- 14 view of clearly defined policy, the actual method for enforcement, the verbage selected, and the tone of the inter- action, may still be subject to individual consideration. Situation Lr”’ / Individual A B FIGURE 4 Varying Proportions of Situation and Individual Determinants of Principal Behavior The interplay between the two variables can be repre- sented in a pictorial manner similar to the one representing the interaction of role and personality (See Figure 4). Any given vertical line drawn across the figure represents the relative emphasis ascribed to situational or individual dimensions. For example, behavior represented by line A 78 places heavy emphasis upon situational aspects, while line B represents behavior in which heavy emphasis is placed upon individual aspects. Interaction of Four Behavior Determinant_Variables The original point was, however, that situation and individual represented two variables in addition to role and personality which are determinants of administrative behavior. The hypothesis is that any administrative be- havior is a function of these four variables and the rela- tive emphasis given by the administrator to each variable. Consideration must now be given to the dynamic interplay of four variables. In mathematical notation, the Getzels- Guba formula B = f(R x P) must be expanded to the formula B = f [KR x P) + (S x 1)] where S represents the term situ- ation and I represents the term individual. In other words, administrative behavior is determined by some balance on each of two pairs of dimensions. Further, the assumption that there is considerable variability in the balance between the influence of role and personality associated with a given administrator is maintained. The three-dimensional figure following represents the interaction of these pairs of variables (Figure 5). The back, vertical panels each represents the interaction of one of the given pairs of variables, Role-Personality and Situ- ation-Individual. The floor panel in the figure represents the arena of interaction of these two pairs of variables. The floor is arbitrarily divided into four equal quarters to facilitate discussion and analysis. FIGURE 5 Interplay in Three-Dimensional Space of the Four Variables: Role, Personality, Situation, Individual This model in three-dimensional space permits us to graphically portray the interplay of the four variables. Using a process of triangulation, the line representing the Role-Personality balance, can be crossed with the line representing the Situation-Individual balance so that actual behavior may be represented by a precise point on the floor of the model. The triangulation process is accomplished in the following manner (See Figure 6). Let vertical line C on the Role-Personality panel represent the relative empha- sis ascribed to role and personality as determined by a given behavior. Let vertical line D on the Situation- Individual panel represent the relative emphasis given to situation and individual dimensions determined by a particu- lar behavior. Project line C across the floor panel in a plane parallel to the Situation-Individual panel and con- taining line C. Similarly, project line D across the 79 80 the floor panel in a plane parallel to the Role-Person- ality panel and containing line D. The projected lines intersect at point Q which represents the actual adminis- trative behavior resulting from the emphases placed at C and D. FIGURE 6 The Triangulation Process Activity in quadrant I then, represents greater influ- ence ascribed to role than to personality, and greater influ- ence given to individual than to situation. The notation (R, I) may also be used to denote this quadrant. Likewise quadrant II represents high emphasis given to role and situ- ation, or (R, S). In quadrant III, high emphasis is placed on personality and individual or (P, I). Finally, quadrant IV represents high emphasis placed on personality and situ- ation, or (P, S). Propositions Several interesting hypotheses are deducible from 81 the model as described. Proposition 1 The greater the emphasis attributed to role, the more likely heavy emphasis will be given to situation, or As i(R)—..., then p[i(S) >i(I)] —+l.