.. .12.!i‘ifi‘ .. .. h Viv-v--\uvu hlullhlllhu :- llfllllql’llllll'llll'llllllllllllllllllilllllldllllhllll 1293 01390 4457 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled DIFFERENCES IN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND DECISIONAL PARTICIPATION BETWEEN SCHOOLS THAT ADOPTED AND DID NOT ADOPT A SITE-BASED DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE presented by Colleen Grace Kennedy Ford has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor of Philosophy' mgmem Educational Adminis- ‘tration t / Ma jot/professor [mm March 28. 1996 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE II RETURN BOX to roman this checkout 1mm your "cord. TO AVOID FINES Mum on or baton dd. duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE l M3". 1 DIFFERENCES IN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND DECISIONAL PARTICIPATION BETWEEN SCHOOLS THAT ADOPTED AND DID NOT ADOPT A SITE-BASED DECISION- MAKING STRUCTURE By Colleen Grace Kennedy Ford A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1996 ABSTRACT DIFFERENCES IN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND DECISIONAL PARTICIPATION BETWEEN SCHOOLS THAT ADOPTED AND DID NOT ADOPT A SITE-BASED DECISION- MAKING STRUCTURE By Colleen Grace Kennedy Ford The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in factors of organizational climate and decisional status of staff members between schools that had chosen to implement a site-based shared decision-making structure and those that had not. The study also sought to determine whether principals’ perceptions of site-based management differed between these same two groups of schools. In addition, the study attempted to identify factors that were or were not conducive to a school’s willingness to change to a more participatory style of governance. The study was conducted in 1990 in the Flint Community Schools, a large urban school district. The population included 153 instructional staff members and 7 principals at the 7 elementary schools that decided to implement site-based management the following year and 163 instructional staff members and 7 principals at 7 randomly selected schools that decided not to implement site-based management. Colleen Grace Kennedy Ford The staff members were surveyed using an instrument that included Halpin’s Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire and questions adapted from an instrument designed by Belasco and Alutto. Statistical treatments employed were the independent-groups t-test and one- and two-way univariate and multivariate analyses of variance. The level of significance was set at .05. Principals were interviewed using an eight-question structured interview developed by the researcher. The major findings of the study included: 1. There were no significant differences in teacher behaviors. 2. Principals in site—based schools had a significantly higher level of Aloofness behaviors than did non-site-based principals. 3. Principals in non-site-based schools had significantly higher levels of Thrust and Consideration behaviors than did Site-based principals. 4. There was no significant difference in principals’ Production Emphasis behaviors. 5. Staff in non-site-based schools had significantly higher levels of current decision-making participation than did site-based staff. 6. Staff in site-based schools had significantly higher levels of decisional deprivation and desired participation than did non-site-based staff. 7. Many revealing differences and similarities were found in perceptions between site-based and non-site-based principals. Copyright by COLLEEN GRACE KENNEDY FORD 1996 This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, friend, and advocate, Michael, whose love and encouragement have seen this project through to completion. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my heartfelt appreciation to Dr. Louis Romano, major advisor and dear friend, for his continued encouragement and guidance throughout the course of the entire doctoral program and this study. In addition, appreciation is extended to my committee members, Dr. James Snoddy, Dr. Keith Groty, and Dr. Michael Boulus, for their constructive comments and assistance. A special expression of gratitude is extended to officials in the Flint Community Schools who contributed tothe successful completion of this project: Dr. Nathel Burtley, Dr. Leonard Murtaugh, William McLean, Stevan Nikoloff, James Schulte, and Peter Murphy. Also, many thanks to all who participated in the study. Avery special expression of appreciation is extended to Sue Cooley Miller for her guidance and support in the formatting, word-processing, and technical aspects of this project. Also, appreciation goes out to Kyle Fahrbach for his help in analyzing the data. Sincere gratitude is also extended to Dr. Herman Hughes, Dr. Dozier Thornton, and Dr. Benjamin Dennis, whose assistance was invaluable in enabling me to complete this project. My son, Michael, deserves special recognition for his support, encouragement, and patience during the course of this study. Last, a tribute to my vi parents, Grace and Alex, who always valued the attainment of higher education and believed in me. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................ xi Chapter I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ............................ 1 Introduction .......................................... 1 Purpose of the Study ................................... 8 Significance of the Study ................................ 9 Research Questions .................................. 13 Hypotheses ......................................... 13 Assumptions ........................................ 15 Limitations .......................................... 15 Definition of Terms ................................... 16 Overview of the Study ................................. 19 ll. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................ 21 Introduction ......................................... 21 Participatory Management ............................. 22 Site-Based Management ............................... 45 Decentralization ..................................... 80 Decision Making ..................................... 89 Organizational Climate ............................... 115 Summary .......................................... 129 Ill. DESIGN OF THE STUDY ................................ 131 Introduction ........................................ 131 Research Hypotheses ................................ 132 Description of the Population .......................... 133 Instrumentation ..................................... 134 Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire ......... 134 Decisional Participation ............................. 135 Background Information ............................. 137 Field Study ........................................ 137 viii Data-Gathering Procedures ........................... 138 Statistical Treatment ................................. 143 Summary .......................................... 144 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ................................ 146 Introduction ........................................ 146 Results of Analyses for Research Hypotheses 1 Through 8 . . . 147 Hypothesis 1 ..................................... 147 Hypothesis 2 ..................................... 149 Hypothesis 3 ..................................... 149 Hypothesis 4 ..................................... 152 Hypothesis 5 ..................................... 152 Hypothesis 6 ..................................... 155 Hypothesis 7 ..................................... 155 Hypothesis 8 ..................................... 158 Results of Analyses on Decisional Status ................. 158 Hypothesis 9 ..................................... 158 Field Data ......................................... 160 Results of Analyses for Hypothesis 10 ................... 227 Benefits of Site-Based Management ................... 227 Problems Caused by Site-Based Management ........... 228 Principals’ Important Tasks .......................... 230 Reasons for Staffs’ Decisions ........................ 232 Present Philosophy of Decision Making ................. 234 Post-Site-Based-Management Philosophy of Decision Making ......................................... 236 Teachers’ Desire for More Involvement ................. 238 Decisions Made by Principal or Governance Committee . . . . 239 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .......................... 241 Summary .......................................... 241 Literature Reviewed ................................ 241 Design of the Study Reviewed ........................ 243 Findings ........................................... 245 Discussion of Findings ............................... 250 Recommendations for Practice ......................... 263 Recommendations for Further Research ................. 266 APPENDICES A. Power Equalization and Levels of Participation ............ 268 B. Correspondence .................................... 270 C. Survey Instrument ................................... 279 REFERENCES ................................................ 286 2.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 LIST OF TABLES Characteristics of the White Male System and the Female System of Leadership ...................................... 79 Means of Responses to Items Pertaining to Teacher Disengage- ment Behaviors .......... . ................................ 148 Means of Responses to Items Pertaining to Teacher Hindrance Behaviors ............................................... 150 Means of Responses to Items Pertaining to Teacher Esprit Behaviors ............................................... 151 Means of Responses to Items Pertaining to Teacher Intimacy Behaviors ............................................... 153 Means of Responses to Items Pertaining to Principal Aloofness Behaviors ............................................... 154 Means of Responses to Items Pertaining to Principal Production Emphasis Behaviors ...................................... 156 Means of Responses to Items Pertaining to Principal Thrust Behaviors ............................................... 157 Means of Responses to Items Pertaining to Principal Considera- tion Behaviors ........................................... 