* Proposition 1 depicts the situation in which an admin- istrator is extremely cognizant of the constraints placed upon his behavior by the role in which he finds himself an incumbent. The implication is made that the greater the emphasis he ascribes to role expectations, the more likely it is that he will find himself giving emphasis to the situational aspects of one-to-one interaction. This conclusion coincides with Getzels declaration that the primary type of conflict associated with the Normative Leadership Style is role con- flict.106 There are obvious exceptions to this generaliza- tion. Role expectations, for example, would mandate certain administrative behavior emanating from the fact that a teacher possessed some physical handicap. Nevertheless, the prepon- derance of administrative behavior occurring on the role side of the role-personality continuum would take place in quadrant II of the arena rather than quadrant I. Proposition 2 ‘The heavier the influence ascribed to person- ality, the more likely that the indiVidual dimen- sion will receive heavy emphasis, or As i(P)...., then p[i(I) >i(S)]—)l. 106. Getzels, Lipham, and Campbell, op. cit., p. 147. * i(R) : influence of Role;- >= approaches; p[i(s) > i(Ifl a probability that the influence of Situation is greater than the influence of Individual. 82 Proposition 2 suggests that administrative behavior which is dominated by the need—dispositions of the personali- ty is likely to be heavily influenced by individual char- acteristics ascribed by the administrator to the subordinate involved in the interaction. This deduction also coincides with Getzels' statement that the primary type of conflict associated with the personal leadership style is personality 7% 107 While behavior dominated by personality as : conflict. opposed to role may occur in both quadrants III and IV, the majority of that behavior can be expected to occur in j t; quadrant III. W e more a anced and varied the influence of role and personality, the more likely it is that the influence of situation and individual will be varied, or As i(R)-+i(P , then p i(S) : i(I) = p i(S)>i(I) : p[i(I) >i(Sfl). E J E J Flexibility in administrative behavior as described in Getzels' Transactional Style is precluded when behavior proceeds from an inordinately high impact of either role expectations or personality needs.108 In either case, the range of administrative behavior is extremely limited and consequently more predictable. 0n the other hand, if a balance between the influence of role and personality on behavior can be achieved, and further, if the influence of role and personality can be intentionally controlled from one situation to another, —_ 107. Ibid., p. 148. 108. Ibid., pp. 148-150. 83 the entire range of administrative behavior will be broadened. As delineated by the propositions, in the case of behavior dominated by role considerations, be- havior dominated by situational considerations is expected. Likewise, where personality considerations dominate be- havior, dominance by individual considerations is antici- pated. But where a balance between role and personality considerations can be achieved, a variety of situational and individual balances can be expected to occur. A bal- ance between role and personality frees the administrator from narrow, compulsive behavior, and makes it possible for him to intentionally vary the balance between situational and individual considerations as well. The result is that in some cases situational aspects dominate, in some cases in- dividual aspects dominate, and in still others, they are quite equal. Variability in administrative behavior raises an in- teresting question regarding its relationship to a common teacher expectation for administrative behavior, namely, consistency. Does the administrator who intentionally varies his behavior to take into consideration specific situational and individual features sacrifice a degree of teacher satis- faction with his behavior since teachers expect him to be con- sistent? Obviously, the question is extremely complex and no further analysis of the question shall be undertaken here. Summarizing, at the role end of the continuum, the pre- ponderance of behavior is expected to occur in quadrant II. ‘. "I” l : I {.‘AQ.£' " 84 At the personality end of the continuum, the preponderance of activity is expected to occur in quadrant III. Where role and personality considerations are balanced (central- ized), a range of behavior on the situation-individual con- tinuum is most likely to occur. Propgsition 4 e prepon erance of administrative behavior will occur on the floor panel within an S- shaped band running from extreme quadrant II to extreme quadrant III. Proposition 4 is deduced directly from Propositions 1, 2, and 3. FIGURE 7 The S-Shaped Curve Figure 7 shows pictorially the portion of the arena in which the preponderance of all administrative behavior is expected. The area is essentially an S-shaped curve with a very narrow band at either end representing the limited range of behavior we expected there, and a very wide band in the center representing the broad range of activity ex- pected when role and personality considerations are balanced. 85 The S-shaped band is in no way intended to account for all administrative behavior. The hypothesis is simply that the S-shape will account for a major and significant portion of that behavior. Propositionfig ‘Behavior occurring in quadrants I and III is particularistic in nature while behavior occurring in quadrants II and IV is universalistic in nature. For the purpose of discussion, the floor panel will be divided into two halves with quadrants I and III in one half, and quadrants II and IV in another. An interesting parallel can be found between the general behavior occurring in each m half and the particularistic and universalistic dimensions of behavior. The particularistic-universalistic dichotomy is offered by Parsons as a means of analyzing interpersonal relationships.109 Particularistic relationships are described as those in which the interaction is determined on the basis of personal rather than role factors. Emotional rather than functional ties define the rights and obligations of the participants. The affective content of the interchange would likely be high and functional considerations would be second- ary to emotional ones. Consistent with the discussion of the model described in this chapter, behavior occurring in quadrants I and III would be particularistic in nature. Likewise, activity occurring in quadrants II and IV can be hypothesized as universalistic in nature. In other words, subordinates involved in behavior occurring in these ‘ 109. Parsons and Schills, op. cit., pp. 81—82. 86 quadrants are likely to receive the same treatment regard- less of who they are. Interaction is determined on the basis of role rather than personal factors. The adminis- trator would maintain affective neutrality and emotional considerations would be secondary to functional ones. Proposition 6 ‘The greater the interrelationship between the , definition of the problem and the aggregate .7 characteristics of the individual, the less efficient the decision-making process. Obviously, the more factors which must be taken into consideration, the greater the complexity of the situation .*éz‘_vxi1" and the more difficult rational decision-making becomes. Proposition 6, however, describes a situation which is not so simple as adding linearally to the number of factors to be considered. Rather, the dimensions of the problem in- crease geometrically when the definition of the problem is intertwined with the characteristics of the individual. In some cases, attention can be focused on the defini- tion of the problem to the virtual exclusion of individual characteristics. A solution to a problem, for example, may simply require the collection of appropriate data and its analysis. In other cases, the reverse may be true, i.e., characteristics of the individual receive exclusive attention. For example, high political or personal interests may result in a decision to make an immediate exception to existing policies. Moreover, some administrators are inclined to treat one dimension of the total field while giving little or no emphasis to the other dimension. By comparison, the decision-making process under these conditions, i.e., 87 consideration of only one dimension, is relatively simple. However, when an administrator intentionally sets about to give thorough consideration to both dimensions of the interaction, the decision-making process becomes unusu- ally complex. The situation is no longer so easy as simply issuing a directive with which a subordinate is expected i to comply. An administrator may decide to deal with the attitudes of the subordinate from whom behavioral change is desired. Such complexity in the decision-making process L makes much heavier demands on the mental energies of admin- istrators than those where the interrelationship between problem and individual is ignored. To the extent that men- tal energies are expended, or that psychic strain is present, 110 efficiency is sacrificed. (See page 17.) The Broader Model The full array of forces impinging upon an adminis- trator in one-to~one interaction may also be portrayed by means of the diagram in Figure 8. This diagram is simply a composite of the Getzels-Guba model and the extension of that model described in this paper. Behavioral deter- minants on the left side of the diagram relate specifi- cally to the administrator or superordinate and role expecta- tions as he perceives them emerging from the organization. Behavioral determinants on the right side relate specifically to the teacher or subordinate in the interaction and to the ad- ministrator's perception of the problem involving the subordinate. 110. Getzels, 92. cit., p. 129. 