159 Means of Decisional Status for All Participants .................. 160 Means of IDD1 for Individual Schools ......................... 161 Means of Decisional Status for Group I and Group II Schools ...... 162 Group I Principals’ Most Important Tasks ...................... 184 Group II Principals’ Most Important Tasks ...................... 188 xi 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 Percentage Spread Between Group I Principals and Group II Principals on Site-Based-Management Benefits by Response Categories .............................................. 228 Percentage Spread Between Group I Principals and Group II Principals on Site-Based Management Problems by Response Categories .............................................. 229 Percentage Spread Between Group I Principals and Group II Principals on Important Tasks by Response Categories ........... 231 Present Principal Decision-Making Philosophies ................. 235 Post-Site-Based-Management Principal Decision-Making Philosophies ............................................. 237 xii CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM IDILQdIijDD The United States has moved from an industrial society to an information society in only two decades. Naisbitt (1982) described and documented this movement in an insightful analysis of current trends in many fields of thought and human endeavor. He claimed that this massive transformation, like the historical shift from an agricultural society to an industrial one, will be profound in its effects on all aspects of society. Naisbitt reasoned that ”the new source of power is not money in the hands of a few, but information in the hands of many." This will empower every individual. This has staggering implications forthe ability of each individual to reach his/her own potential. However, Naisbitt explained, while people are drowning in information, they are stewed for knowledge. Information technology must be used to bring order to the ”chaos of information pollution.” This is where Naisbitt claimed that there is a ”mismatch" in education and that a powerful anomaly is developing. He stated, "As we move into a more and more 2 literacy-intensive society, our schools are giving us an increasingly inferior product.“ He argued that ”without basic Skills, computer illiteracy is a foregone conclusion." Whereas educators used to debate whether change was necessary, they are now accepting that change is imperative. The debate now centers on how education should change. In ANatImLBIsIS, a report issued by the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983), a reference was made to the “rising tide of mediocrity in our education system.” Reform was also called for in Aflafimflflsk, a report issued by the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education (1986). It stated that “because of deficits in our public school system, about one- third of our youth are ill-educated, ill-employed, and ill-equipped to make their way in American society.“ It estimated that the number of functional illiterates in the United States was from 18 million to 64 million. When the general pervasive problem of societal change is accompanied by specific problems such as decreasing enrollment, lower levels of funding, and increasingly high numbers of at-risk students, as reflected in many school districts, the challenge to educators becomes monumental. Many reforms are being attempted, one of which is site-based management. This reform rests on the foundation that it is better to sit down face to face in a small group and solve the problems at a particular school than it is to rely on edicts from ”on high" (the bureaucratic, centralized administrative structure). 3 This reform will have a significant effect. Malen, Ogawa, and Kranz (1990) stated: Among the many reforms in education today, site-based management is one of the hottest. Numerous commissions, task forces, organizations, and individual leaders are advocating site-based management as a viable approach to education reform. A number of state legislatures and local districts are experimenting with versions of this reform. Also, Glickman (1990) reported that ”almost daily, we read about another district whose school board has approved a decentralized, site-based management plan. Many schools are in the midst of serious restructuring efforts." David (1989) reported that "school—based management is rapidly becoming the centerpiece of the current wave of reform,” as evidenced by the growing number of districts restructuring their schools and increased references to school autonomy by govemment leaders, corporate leaders, and national teacher union leaders. David found little empirical research on this topic, but she did find some basic understandings from literature and related research. From Goodlad and the Carnegie Forum, she found that ”districts are implementing school-based management today to bring about significant change in educational practice: to empower school staff to create conditions in schools that facilitate improvement, innovation, and continuous professional growth.” David reported that ”current interest Is a response to evidence that our education system is not working and, in particular, that strong central control actually diminishes teachers’ morale and, correspondingly, their level of effort.” 4 David added that, although school-based management is chameleon-like in appearance, its essence is school-level autonomy and participatory decision making. It has a range of positive effects, from increased teacher satisfaction and professionalism to new arrangements and practices within schools. Two pitfalls, according to David, are: (a) substituting shared decision making for authority and (b) delegating authority without strong leadership and support. Site-based management is defined in many different fashions, referred to by many different names, and varies in its effectiveness depending on many factors. A comprehensive understanding of site-based management is needed in order to communicate effectively enough to facilitate the best possible educational outcomes when implementing site-based management. Studies are needed to help ensure that positive results far outweigh any negative results so that there will indeed be reform. One factor that will affect the site-based decision-making process is readiness, claimed the Michigan Education Association (MEA, 1989). What makes the staff at one location eager to try site-based management and the staff at another location reluctant? What kind of administrative leadership fosters readiness for such a change? Before deciding to proceed with a site-based decision-making plan, four steps must be taken: (a) explore the concept, (b) assemble information, (0) assess readiness, and (d) assess risks and benefits (M EA, 1989). One important aspect of 5 understanding why some staffs will choose to adopt a site-based decision-making structure Is the organizational climate and decisional-participation status in the school at the time the decision is to be made. The specific structure of site-based decision making adapted at each school depends on past working relationships and emotional climate, among other things (MEA, 1989). One of eight questions to be asked while assessing needsfor implementing school—based management is“What is the school climate like?” (National School Public Relations Association, 1989). Upon implementing site-based management, the first thing to change will be the climate(Il1e_E[a§1itlQne£, 1989). According to Halpin (1966), any technique that is used to obtain organizational change must take into account the irrational aspects of people and the psychodynamic factors within individual group members and the organization itself. A study of organizational climate, then, would be appropriate when trying to understand organizational change. Specifically in reference to a change to site- based management, the climate of the organization is relevant: ”Climate is enhanced when staff members, students, and parents become involved in shaping aspects of their own environment” (W 1989). Both employee morale and motivation are expected to increase with site-based management (Malen et al., 1990). Readiness also was addressed by Harrison. Killion, and Mitchell (1989) in their list of questions to ask before implementing site-based management. They 6 asked: ”What underlying conditions must be present for site-based management to work? How can we clarify and communicate them?” Climate of the organization is one condition that influences organizational change, and is affected by a change to site-based management. Another condition that relates to readiness for site-based management is decisional-participation status. How teachers feel about their present decision- making Involvement will affect their attitudes toward becoming involved with a participatory governance structure. At the heart of today’s site-based management movement is participatory decision making. As Duke, Showers, and Imber (1980) pointed out, shared decision making may result in beneficial feelings of self-efficacy, ownership, and workplace democracy. However, they also pointed out that shared decision making has the following costs: increased time demands, loss of autonomy, risk of collegial disfavor, subversion of collective bargaining, and threats to career advancement. In one study, it was found that ”most teachers felt less than anxious to participate in school decision making and derived little satisfaction when they did participate” (Duke et al., 1980). Duke et al. found that shared decision making was viewed as a formality or an attempt to create the illusion of teacher influence. The status of actual teacher involvement in shared decision making and their perception of that involvement are crucial to site-based management implementation. The researchers stated: 7 Since the benefits of shared decision making accrue, not from mere involvement, but rather from a combination of involvement and influence, it would seem unwise to offer opportunities for shared decision making which do not include provisions for actual influence over decisions. Otherwise it might be better to allow teachers to Spend all their time on “teaching" activities which are more likely to yield intrinsic rewards. Determining teachers’ decisional status before implementing site-based management is crucial for success. Conversely, it is also important to determine where the leadership stands on sharing influence or power. Wood (1984) stated that, when participatory decision making fails to achieve expected outcomes, it may be because (a) participants do not believe that their input is influential in decision outcomes; (b) ideas are self-censoring because of fear of reprisal or norms of conflict avoidance, (c) espoused values of superordinates differ from their enacted behaviors, and ((1) participants become disillusioned when their input is not reflected in the final decision. It is imperative to understand how decisions are being made in a school and attitudes toward the decision-making process in order to determine whether a state of readiness to take on additional decision-making responsibilities exists. Decisions to take on this additional responsibility, on the other hand, should be a reflection of present responsibility and attitudes toward that responsibility. Properly Implemented, participatory decision making will result in increased decision quality, satisfaction, commitment, and productivity (Wood, 1984). Wood warned that, to achieve these results, processes and structures must not facilitate pseudo-participation rather than active participation. 