88 Heeez eaaeunaeneee eeeeeaam ens w $5me Aopmsfiehopsmv moflpmwmopompdgo sowpwmommgf mpflfiwsommom 6. A mumsfiesommmsmv sweeten; Iv enemeamma \ .82 35238 mofizfimm aopmmm m>HB§BmHzHE¢ Hefioom sofimzpflm ll! smashed mo msoaupmpommxm 83238 eaem ..II eaem .... eeaeeeaenfi 89 If a vector analysis could be done of the four arrows most directly influencing administrative behavior, the length of each of these arrows, i.e., the emphasis given to each of the four variables, would be revealed in constant flux for a particular administrator. In some cases, the fluctu- ation is conscious and deliberate, but even where behavioral consistency is the goal, some fluctuation inevitable occurs. Summary In this chapter, a theoretical model of administrative behavior which attempts to describe the real world was dis- cussed. The entire discussion was limited to the framework of one-to-one problem—solving interaction between principal and teacher. Four major variables were proposed as determinants of administrative behavior in such situations: role expecta- tions as perceived by the administrator, the need-disposi- tions of the administrator, the definition of the problem as determined by the administrator, and the aggregate character- istics of the subordinate involved. The four variables which determine administrative behavior were posited as being in a constant and dynamic interplay. Several propositions were offered which are deducible from the model. M (HUETE. VII: IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH This study was intentionally designed to observe closely phenomena occurring in normal teacher-principal interaction. The focus was purposely set to closely scrutin- ize behavior with the idea of asking pertinent questions. Many more questions have been raised by the study than have 1 been answered. The following is an initial list of ques- tions raised by this study which merit further investigation. 1) If certain dimensions of the teacher and the situ- E W ation are known, can the administrative approach most likely to maximize teacher satisfaction be predicted? 2) Is there a correlation between teacher-perceived principal understanding of the issue under discussion and teacher satisfaction? 3) Do teachers value consistency in principal behavior while principals value flexibility? Is teacher satisfaction higher in schools where A) situations are created to develop personal relationships ‘between principals and teachers? Under what set of conditions do principals provide 5) limited rationale or explanation? 6) Each of the propositions in Chapter VI requires testing: l--The greater the emphasis attributed to role, the more likely heavy emphasis will be given to situation. 90 91 2--The heavier the influence ascribed to per- sonality, the more likely that the individual dimension will receive heavy emphasis. 3--The more balanced and varied the influence of role and personality, the more likely it is that the influence of situation and individual will be varied, 4--The preponderance of administrative behavior will occur in the arena within an S-shaped band running from extreme quadrant II to ex- treme quadrant III. 5-—Behavior occurring in quadrants I and III is particularistic in nature while behavior occurring in quadrants II and IV is universal- istic in nature. 6--The greater the interrelationship between the definition of the problem and the aggre- gate characteristics of the individual, the less efficient the decision-making process. 7) Does teacher-perceived principal understanding of the problem and/or teacher satisfaction with a principal- teacher conference have a relationship to the congruence of the decision to the desires of the teacher? B IB LI OGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adorno, T. W., E. F‘renkel-Brunswick, B. J. Levinson, and R. N. Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality, New "- York, Harper 8: Brothers, 195']: Andrews, John, "A Deterrant to Harmony Among Teachers," Administration Notebook, 6, March 1958. Argyris, Chris, "Interpersonal Booners to Decision Making," Harvard Business Review, XLIV, March 1966. ..i Argyris, Chris, Personality and Organization, New York, Harper 8: Row, 1957. Bales, R. F., Interaction Process Analysis, Cambridge, Addison-Wesley, 1950. 'Baralik J. G;,"Teacher Acceptance of Administrative Action," Journal of EXperimental Education, 37, 1968. Barnard, Chester 1., The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1938. Bennie, Warren G., Changing Organizations, New York, McGraw Hill Book Co., 1966. Bennie, Warren G., "Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior," Administrative Science Quarterly, IV, No. 3, 1959. Berne, Eric, Games People Play, New York, Grove Press, 1964. Bidwell, Charles E., "Administration 8: Teacher Satisfaction," Phi Delta Kappan, 37, 1956. Bidwell, Charles E., "The Administrative Role and Satisfac- tion in Teaching," Journal of Educational Sociology, 29, Sept. 1955. Bridges, Edwin M. "A Model for Shared Decision Making in the School Principalship," Educational Adminis- tration Quarterly, III, No. 1,T967. Campbell, Roald F. and Russell T. Gregg, Administrative Behavior in Education, New York, Harper, 1957. 92 93 Campbell, Roald F. and James M. Lipham, Administrative Theory as a Guide for Action, Chicago, Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1962. Carr, L. J. , Analytical Sociology, New York, Harper 8: Row, 1955. Cartwright, Dorwin, and Alvin Zander, Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, Second Edition, Evanston, Tilinois, Row, Petérson, 1960. Chase, Francis 5., "Factors for Teacher Satisfaction," Phi Delta Kappan, 33, Nov. 1951. Crispin, D. B. and D. Peterson, "Analysis of Interaction Among Principals and Teachers During School Faculty Meetings", Contemporary Education, 39, May 1968. Culbertson, Jack A., Administrative Relationships, Englewood, N. J., Prentice Hall, 1960. Dill, William R., "Decision-Making", Behavioral Science and Educational Administration, 63rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Pagt 11, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 19 1+. Etzioni, Armitai, Modern Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice Hall, 1964. Friedrich, C. J., Public Policy, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1940. From, Erich, Man for Himself, New York, Rinehart, 1947. Getzels, Jacob W. and Egon G. Guba, "Social Behavior and the Administrative Process," School Review, LXV, Winter 1957. Getzels, Jacob W., James M. Lipham, and Roald F. Campbell, Educational Administration as a Social Process, New York, HarperEc Row, 1968. Bibb, Cecil A., "Leadership," Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. IV, Chap. 31. Glover, John Desmond and Ralph M. Hower, The Administrator, Homewood, 111., R. D. Irwin, 1963. Goffman Erving, Encounters, Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1961. 9A Goffman, Erving, The irresentation of Self in Ever d Life, Garden City,TI. Y., Doublefiay 8: Co., Anc or Book, 19 59 . Goldman, Harvey, A Study of the Teacher-Administrator Relationshi and he Influence of ee a terns, East fansing, Michigan, College of Education, Michigan State University, July 1966. Harvey and James E. Heald, "Teacher's Need Goldman Patterns and the Administrator," NASSP Bulletin, ’1 51, December 1967. Griffiths, Daniel E., "Administrative Theory and Change in Organizations," Innovation in Education, New York, Teachers College Press,"1964. Gross, Neal, Ward Mason and Alexander McEachisn, Explorations in Role Analysis, New York, Wiley, 1958. i—‘gl "I I_ Guba, Egon G., Administrative Relationships, Chicago, Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1957. Gulick, Luther and L. Urwick, eds., Papers on the Science of Administration, Columbia University, 1937. Hairs, 11., Modern Organization Theory, New York, Wiley, 1959. Halpin, Andrew W., Administrative Theory in Education, Chicago, Midwes Administra ion en er, nivers ty of Chicago , 1958 . Halpin, Andrew, "The Leader Behavior and Leadership Ideology of Educational Administrators and Aircraft Commanders," Harvard Educational Review, 25, Winter, 1955. Halpin, Andrew W., The Leadership Behavior of School Superintendents, Chicago fMidwest Administration Center, Univefiity of Chicago, 1959. Halpin, Andrew W., Theory_ and Research in Administration, New York, The MacI«Tillan Co., 1966. Hamachek, D. 13., "Leadership Styles, Decision Making and the Principal " National Elementary Principal, 1+5. April 196 . “ Haralick, Joy Gold, "Teacher Acceptance of Administra- tive Action," Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 37, No. 2,—Winter 1968. 95 Harris Edwin F. and Edwin A. Eleishman, "Human Relay tions Training and the Stability of Leadership Patterns," Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 1955. Hemphill, John K., "Personal Variables and Administras tive Styles," Behavioral Science and Educational Administration, rd earbook of he a iona Society for the Study of Education, Part II, Chicago, The University of Chicago, 1964. Hemphill, John K., Situational Factors in Leadership, Columbus, Bureau ofEducationalResearch, 1949. *3 Hemphill, John and Alvin Looms, Leader Behavior Deg: cription, Columbus, Personnel Research Board, Ohio Herzberg, Frederick, Work and the Nature of Man, Cleve- . land, The World Publishing Co., 1966. j Hill, J. E., Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, 1970. Homans, George 0., Social Behavior--Its Elementary Forms, New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961. Homans, George C., The Human Group, New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, 1950. Jacobs, J. W., "Leader Behavior of the Secondary School Principal,v National Association of Secondar School Principals BHIIEtin, 49, October‘l965. Landis, James McCauley, The Administrative Process, New Haven and London, Yale UniversityIPress, 1964. Langerak R. W., et. al., "Do Principals Tend to Over Frgéernize with Teachers?" Instructor, 75:25, June 19 . Leavitt, Harold J., "Consequences of Executive Behaxior: The Administrative Two Step and Other Seemly Dances for Administrators," NASSP