'f‘ $.- Get a s d'EII 8 Belasco and Alutto (1972) found that there are "significant systematic relationships between individual member satisfaction levels and the state of decisional participation.“ In their review of other research, the authors found that higher job satisfaction was associated with (a) higher work achievement, (b) increased trust, (c) more productivity, (d) a more effective organization, (e) less role conflict, and (f) less job tension. I Belasco and Alutto used a discrepancy approach to measure decisional participation, which compares current with preferred levels of participation. Using this approach, they identified three levels of decision participation: decisional deprivation, decisional equilibrium, and decisional saturation. Byanalyzing teachers’ present and desired levels of decisional participation, one can determine whether they are ready to take on additional decision-making responsibilities. The decision to adopt a site-based decision-making structure should be related to readiness to take on additional decision-making responsibilities. Bumsecfihefludx The researcher’s purpose in this study was to study differences in climate and declsional status of staff members between schools that had chosen to implement a site-based shared-decision-making structure and those that had not, in order to determine what factors might be conducive to implementing such a structure. Of further interest was to determine whether principals’ perceptions of site-based management differed between schools that had chosen site-based management and Ii -9, ed) 9 those that had not. The components of site-based management were examined, as well as the merits and drawbacks. Data were collected to determine what conditions facilitated successful implementation of site-based management, as well as obstacles that need to be overcome for successful implementation. Certain demographic factors were studied to determine whether they were correlates of any conditions of decisional status and school organizational climate. The purpose of this study was not to compare schools that were using a site- based decision-making structure to schools that were not. Nor was the purpose to compare schools that employed site-based management to those that did not. 5' 'I] [II S! I The restructuring movement is critical to the future of education. Glickman (1990) stated that "how we handle the next three to five years will have grave consequences for the future of public education and for the future of teaching as a profession." Although Glickman recognized the benefits of a move from "legislative, externally developed regulations to site—based, shared governance initiatives,” he feared that education will not be improved if schools move too quickly and without a complete understanding of the important issues. He believed that legislators will perceive such a failure as "another example of why teachers and schools need to be controlled and monitored more strictly than ever." The consequences of moving too quickly without a complete understanding of the important issues, which Glickman warned of, may be difficult to avoid because, according to Aaronstein, (n T) (') SI‘ 1O Marlow, and Desilets (1990), "shifting from traditional top-down management to shared decision making is wrought with conflict, confusion, and disorientation." Besides filling a void in the literature, then, a study that helps clarify some pertinent issues of restructuring will make a valuable contribution. Lessening of any conflict, confusion, and disorientation will help expedite effective restructuring. It is important to know the conditions of organizational climate and decisional- participation status in schools when implementing site-based management. It is important to know whether a state of readiness exists for restructuring. Do such conditions affect teachers’ decisions to adopt a site-based management structure at their schools? Will these conditions affect the implementation of site-based management? How will these conditions change once site-based management is implemented? A study comparing schools that were "ready" for site-based management with schools that were not "ready" is needed to shed light on the interplay of the various variables within conditions of organizational climate and status of decisional participation. The perception of the school’s leadership on site- based management and as to the readiness of his/her staff to participate should also shed some light on this subject. A study that helps to Show how to expedite the restructuring of schools and education is immensely valuable because this restructuring Is a reflection of a massive societal movement. Not to restructure effectively will be paramount to “thwarting the individual." 11 The 1990s are characterized by a new respect for the individual as the foundation of society and the basic unit of change (Naisbitt, 1990). Naisbitt believed that this century is concluding with a unifying theme he entitled the "triumph of the individual." Inherent in this theme is the concept ofindividual responsibility. Naisbitt did not mean a type of self—gratifying, every-man-for-himself individualism, but rather an elevation of individual responsibility to the global level. Individual energy matters, he said, because when achievement needs are met by the individual, society gains. Naisbitt believed that the triumph of the individual spells the demise of the collective: Within all collective structures—organized religion, unions, the Communist party, big business, political parties, cities, govemmentuthere isthe possibility of hiding from one’s individual responsibility. At the level of the individual that possibility does not exist. There is no place to hide. In addition to individual responsibility, the concept of community is important to Naisbitt’s theory. The individual can build community freely with other individuals. In a community, everyone knows who is contributing and who is not, because there is no place to hide. Naisbitt pointed out that "individuals seek community; avoiders of responsibility too often hide in the collective." In the Flint Community Schools, as well as other large school districts, individuals are embedded in both a large centralized bureaucratic school system and a large centralized bureaucratic labor union. Most likely, individual triumph is hidden or lost in these collectives. When things are not working out, it is easy for the individual to find fault with school system directives or union deficiencies. The individual can feel ineffective, lost, and unrecognized in the collective. Site-based 12 management and shared decision making are ways to increase individual responsibility and a sense of community in schools. The Flint Community School District is trying this approach. Leaders of the United Teachers of Flint and school district management are working on this together. Historically, relations between the union and management in this district have been quite adversarial. Lack of trust on both sides is a legacy of this past relationship. Will staff and administration be able to overcome this legacy and work together in a new fashion? If so, how can the process be enhanced and expedited? Because the educational need in Flint is so great, it is imperative to look at how to overcome obstacles to this change most effectively. At present, a new style of collective bargaining called "win-win" is beginning to forge a new, more promising relationship between these parties. This study is significant because the researcher examined teachers’ readiness to accept individual responsibility and become part of a decision-making community at their school sites. The investigator also examined administrators’ readiness to accept individual responsibility, lead in a new way, and share decision making to a greater degree than in the past. Formative evaluation of the efforts to restructure can be one way to enhance the process. This study was undertaken in an effort to provide stimulus and feedback to the process, as well as to add to the body of knowledge and research on site-based management, restructuring, and shared decision making. 13 Beseamfiuesllcns The following questions were posed to guide the collection of data for this study: 1. Are certain organizational climate conditions (such as disengagement, hindrance, esprit, intimacy, aloofness, production emphasis, thrust, and consideration) related to decisions to implement and participate in a site-based decision-making structure? 2. Are certain participatory decisional-status conditions (such as decisional deprivation, decisional equilibrium, and decisional saturation) related to decisions to implement and participate in a Site-based decision-making structure? 3. Are there any patterns in elementary school principals' perceptions of site-based management? 4. Are elementary school principals’ perceptions of site-based management related to decisions to implement and participate in a site-based decision-making structure? 