Bulletin, 48, April 1964. Leavitt, Harold J., "Unhuman Organization", Harvard Business Review, XL, July-August 1962. Lewin, Kurt, Field Theory in Social Science, D. Cart- wright, ed.,lNew‘York,7Harper Row, 1951. Lewin, Kurt, and Ronald Lippitt, and Ralph K. White, "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in ExPerimentally Created "Social Climates,"" Journal of Social Psy- cholo , 10, 1939. ’ 96 Lickert Rensis, New Patterns of Management, New York, Mc raw Hill Book CO.,'1961. Linton, Ralph, The Study of Man, New York, Appleton- Century, 1936. Lonsdale, Richard C., "Maintaining the Organization in Dynamic Equilibrium," Behavioral Science and Educational Administration, 63rd Yearbook 5f the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1964. Maslow, A. H.,Motivation and Personality, New York, Harper & Row Publishing, 1954. McGregor, Douglas M., The Human Side of the Enterprise, New York, McGraw Hill, 1960. Mellinger, C. D., "Interpersonal Trust as a Factor in Communication," Journal of Abnormal Social_Psychology, 52: N00 3: 19560 Merton, R. K., "The Role-Set: Problems in Socidlogical Theory," British Journal of Sociology, 8, 1957. Moyer, Donald C., "Leadership That Teachers Want," Administrators Notebook, III, March 1955. Owens, Robert G., Organizational Behavior In Schools, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice Hall, 1970. Parsons, Talcott & Edward A. Shils, Toward A General Theory of Action, Cambridge, Mass.,Harvard Univer- sity, I951. Peoples, John A.,"The Relationship of Teacher Communicap tion to Principal Behavior," Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1964. Prince, Richard, "A Study of the Relationship Between Individual Values and Administrative Effectiveness in the School Situation," Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1957. Roethlisberger, Fritz J., "The Administrative Skills " Harvard Business Review, Vol. 31, No. 6, Dec. 1953. Roesthlisberger, Fritz J. and William J. Dickson, Man ement and the Worker, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1939. ' Rogers, Carl, Counseling and Psychotherapy, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1942. . ;n ‘,I VIM .'.. 97 Roy, Robert H., The Administrative Process, Baltimore, John Hopkins Press, 1958. Ryans, David G.,_Characteristics of Teachers, Washington, D. 0., American Council on Education, 1960. Sarbin, Theodore R., "Role Theory" in Handbook of Social Ps cholo , I, Theory and Method,_Chap.VI;IReading, Mass., Aggison Wesley Pub., 195#. Schutz, William C., FIRO: A Three-Dimensional Theory of Personal Behavior,7New7Y0rk,HoltRinehart and Winston, 1958. Selznick, P., Leadership_in Administration, Evanston, Ill., Row, PetErson, 1957. Sharma, Chiranzi Lal, "Who Should Make What Decisions?", _Administrators Notebook, III, No. 8, April 1955. Shartle, Carroll, Executive Performance and Leadership, Harper and Row, 1960. Simon, Herbert A., Administrative Behavior, New York, The Macmillan Co., 1945. Simon, Herbert A., Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Makingfilrocesses in Administrative Organization, New York, The Macmillan C5.,7I957. Stern, George G., "The Measurement of Psychological Characteristics of Students and Learning Envi- ronments," Measurement in Personality and Cog- nition, NewIYOrk, J0hn Wiley, 1962. Stogdill, Ralph, A Predictive Study of Administratiye Work Patterns Columbus, Bureau ofRBusiness 'RésearCh,_1956. Stogdill, Ralph, "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature," Journal of Psychology, No. 25, 1948. Stogdill, Ralph, Patterns of Administrative Performance, Columbus, Bureau of Business Rasearch, Ohio‘State, 1956. togdill, Ralph, and Alvin E. Coons, Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement,_C01umbus, Ohio State, I957. Thayer, Lee 0., Administrative Communication, Homewood, Illinois, R. D77Irwin‘Co.,7196I. A 98 Thompson, J. D., "On Building An Administrative Science," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, June 1956. vroom, Victor H., Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation, Englewood Cliffs, N. J}, PrenticeéHall, 1960. lNatkins, J. F., "Inquiry into Principal Staff Relationship," Journal of Educational Research, 63, September 1969. Whyte, W. H., Money and Motivation, New York, Harper, 1955. Zaloznik, Abraham, "Interpersonal Relations in Organizations," Handbook of Organizations; Skokie, Illinois, Rand t.._ “... "..., '0. r . ..."..H. . . trek-fivo-ql'lgufirfipwurrwohnu 4e- ' I w'4 '. _ “ft";LQQ—nl .. , ‘ 'NMWWWJWQ 3161);": 54-33.? .12 Welding. f; APPENDI CES it. was" APPENDIX A Table Al F RESPONSES TO ALL QUESTIONS, TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL, BY INDIVIDUAL TEACHER FOR SCHOOL A Question Teacher AIEAAAAAEAEAZfiAQAAQ 1 + + + + + + + + + T a + + — + + + + + + E 3 + + - + + + + + + A q + + + + + + 4- NA 4» C 5 "' + - NA - - + 0- NA H 6 + .