5. Does teacher decisional participation vary as a function ofthe following principal behaviors: aloofness, production emphasis, thrust, and consideration? Hypotheses The basic hypothesis of this study is that there are no statistically significant differences in climate, decisional-status levels, or principals’ perceptions of site- based management in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making 14 structure and in those that did not. Specific hypotheses, stated in the null form, are as follows: HypothesisJ: There is no difference in teacher disengagement behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. W: There is no difference in teacher hindrance behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. Hypothesisj: There is no difference in teacher esprit behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools mmdMnm. Hypothesisfi: There is no difference in teacher intimacy behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools mdenm. Hypnthesisj: There is no difference in principal aloofness behaviors In schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. Hypothesisj: There is no difference in principal production-emphasis behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. Hypothesisl: There is no difference in principal thrust behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools madmnm. Hypothesis}: There is no difference in principal consideration behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. Hypothesisj: There is no difference in decisional-status levels among teachers in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and In schools that did not. 15 Hypothesiufl: There is no difference In perceptions of site-based management of principals in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. Assumptions 1. The questions organized in the survey instrument were appropriate for measuring school climate and decisional status. 2. The questions organized in the structured interviews were appropriate for determining principals’ perceptions of Site-based management. 3. Teachers responded honestly to the survey instrument for assessing climate and decisional status. 4. Principals responded honestly to interview questions regarding their perceptions of site-based management. 5. The survey instrument and interview questions were understood, and accurate responses were obtained. | . 'l I' 1. The study was limited to 7 of the 10 schools that had decided to adopt a site-based decision-making structure in the Flint Community Schools. Middle and high schools were not included. 2. The study was limited to 7 of the 26 elementary schools in the Flint Community Schools that had decided not to adopt a site-based decision-making structure. 16 3. Withasurvey questionnaire, there isthe possibility of misinterpretation of the statements or questions. 4. The study was limited by a response rate of 53% on the survey questionnaires. 5. The study was limited by a response rate of 78% on the interviews with principals. Three of the principals at the 14 schools involved in the study were unable or unwilling to be interviewed. 6. The study was limited by the degree to which the survey instrument accurately measured school organizational climate and decisional status. 7. The study was limited by the degree to which the structured interview questions accurately determined principals’ perceptions of site-based management. 8. The study was limited by the fear some teachers had due to principals’ edict against participation or otherwise discouraging their participation. 9. The repeated requests for the return of the questionnaires may have contaminated the results of the study. B I] 'l' [I The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this dissertation. Adopt. To officially take a particular course of action. Aloofness. Refers to behavior by the principal that is characterized as formal and impersonal. The principal "goes by the book" and prefers to be guided by rules 17 and policies rather than to deal with the teachers in an Informal, face—to-face situation. His/her behavior, in brief, is universalistic rather than particularistic, nomothetic rather than idiosyncratic. To maintain this style, the principal keeps him/herself—at least emotionally—at a distance from his/her staff (Halpin, 1966). Considoration. Refers to behavior by the principal that is characterized by an inclination to treat the teachers "humanely," to try to do a little something extra for them In human terms (Halpin, 1966). Docisjonaiooonyation. A state in which there is less participation in school decision making than is preferred (Belasco 8 Alutto, 1972). W. A state in which there is as much participation in school decision making as is desired (Belasco & Alutto, 1972). DegsiQDaLnanicinatiQn. The discrepancy between current and preferred levels of involvement in making school decisions (Belasco & Alutto, 1972). DooisionaLsamLation. A state in which there is more participation in school decision making than is desired (Belasco & Alutto, 1972). DeclalnnaLflatus. The condition of school decision—making involvement; synonymous with decisional participation. Disengagoment. Refers to teachers’ tendency to be "not with it." This dimension describes a group that is "going through the motions," a group that is "not in gear" with respect to the task at hand. It corresponds to the more general concept of anomie as first described by Durkheim (Halpin, 1966). 18 Elected. Chose freely within guidelines set by the Flint Community Schools to participate in site-based management. Esprit. Refers to morale. The teachers think that their social needs are being satisfied and that they are, at the same time, enjoying a sense of accomplishment in their job (Halpin. 1966). Hindrance Refers to teachers’ belief that the principal burdens them with routine duties, committee demands, and other requirements that the teachers construe as unnecessary "busywork." The teachers perceive that the principal is hindering rather than facilitating their work (Halpin, 1966). intimacy. Refers to the teachers’ enjoyment of friendly social relations with each other. This dimension describes a social-needs satisfaction that is not necessarily associated with task accomplishment (Halpin, 1966). QrgamzationaLclimste. The quality of the school environment experienced by teachers, which is affected by the principal’s leadership, influences members’ behavior, and is based on collective perceptions (Halpin, 1966). Eercoption. A quick, acute, intuitive cognition; a personal understanding (Webster, 1980). Erodnction_omonasis. Refers to behavior by the principal that is .. characterized by close supervision of the staff. The principal is highly directive and plays the role of a "straw boss." His/her communication tends to go in only one direction, and he/she is not sensitive to feedback from the staff (Halpin, 1966). 19 Waking. A collaborative approach to planning and problem solving at the school level, in which much of the authority delegated to the building level is shared among those staff members, parents, community members, and administrators who form a decision-making body at that building. Sitefiasedmanagement. An approach to educational administration in which the decision-making emphasis is placed on the individual school, and decision making therein is shared by all of those involved in implementing the decisions. Struoture. The manner in which the people and resources in a school are organized in order to achieve its educational mission. Inrust. Refers to behavior by the principal that is characterized by his/her evident effort in trying to "move the organization." Thrust behavior is marked not by Close supervision, but by the example helshe personally sets. Apparently, because the principal does not ask the teachers to give of themselves any more than helshe willingly gives of him/herself, his/her behavior, although starkly task oriented, is nonetheless viewed favorably by the teachers (Halpin, 1966). MW In the first chapter, the problem was introduced and explained. The need for the study was demonstrated, and the purpose of the study was presented. The research questions were posed, and the hypotheses were listed. The assumptions, limitations, and definitions of important terms were stated. 20 In the second chapter, a review of literature related to the study is undertaken. decentralization is studied. Second, site-based management is reviewed. I, participatory management is discussed. Fourth, decision making is analyzed. organizational climate is reviewed. The methodology and procedures of the study are described in the third ter. This includes data collection, study and instrument design, and statistical nent of the data. Results of the data analyses are presented In the fourth chapter. Each Irch question is addressed using the data. Both statistical and ethnographic Dds are employed. In the fifth chapter, the findings and conclusions are presented. This chapter les a summary and a discussion. General recommendations and suggestions rther research are given. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE IDILQdumiQD This study was focused on the idea that today it is more important than ever Ithe unique talents and strengths of each individual in making decisions that those individuals. The challenges that face the United States today in .tion must be met with the most replete response. To release the potentiality l collective Individual brilliance, a framework for community is needed. aas the individual spirit will soar to its fullest potential within a community, the >f being lost in the collective must be avoided. Decentralization and site-based on making provide educators with the necessary framework for community. Good school administrators, therefore, will work to develop this framework for unity, not only for the above-mentioned reasons, but also because Isibility and accountability are a result of this approach (Naisbitt, 1982). To do a thorough understanding is needed of the concepts of participatory ;ement, site-based management, decentralization, small-group decision 9, and organizational climate. These are the concepts explored in the review ature. It should be acknowledged that there is some degree of overlapping of topics. 21 22 E l' . I II I Participatory management is a way to reduce the adversarial relationship aen management and staff. It also Increases self-esteem among employees 'educes mistrust (Osborn, 1989). Osborn stated that issues addressed by :ipatory management are (a) managing change, (b) solving problems, (c) rating ideas, (d) staying in touch with employee needs, (e) gaining assistance support for new ideas, (0 encouraging teamwork, and (g) improving nunication. Options described by Osborn for employee participation Include ing forums, or groups made up of management and staff members of varying ; and types. His second option was to encourage employee representation by Ig representatives from employee groups to attend management group Ings and offer input. The third option is to conduct problem-resolution sessions Ich management and staff representatives are invited to meet one-on-one and . on solving individual issues and working on alternatives. Osborn claimed that way to fully tap the talents and knowledge of employees is to form quality 3, in which small groups of employees respond to staff concerns by developing 1 plans. He said another way is to organize employee review boards, which nize management proposals that will affect employees. Establishing employee forces in order to elicit accurate feedback is the third possibility Osborn Inted. Drawbacks to participatory management listed by Osborn (1989) are as Is: (a) costly, unsound decisions resulting from inexperience; (b) meetings 23 coming "gripe" sessions; (c) discouragement resulting from management’s .trictions; (d) management-level staff resentment resulting from loss of power; (e) Ifidentiality of financial information may be jeopardized; and (f) staff preference participation on issues involving them directly. Osborn (1989), however, sawthe benefits of participatory management as far weighing the drawbacks. He stated that these are: (a) a more efficient anization, (b) improved communication and cooperation between staff and Iagement, (c) facilitation of changes introduced by management, (d) increased )loyee ownership or identification with the organization, and (e) more effective Imunication of the organization’s goals. Employee participation systems saved organizations more than $2 billion in 8, according to the National Association of Suggestion Systems. Nichols (1989) Irted that this group distinguished eight "flavors" of employee participation rams. These are: 1. Suggestion boxes. 2. Improvement teams (set up to solve specific problems). 3. Organizational surveys (gathering information by questionnaires or IIGWS). 4. Work redesign (based on the idea that reward ing, interesting jobs lead olvement and increased productivity). 5. Quality of worklife (based on employee rights, increased rapport with gement, and work teams). 24 6. Participative goal setting (self-motivation increased by jointly setting goals). 7. Gain sharing (improves morale and reduces production costs). 8. Wellness programs (improve worker health and productivity). Cabot (1989) claimed the "employee involvement programs may be touted l greatest thing since sliced bread, but they only work if the employees have acessary skills to carry plans to fruition." To detect whether employee skills l the needs of a particular program, Cabot developed the Employee 'ement Readiness Matrix. It takes into account the breadth and depth of >yee involvement by combining two continua: 1. The Employee Involvement Continuum (degree of organizational 'ement and company commitments needed). 2. The Learning Continuum (types of knowledge and skills required to ment a desired level of employee involvement). Cabot (1989) stated that if employee involvement programs are to reach num potential, management must have a "cultural commitment." An ization can determine what cultural commitments are required by using the wee Involvement Readiness Matrix. Cabot pointed out that no organization :1 make decisions simply by matching up categories on a Chart, but rather the ( should be used as a foundation because it is structured to be a catalyst for em and significant discussion on employee readiness for various degrees of 'ement. 25 Many American companies are finding out that the new key to productivity in 990s may be self-managed teams, according to Dumaine (1990). He said the m these "superteams" are so controversial is that "they ultimately force Igers to do what they had only imagined in their most Boschian nightmares: up control." A manager may not supervise in the traditional sense, but may :h a team on management techniques and serve as a link between the team Ieadquarters." Dumaine supported his prediction for the 19903 with many ples of outstanding productivity increases resulting from superteams in many anies and corporations. Dumaine (1990) stated that superteams make sense only if a job entails a evel of dependency among three or more people. He quoted Edward Lawler, Iagement professor at the University of Southern California: "You have to ask, complex is the work?’ The more complex, the more suited it Is for teams." teams work, said Dumaine, because of cross-functionalism (people with Int jobs or functions are brought together on a team). The theory is that red problem solving occurs when people with different perspectives work er. When a company moves to superteams, Dumaine (1990) pointed out, middle Jets frequently present a problem. They do not like to think outside their own ,lties, or "chimneys" as they are sometimes called. He stated: "For earns to work, functional chimneys must be broken down and middle 26 ,gers persuaded to lend their time, people, and resources to other functions for )0d of the entire corporation." Dumaine (1990) added that it is easier to create superteams in a new office tory than to convert an old one to them. He reminded his readers that most y circles in the 19803 did not work because they lacked authority to act. He ed to James Watson, vice-president of Texas Instrument’s semi-conductor , as contending that one of the steering team’s most important tasks is to show IS interest in subordinate teams; the worst thing to do to a team is to "leave it in the dark." Watson guaranteed that "if you come across someone who says I didn’t work . . . it’s because management didn’t take an interest in them." Dumaine (1990) brought up the issue that more incentives than just 'lItIOI'l (awards, dinners, plaques, and so on) might even make teams more ve. He cited Leonard Greenhalgh, professor of management at Dartmouth’s School, as saying that the most common problem of work teams is "the failure m members to understand the feelings and needs of their co-workers." It is ammon for teams to lack skills in reaching a strong consensus and be in need ting. Greenhalgh (cited in Dumaine, 1990) stated, "One coalition tries to e the other or browbeat dissenters." Dumaine (1990) stated that another drawback of the team approach is that are fewer career-advancement opportunities due to few middle-manager ns. He qualified this with an observation of Anne Donnellon, a Harvard ass School professor who was doing major research on teams: 27 People are adjusting to career-ladder shortening. If a team is Operating well, I hear less talk about no opportunity for promotion and more about the product and the competition. They’re focusing on getting the work done. After all, people want rewarding work. nalists resisting changes and needing to cling to their classic roles, gement bypasses them and therefore guarantees their resistance. Roscow that the change process is so focused on workers and unions that supervisors 28 are neglected, and this could undermine the change efforts because of the related negative effects, which he listed as follows: 1. 2. A marked increase In workload and an overextended span of control. Threats to their careers and to employment due to the downsizing of their peer group and a reduction in the layers of management. Perceived threats due to enhanced power and participation of union representatives. Radical changes In work rules without their participation. Little or no training to prepare them for their new relationships with workers, union, and management. No perceived recognition or reward; rather a sense of loss of power, security, and possibly income. Inadequate training in the new managerial style. The necessity of supporting a team system which they do not consider an added value to the organization. Roscow (1989) explained that, although much effort and many resources are spent on recruiting and training workers for active participation, supervisors are taken for granted. As the process evolves, he said, they feel rejected, threatened, and excluded, while being cast in the role of opposition. He claimed that their ties to upper management are shaky, and they sense an erosion of their authority as more activities are taken on by individuals and teams. Increased activity by union members In various roles leads supervisors to conclude that the union is running things. Roscow (1989) stated that top management expects supervisors to be able to delegate responsibilities and authority, and when they fail, it is seen as resistance, 29 ill will, or intellectual deficiency. Often, however, higher management has given confused and conflicting demands, provided no training, and jeopardized their employment security. Roscow added that upper management should be sensitive to the fact that remaining accountable while giving up control is difficult and that the following should be provided for supervisors: (a) early involvement, (b) participation in role redesign, (c) provisions forjob security, (d) job redesign from "policing" toward "advisory," (e) extensive retraining, and (f) sensitivity to the critical role of management and resistance to change. Roscow (1989) argued that tending to the needs of front-line managers is crucial: The leadership may have the vision and provide the psychological and organizational license for moving to El (employee involvement), but only front-managers and first line supervisors can carry out these ideas, bring them to life, and sustain them. Therefore, managerial participation works best In organizations with a "commitment strategy." However, most organizations in America today are following a mixed strategy. There may be some involvement, but there is also a control-dominated, nonparticipative system in place. Roscow continued to say that resistance by managers Is a serious obstacle to participatory management. Changes in the status, security, and workload of managers have consistently lowered managers’ morale. Roscow concluded that "in the interests of Americans’ competitive strength, this trend needs to be reversed." According to Roscow (1989), participative forms of management operate on the following assumptions: 1. Management by edict is incompatible with employee involvement. 