- .. .- + + + + + E g - - - - - - NA + .. R + + + + - + + + + 9 - + - - - - + + + P 1 - + + - + + - - .- R 3 NA "' + - NA + + + NA I ll- "' " ‘- - - - I- + + N 5 - + + - + - NA + NA 6 - + + + + + NA 4- NA * unwilling to cooperate Key: yes/high = + no/low = - NA = no answer 100 Table A2 RESPONSES TO ALL QUESTIONS, TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL, BY INDIVIDUAL TEACHER FOR SCHOOL B Question Teacher 1.3.1. .18.; a; at: 18.2 11.6. 1.3.2 at}. 22 BIG 1 + + + + + + + + + + T 2 + + + + + + + + + + E 3 + + + + + + + + + + A I... + + + + + + + + - + C 5 - - - - - - .- - - - H 6 - - + NA NA + - - - + E 7 + + - NA 7 + + + - + R 8 + + + + + + + + - + 9 - ‘l' - - - - - - - - p 1 - - - + — + NA - NA NA R 3 + NA + + - - - NA NA I 1', I- - I. - - - II ‘I’ n - N 5 .. + NA NA NA - - + + + 6 + 4- NA NA NA + + + + + Key: yes/high + no/low = NA = no answer 101 Table A3 RESPONSES TO ALL QUESTIONS, TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL, BY INDIVIDUAL TEACHER FOR SCHOOL C Question Teacher ageammmmmm’ l ++-++++-+ T 2 + + i + + + + - + E 3 + i + NA + + + + + A A + + + NA + + + + + C5 ----NANANA-+ H 6 + - - + - - + NA + E 7 - - + - + + - NA + R 8 + + + + + + + + + 9 - - - - + — + - + P 1 - ~ + NA — - - - + R3 ---NA-++NANA I". ------+-- N5 +-++--+-+ 6 NA -+ NA -+ + '+ - -+ NA * unwilling to cooperate Key: yea/high = + no/low = - NA = no answer RESPONSES TO ALL QUESTIONS, TEACHER 102 Table A4 AND PRINCIPAL, BY INDIVIDUAL TEACHER FOR SCHOOL D Question 2122.22 1 —++ T2 +++ E 3 + + NA A 4 - - + C 5 - NA + H 6 + NA + E g + NA + R -+- 9 NA++ p1 - + + R 3 - NA NA I]... +4-- NS -NA-- 6 --+ Key: yes/high = + no/low = - NA = no answer 2.6. Teacher 2A 22 —+ + 4- ":‘A + 1’ 73A - + c- + - + + + + + .. NA + u- I. + NA + 4 NA + .— l3 + II II l-++ + lg; ++ll|++++ ++|++ LB >¢> ++ZZI+++| + I 2 :b 103 Table A5 RESPONSES TO ALL QUESTIONS, TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL, BY INDIVIDUAL TEACHER FOR SCHOOL E 3228.21.21; Mar. 32.1. 12 E2 Pit E2 $3.6. El 13.8. 3.2 1 + + + + ,+ + + + + T 2 + + + + + + + + + E 3 + + + + + + + + + A I... - + + + + + + + + c 5 - - - - - - - - - H 6 + - - NA - + + NA - E g II- I- + + - - - + + R ... + + + + + + + + 9 I- + - c- ‘I' + a- + 'I" P l - - - NA NA NA NA + - R 3 + - + + + - NA NA + I 1+ - - - + + + + ... .. N 5 + - - + - + NA NA - 6 + + + + + + NA NA + Key: yes/high = + no/low = - NA = no answer E10 l++ll++++ +ll+l Inw'. .- APPENDIX B CHI-SQUARE TABLES FOR EACH OF THE TEN PAIR OF VARIABLES TESTED Teacher Question Number 1 Yes 1 No x Yes 36 3 Teacher Question Number 8 No 8 l x2 = .11184 d = 001+ Teacher Question Number A Yes No Yes A 1 Teacher Question Number 5 NO 29 5 X2 -"'- 012772 d = 0057 10# 105 Teacher Question Number 4 fr Yes No Yes 36 1 Teacher Question Number 8 No 2 6 x2 = 20.959 ¢ = .68 Teacher Question Number 4 Yes No Yes 16 A Teacher Question Number 9 No 23 l Teacher Question Number 6 Teacher Question Number 8 106 Teacher Question Number 5 Yes No Yes 4 14 No 1 l4 .5676? .131 RM n u Teacher Question Number 5 Yes No Yes 3 30 No 2 7 .24766 .076 RM :7 107 Teacher Question Number 6 Yes No Yes 6 10 Teacher Question Number 7 No . 12 8 2 X = 1.01250 d = o 16? Teacher Question Number 6 Yes No Yes 15 16 Teacher Question “I Number 8 No 5 2 .46744 .110 \N u n 108 Teacher Question Number 6 Yes No Yes 9 7 Teacher Question Number 9 No 10 11 x2 = .0354? fl = 0030 Teacher Question Number 8 Yes No Yes 17 8 Teacher Question Number 9 No 19 3 2 1.29608 .166 RM n n APPENDIX C MEANS USED IN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TEACHER QUESTION RELATED TO "AMOUNT OF EXPLANATION" Grand Mean .458 Means for P (Principals) P1 P2 P3 P4 .567 .433 .367 .467 Means for Y (Teacher Type) Y1 Y2 .483 .433 Means for FY interaction (First Order) - P1 P2 P3 P4 Total Yl .600 .533 .333 .467 .483 Y2 .533 .333 .400 .467 .433 Total .567 .433 .367 .467 | .458 Means for Q (Questions) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 .292 .417 .292 .583 .708 Means for PQ interaction (First Order) Q1 02 Q3 4 5 Total Pl .500 .500 .333 . 67 . 33 .567 P; 0353 01 7 0167 O 67 O 33 0435 P3 .333 .333 .167 . 7 .333 .367 P4 .000 .667 .500 .333 .833 .467 Means for YQ interaction (First Order) Y1 Y2 Total 3% Y2 Total 3% Y2 Total Y2 Total Y2 Q1 Q2 Q3 QA Q5 Total .333 .500 .167 .500 .917 .483 .250 .333 .417 .667 .500 .433 .292 .417 .292 .583 .708 .458 ihu‘a Means for PYQ interaction (Second Order) P1 P2 P3 P4 Total , .667 .333 .333 .000 .333 b .333 .333 .333 .000 .250 {j .500 .333 .333 .000 .292 P1 P2 P3 P4 Total .667 .000 .333 1.000 .500 .333 .333 .333 .333 -333 .500 .167 .333 .667 .417 P1 P2 P3 P4 Total .000 .333 .000 .333 .167 .667 .000 .333 .667 .417 .333 .167 .167 .500 .292 P1 P2 P3 P4 Total .667 1.000 .333 .000 .500 .667 .333 1.000 .667 .667 .667 .667 .667 .333 .583 Total 11’? 