30 2. Trust Is a fragile commodity that is very dependent upon managerial words, decisions, and behavior. 3. As role models, managers must be consistent in work and deed and set a standard which inspires trust. 4. Since managers are important to the strategy and tactics of the enterprise, their participation in new forms of collaboration and interdisciplinary teams will have a profound effect on value-added and the future of the enterprise. 5. Managers must believe in the economic value of employee involvement and are key leaders in both introducing and sustaining a high commitment, high performance work force. 6. Managers want and are entitled to the same opportunities for participation as are their employees and teams at lower levels in the organization. 7. Managers can only inspire and nurture employee participation if they themselves are involved in a parallel system in their work. Participative management should be taken seriously by everyone involved. It is more than a style of management. As Naisbitt (1985) reported, "a tidal wave of change Is headed toward even the most rigid bureaucracy," and management should not cling blindly to old ways. Naisbitt pointed out that, although it is easier for a new company to adopt progressive innovations, it is possible for older, well- established companies to be "re-invented." He stated, America’s large corporations are working harder at re-Inventing themselves than their critics suspect. Even the most conservative people in the sunset industries know the old ways don’t work anymore—in fact, they know it better than the rest of us. Naisbitt (1985) believed that, because the baby boom generation is now older and more powerful, corporate change will be enacted more readily. He suggested 31 that, to determine whether or not one’s corporation is re-inventing itself, the following should be considered: 1. The best and brightest people will gravitate toward those corporations that foster personal growth. 2. The manager’s new role is that of coach, teacher, and mentor. 3. The best people want ownership—psychic and literal—in a company; the best companies are providing it. 4. Companies will increasingly turn to third-party contractors, shifting from hired labor to contract labor. 5. Authoritarian management is yielding to a networking, people style of management. 6. Entrepreneurship within the corporations—intrapreneurship—is creating new products and new markets and revitalizing companies inside out. 7. Quality will be paramount. 8. Intuition and creativity are challenging the "it’s all in the numbers" business-school philosophy. 9. Large corporations are emulating the positive and productive qualities of small business. 10. The dawn of the information economy has fostered a massive shift from Infrastructure to quality of life. Although it is debatable to what degree the corporate situation parallels the school district situation, the important thing to note in Naisbitt’s considerations is the emphasis on the individual. In the past, the individual was important in light of how well helshe could carry out tasks designed and commanded by others. The new management systems must, however, use and maximize the creative abilities of individuals. 32 In the United States, especially, this emergence of the individual is connected to diversity. While a manager is attempting to maximize individual creativity, helshe must also do this within a team of individuals who probably will be a diverse group in terms of ethnicity, gender, religion, behavioral styles, and so on. Suggestions for managing such a group, according to Fernandez (1991), Include: (a) have them spend much time together "coming to grips with their diversity," using a personality profile instrument; (b) establish recognition that each individual is contributing a unique skill to the team; (c) establish acceptance of differences by having a "very open communications forum" in which discussions of individual thoughts, feelings, and interpersonal reactions take place biweekly; and (d) recognize all successes as a team effort by minimizing differences in title and level in the organization. Donald Peterson (1991), past president and chairman of Ford Motor Company, described the radical transformation of that organization through participative management. He believed that businesses lose sight of how much "inherent potential" each person has. The way to capitalize on this potential is to create cooperative teams. He said: Working in teams is far better than trying to dream up ideas by yourself. A mental synergism starts occurring, and ideas rapidly bounce off one another. When a lot of disparate knowledge comes together . . . you get ideas and solutions that people in isolation would never come up with on their own. Peterson’s (1991) steps for starting an employee-involvement program are: (a) have openness in financial data, (b) organize steering committees, (c) educate people, (d) look for places to experiment, (e) publicize your plans, (f) launch the pilot with a facilitator on each team, (9) analyze what is happening without expecting 33 immediate extraordinary results, and (h) spread the word of successes in the organization. Peterson said he supported teams no matter what happened; he treated every idea as a success. He thought that meetings are not meant to produce miracles, but rather to teach a whole new way of working together. Peterson recommended teams of 6 to 12 members. He said that, although the boss may sit in and be viewed as part of the team, it would better if helshe did not do so. Other ideas Peterson (1991) presented on participatory management are to (a) look for ways to "push responsibility down," (b) assume there are excess layers of management and eradicate them, (0) consolidate the idea of teamwork Into evaluations and promotions, (d) reward true team players, (9) reexamine the entire operation of the organization when improvements level off at a "plateau," and (f) team up with the union in a move from confrontational methods to cooperative methods. Peterson conveyed the promise of participatory management in the following assertion: Our single greatest strength as a nation is the value we place on the freedom of the individual. This is what gives us our vitality compared with nations that exercise greater control over their citizens. If we can harness the benefits of American individualism with the power of teamwork, we will achieve remarkable improvements in our institutions and our economy. Participatory management is rooted in the "quality" movement (Witherspoon, 1987). Also, itwas an American, W. Edwards Deming, who fathered this movement in Japan (Dobyns 8 Crawford-Mason, 1991 ). Deming and other Americans such as Joseph M. Juran helped lead Japan to full economic recovery and to what some call the Japanese "economic miracle." Both Deming (in 1960) and Juran (in 1981) were 34 awarded the Second Order Medal of the Sacred Treasure, the highest award Japan can bestow on a foreigner. Dobyns and Crawford-Mason pointed out Deming’s pride: "So far as I know, this is the only instance where a man from an occupying power was actually invited back and paid by the people that were occupied, to continue the same work that he was doing under the occupation (1947-1950)." In their book W, Dobyns and Crawford-Mason (1991) stated, "Quality is a system, and it is the one system that can solve America’s economic problems. Quality can also improve education, streamline federal and state bureaucracies, [and] help with growing social problems." They reported that it took the Japanese 25 to 40 years, but because they have written about it and are willing to share, American companies can do it in ten years. They said, typically, "a company (school, hospital, agency) sees some results rather quickly and good results in three to five years." They warned, however, that it really takes forever because continual improvement never stops. In a doctoral dissertation, Witherspoon (1987) cited many education writers and researchers reporting on the use of Japanese management techniques and quality circles in an educational setting during the late 1970s and early 19803. For instance, he reported Phillips and McColly describing the use of a Japanese model in a high school: With shared decision making, participants discovered a new sense of ownership. A synergistic management model evolved; the object of the shared decisions was to produce win/win rather than win/lose decisions. The model followed a theme of continuous improvement, fostering decisions that improved the quality of life within the organization as well as Improving school programs. 35 In another instance, Witherspoon (1987) cited Dunne and Maurer in an article outlining the steps, administrators should take to implement quality circles in their schools as a way to (a) develop the problem-solving capacity of the staff, (b) provide input on problems from all segments of the school, (c) provide different perspectives, (d) establish an ongoing procedure for solving problems, (e) build collaboration, (f) focus on results, (9) evolve into spirited goal-setting groups, and (h) assist with problem solving. In addition, Witherspoon cited Aquila as saying: Japanese management uses a consensus form of decision making, and workers were trained in group decision making. This management approach is seen as a way of promoting cooperation, reducing formality and having a positive effect on school climate. Witherspoon further cited Zahjra et al., who claimed that quality circles in education should have the following features: (a) voluntary participation, (b) people building, (c) administrative commitment at all levels, (d) training, (e) reduction of competition stressed with increased cooperation and teamwork, (f) recognition of quality circle accomplishments, and (9) an endeavor to solve problems concerning members. One more citation by Witherspoon (1987) bears mentioning for purposes of this study. This involves key factors that can make or break quality circles. Metz identified them as (a) adequately assessing managerial or organizational readiness, (b) planning adequately in the initial stages, (0) selecting the proper coordinator, and (d) recognizing the organization-development implications of participative management. Brown and Weiner (1984) argued that in America people "overmanage." They said that, according to Richard Pascale (a foremost analyst of the differences 36 between Japanese and American systems), because of limited peripheral vision, the Japanese are distrustful of any master strategies. They see American management’s regard for strategic formulas as a major weakness. Brown and Weiner said that Japan has been so successful because top management have been humble enough not to stick too closely to initial strategic plans, but rather have viewed their primary task as "guiding input from below." The Japanese do not steer their organization from above, according to some predetermined strategic plan. Instead, they are "strategic accommodators" who "superrnanage" by accepting that there is change and accommodate rather than resist it. The stance of Brown and Weiner (1984) might be termed "pro-participatory management." They quoted Comuelle from Do;Managing_Amorioaz A society should be at least as good as the sum of its parts, but our society is not. Our reliance on management has produced a society that is less than it could be. We are collectively much less than we are individually. Management suppresses and limits, diminishes the quality and quantity ofour human responses. The authors addressed education specifically: Teachers have been taking the brunt of the negative assessment of schools today. The real problem, however, is with administrations that overmanage the intellectual process; they require paperwork and structured plans that can drive even the most dedicated teachers out of the profession. Dumaine (1991) predicted that future organizational charts will not resemble "even the trendiest flattened pyramid" that exists today. He said that it will always be necessary for some hierarchy and a few traditional departments, but "spinning around the straight lines will be a vertiginous pattern of constantly changing teams, task forces, partnerships and other informal structures." The new model "adaptive 37 organization" will"bust through bureaucracy," continued Dumaine, and although this is still an Ideal, aspects of it are developing in many companies. To be competitive, workers will focus on the task and work process and not be looking to the boss for direction. Dumaine (1991) said that management is recognizing now the power and potential of the "informal organization." This informal organization is made up of alliances between people and the power relationships that are really able to accomplish tasks. The adaptive organization, he explained, nurtures the informal organization and benefits by freeing creativity and Initiative. He argued that traditional hierarchies usually do not attain innovation and improvement by using what excites people, which is a chance to have real input and develop their skills. Dumaine (1991) cited Paul Allaire, chief executive officer of Xerox, who stated that unleashing American energy is the key to success: "We’re never going to outdiscipline the Japanese on quality. To win, we need to find ways to capture the creative and innovative spirit of the American worker." Dumaine reported that Professor Paul Lawrence, an organizational theorist at Harvard Business School, claimed that a spectrum can be imagined with the traditional hierarchy at one end and the adaptive organization at the other. If the organization is in a slow-growth, stable situation with predictable markets, it should remain near the hierarchical end. For opposite conditions, the organization should move as close as possible to the adaptive style. 38 Dumaine (1991) stated that Raymond Miles, a management professor at Berkeley, compared managers of adaptive organizations to switchboard operators In a network, coordinating the activities of various groups linked in diverse ways to the business. In addition, he said that Charles Sabel, a sociologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, referred to it as the "Mobius strip" organization after a geometric form that has no recognizable top or bottom, beginning or end. Dumain quoted Sabel as suggesting "a body that constantly turns in on itself, in an endless cycle of creation and destruction." Whatever one calls it, Dumain stated, fluidity is the common element in these new management designs. According to Dumaine (1991), Becton Dickinson’s chief executive officer, Gilmartin, said that restructuring includes an important point to be communicated to employees: "There is no rigid master plan." He believed that all team leaders should have access to division heads. Dumaine (1991) asserted that the traditional "climbing of the ladder" will be replaced by more lateral moves and promotions for good team performers. Many managers will be rotated in this way and, while receiving pay increases, will not necessarily oversee more people in the traditional sense of a promotion. A concept reportedly used by Apple Computers is a computer system that helps managers locate correct workers for team placements according to their personnel profiles. Linkages to these employees via computer will be state-of-the-art. Managers will barter to "borrow" employees for special projects. 39 Dumaine (1991) cited C. K. Prahalad, a professor at the University of Michigan, as saying that companies must learn to recognize their "core competencies," or what they do best, and possibly contract out other operations. Organizational openness, said Dumaine, is another aspect of the adaptive organization. He reported that Jack Welch, of General Electric, predicted that organizations of tomorrow will be without boundaries and will work with outsiders as Closely as with insiders. Cypress Semiconductor’s chief executive officer, T. J. Rodgers, has found that a computer system can replace layers of expensive bureaucracy by using weekly employee reports, which take about one-half hour a week to prepare. Dumaine (1991) also reported that, in implementing the adaptive organization, the most difficult part will be convincing others to try it. He cited Michael Bee, a management professor at Harvard Business School, as saying, "It’s a fundamental change in the way people think, work, and feel. It’s gut wrenching." Dumaine cited Xerox’s Allair. The hardest person to change is the line manager. After he’s worked like a dog for five or ten years to get promoted, we have to say to him or her, "All those reasons you wanted to be a manager? Wrong." You cannot do to your people what was done to you. You have to be a facilitator or a coach and, by the way, we’re still going to hold you accountable for the bottom line. Berton Dickinson claimed he had too many middle managers who were not willing to give up control, and a vice-president, Jim Wessel, claimed they had to move beyond an attitude that projected "I’m not in control, so it must be out of control." By 40 overloading middle management with responsibilities, they were able to force them to begin delegating. Dumaine (1991) declared that Kenan Sahin, president of Kenan Systems, believed that in the adaptive organization managers will have to be flexible and follow whoever knows most about a subject. Leaders will not be able to assimilate information quickly enough because of swift changes, so they may have to follow the expert. It will be common to be a leader on one project and then a follower on the next project. Dumaine (1991) concluded by suggesting that one might want to rip up the organization chart if helshe likes the sound of this commentary by Levi Strauss’s Eaton: "On a day-to-day basis, my passion comes from backing people’s efforts, getting them what they need to do the job, educating them, and working with them as a member of the team." Other writers also have seen bureaucracy as a problem. Toffler (1990) stated: Bureaucracies, with all their cubbyholes and channels prespecified, suppress spontaneous discovery and innovation. In contrast, the new systems, by permitting intuitive as well as systematic searching, open the door to precisely the serendipity needed for innovation. In explaining why Japanese employees work with so much more enthusiasm than their western counterparts, Ouchi (1981) stated that "the bureaucratic mechanism alone produces alienation, anomie, and a lowered sense of autonomy." 41 The bureaucratic pyramid structure is beginning to crumble, said Garfield (1992), because today employees at all levels need to be empowered with flexibility and a rapid flow of information in order to make strategic decisions. He stated: The flexibility required to produce ongoing innovation cannot be achieved within the confines of the pyramid. This rigid structure, with its preassigned departments and predetermined functions, cannot easily accommodate a world in which continuous flux is the norm. Garfield (1992) pointed out that organizations operated throughout most of the twentieth century on a paradigm that was aproposfor the industrial era, but not for the information age. Basic to the old paradigm were these concepts listed by Garfield: (a) an organization is a finely tuned machine, (b) progress is unlimited economic growth, (c) the pyramid is the main structure of the organization, and (d) the successful people in the organization were seen as "lone pioneers" or "rugged individualists." Garfield argued that the old paradigm does not work in today’s world, which includes an extremely rapid speed of change, competition on a global level, rapidly expanding information, massive technological advances, and instability and unpredictability. He said, "In the midst of upheaval, it became clear that the mechanical model of the corporation, which we upheld for so long as the ’right way,’ was in fact no more than a temporary solution, a product of historical circumstances." In the past, because of the scientific "mechanical view," all employees were routinely dehumanized, elucidated Garfield, and basically became like automatons. He stated, "The suppression of human potential is the most serious negative consequence of our devotion to the machine view of the organization." Yet, American management has resisted change and adhered to the old methods that 42 worked so well for certain purposes in theirtime. Innovations, when attempted, were doomed to failure because they were based on, or conceived within, the old paradigm. Corporations in the vanguard, Garfield (1992) claimed, will have an emphasis on cooperation and group accomplishments that integrate individual efforts. Adversarial relationships, he said, are yielding to partnerships at every level in the organization, among organizations, and with various outside agents or related parties. Employees should be "fully participating partners" in the new scheme, Garfield asserted. He clarified that the rugged individualist or peak performer in the past is really an example of what every employee can do if freed up to do so. These empowered employees, he explained, have a monetary and emotional stake in the business [and] think and respond like owners, continually searching for ways to please the customer and ensure the success of the organization. They are highly motivated to act in the best interest of the organization since there is no split between the organization’s interest and their own. Garfield (1992) asserted that a "culture of participation" must be created in a nonmandated way. In such a culture the following conditions would be evident: 1. It provides a compelling mission and/or a set of worthy mines with which employees can identify. 