8; P1 P2 P3 P4 Total 1.000 1.000 .667 1.000 .917 Total .833 .833 .333 .833 .708 MEANS USED IN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TEACHER QUESTION RELATED TO "REFERENCE TO POLICY" Grand Mean .425 Means for P (Principals) P1 P2 P3 P4 .367 .300 .500 .533 Means for Y (Teacher Type) Y1 Y2 .417 0833 Means for FY interaction (First Order) P1 P2 P3 P4 Total Y1 .267 .267 .533 .600 .417 Y2 .467 .333 .457 .467 .433 Total .367 .300 .500 .533 .425 Means for Q (Questions) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q5 0 333 .375 ° 208 0 Q5150 o 708 .- SE” 112 Means for PQ interaction (First Order) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 5 Total P1 .333 .333 .000 .500 . 67 .367 P2 .167 .167 .000 .500 .667 .300 P3 .667 .333 .333 .500 .667 .500 P4 .167 .667 .500 .500 .800 .533 Total 0353 0375 .208 .500 .708 | .425 Means for YQ interaction (First Order) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Total Y1 .167 0417 0167 0583 0750 0417 Y2 .500 .333 .250 .417 .667 .433 Total .333 .375 .208 .500 .708 I .425 Means for PYQ interaction (Second Order) 6% P1 P2 P3 P4 Total .000 .000 .667 .000 .167 Y2 .667 .333 .667 .333 .500 Total .335 .167 .667 .167 .333 8% P1 P2 P3 P4 Total .667 .000 .333 .667 .417 Y2 .000 .333 .333 .667 .333 Total .333 .167 .333 .667 .375 Y? P1 P2 P3 P4 Total .000 .000 .000 .667 .167 Y2 .000 .000 .667 .333 .250 Total .000 .000 .333 .500 .208 113 .9? 'P1' P2 P3 P4 Total .333 .667 . 667 .667 .583 Y2 .667 .333 .533 .333 .417 Total .500 .500 .500 .500 .500 3; P1 P2 P3 P4 Total .333 .667 1.000 1.000 .750 Y2 1.000 .667 .333 .667 .867 Total .667 .667 .667 .833 .708 I APPENDIX D Compilation of key phrases drawn from the transcript of principal interviews which identify factors perceived by principals as influencing their own behavior. Principal‘g chummy ‘ upset I rigid mad emotions enjoyed her relationship question administrative decisions like it cut and dried variance of philosophy sour grapes on kids not enthused myself people I like critical of the operation of the school attacks personally personal upset problem is technical important for other people to make the decision difficult decision ‘ commitment necessary 114 115 Princi a1 B asked to solve the problem themselves need of support involve the health, safety, and welfare not terribly sensitive felt threatened or coerced maturity relationship with one another sex personal problem curriculum problem interpersonal relationships magnitude of the problem how important to make a decision relationship between group and the individual Princi C had the opportunity (spend time) religious thing easy to work with chemistry of the teacher and the child relationship is pretty straightforward openness I have with some staff members how I think they feel about the problem whether the problem has to be solved degree of background alot of information 116 ‘Erincipal D authoritarian person very sensitive person can be open with laissezefaire person ' her father was ill felt this was pretty important to her being authoritarian frustrations with ambiguity frustrations personal problems severe personal problems very severe incident violation of policy working with the person toward improvement confidence in people Principal E he is a very good school person very direct person worked together a long time valued person on this staff very discreet person inexperienced likely to rattle under fire confidence in that person's ability they must be involved in stress situations become obtuse 117 problem is personal or of a confidential nature problem that demands resolution how many people were going to be directly or indirectly affected required a commitment information, background, and attitudes of the person past history of cooperative working arrangements seriousness of the consequences don't go away shattered respect for the Opinions and emotions involved Compilation of key phrases drawn from the transcript of teacher interviews which identify factors perceived by teachers as influencing principal behavior. Teacher A-l have his support younger teachers _Teacher A-2 new staff member Teacher A-8 interest shown as to what goes on Teacher A-9 first-year teacher Teacher A-lO personal friends 118 Teacher B-2 involved in the process Teacher C-9 first-year teacher Teacher D-Z respect for my judgment Teacher D2; personality chronic gripers Teacher De5 how well he knows the staff member how much confidence he has in the staff member his ability to pull something off experience of the staff member past experience with a staff member Teacher D—6 personality Teacher D—7 I know him well know what he expects Teacher D:_§ work very closely with him 119 Teacher D12 peoples' feelings Teacher D-lO be different with a male faculty member Teacher E-5 have mutual ideas Teacher E-6 have worked together quite a while Teacher E-9 know this person very well "I?“J'Tflfll'flltlWilli“