2. It provides a stmstuxe that encourages maximum participation by emphasizing flexibility and autonomy. 3. It provides mam for employee participation, and it does not punish employees for taking risks. 4. It has Wins in place to ensure that full participation remains standard operating procedure. 43 5. It recognizes and supports every employee’s need to integratemrork 'II I 'l l'[ . Employee resistance, said Garfield (1992), is the main obstacle to becoming a full-participation organization, and it will be most acute among managers and supervisors who will feel threatened. Garfield described Klein’s research at Harvard Business School, in which four main reasons were found for supervisor resistance to participation: (a) concerns for job security, (b) type of personality, (0) lack of role clarification, and (d) extra workload for supervisor in implementation. Garfield added that, although managers may say they favorfull participation and consciously believe what they say, at the "gut level" they may not really believe it. He explained: "The grip of the old story, top-down philosophy of management is powerful, and a deep and abiding belief in fully participating partners cannot be acquired without a profound personal transformation." In organizations that embrace participatory management, where employees are "fully participating partners" who must work cooperatively in teams, understand- ing Issues of diversity is crucial. According to Garfield (1992), it will be diflicult for the United States to be globally competitive unless we use the diverse talents of the swiftly changing labor force and vigorously foster the leadership of minorities and women. He pointed out that "without an understanding and appreciation of the needs, backgrounds, and unique contributions of diverse groups, communication is difficult and misunderstandings are inevitable—even with the best of intentions." Garfield extolled the benefits of "cooperative variety," which he said Is a basic lesson from nature described by Sahtouris (1989). She wrote: "Our practice of ’perfecting’ 44 our food crops and domestic animals by breeding out their genetic variety, while breeding in the features we like, leaves them weak and subject to devastating diseases." Innovation, Garfield added, will be difficult to sustain if diversity is ignored or eliminated and "cooperative variety" is not achieved. An example Garfield (1992) gave for the value of diversity is the cooperative, people-oriented management styles of women. He referred to the observations of Hampden-Tumer: In the information society, as the manager’s role shifts to that of the teacher, mentor, and nurturer of human potential, there is even more reason for corporations to take advantage of women’s managerial abilities, because these people-oriented traits are the ones women are socialized to possess. Garfield (1992) stated that for two decades people have been officially denying differences, with a "taboo" on talking about them. In the past, he said, people were confusing sameness with equality, but new employees are encouraged to bring biases and fears out into the open. He asserted, "To value diversity, you must first acknowledge differences and come face-to-face with the anxieties they create." Garfield (1992) pointed out that diversity training should help people recognize "differences that make a difference"--those unique abilities and qualities that can be energized for the common good. As the nation is becoming more multicultural, he said, and cultures are becoming more visible, people are noticing likenesses and differences between themselves and others. He elucidated that America is becoming more of a "mosaic" than a melting pot. He pointed out from the work of Harris and Moran: 45 A sense of one’s separateness, one’s uniqueness, one’s ethnic or racial background, need not hamper an individual from becoming a multicultural cosmopolitan. Rather, it may enhance the contribution of a new infusion of diversity toward a WIDE. Because so many countries America competes with are homogeneous forthe most part, Americans have an advantage in dealing with diversity, Garfield asserted, and that is important in a global market. In the present outlook on diversity; he added, depth is lacking, as is an understanding that diversity can endow people’s relationships with richness, broaden their horizons, and make them complete. He summed it up in this way: "Embracing diversity will not just help the bottom line; it will also enable us to fulfill our potential, activate our creativity, liberate our talents, enrich our teams, and make our organizations more fully human." WW Site-based management with shared decision making is the educational establishment’s counterpart to participative management in the business and industry sector. The purpose of both movements is "to improve performance by making those closest to the delivery of services . . . more independent and therefore more responsible" (Hill 8. Bonan, 1991). Goodlad (1971) stated that if a school staff is to be accountable, it must be empowered with the authority to make decisions and released from unsuitable restrictions. For meaningful education to occur, he believed that "the individual school . . . must become a vigorous, self-renewing social system. Its staff must be 46 held accountable for the dialogue, decisions and actions essential to these processes of self-renewal." Accountability is an important aspect of site-based management. In a study conducted by Hill and Bonan (1991) for the Rand Corporation, much attention was given to this subject. The researchers stated that, as an organization moves from being centralized to decentralized, there will be changes in accountability. Although some reporting connections must stay standardized, they claimed, local units achieve autonomy by showing that they can use proper judgment to further the organization’s main goals by connecting with their own environment. Accountability is defined in centralized organizations "in terms of quotas, regulations, and procedures," and in decentralized organizations "in terms of broad corporate goals" (Hill & Bonan, 1991). In the former, workers are rewarded by job security and salary structures, whereas in the latter they are rewarded by greater independence. The researchers elucidated this idea: When organizations decentralize, local office staff gain freedom to initiate actions and set priorities, but they do not receive total autonomy. Local units can no Iongerjustify their actions in terms of unavoidable mandates, and they cannot escape responsibility for poor performance by claiming that they have followed all the procedures mandated by higher authorities. When looking at accountability in the corporate culture, the public domain, and the professions, Hill and Bonan (1991) described the following Implications for schools: 47 1. Staffs may become less risk-taking and overly occupied with minute details; less demanding of themselves; and, in the case of deficient performance, discredit the entire school system, resulting in increased regulation. 2. Staff members will lose bureaucratic behaviors to increased political behaviors, leading to a reciprocal dependence between the school and its public; theywilltake more initiative in circumscribing the performance expectations bywhich they will be judged. 3. Staff members will assume an obligation for students’ success and a responsibility to put the students’ interests and the interests of the profession ahead of personal concerns with otherteachers; they will balance competing considerations without awaiting "orders." Hill and Bonan (1991) claimed that the motivations for site-based management can be found in terms of accountability. The researchers expressed some of the problems that have led to the need for a new approach to accountability as follows: Educators have come to equate accountability with centrally administered performance measurements and associated rewards and punishments. When school boards renege on promises of funds, scapegoat teachers, or micromanage schools, teachers respond by "going through the motions," or "working to rule." The fact that the formal accountability system does not recognize the complex reciprocity of these relationships can lead some actors to hold others accountable In destructive ways. In urban school systems with many low-perfonning schools, accountability is often a Charade. School board members and superintendents cannot close dozens of schools or replace hundreds of teachers and principals. They therefore resort to denunciation and pressure, neither of which imposes material sanctions on low-perfomting schools, but both of which damage the overall reputation of the school systems and further lower staff morale. 48 Because school staffs believe that they do not have the necessary freedom to act in an effective manner within a centralized school system, and yet are held accountable, there is a need for a new system of accountability. The centralized system is very fragmented as there are so many different central office units to which local staffs must answer. Hill and Bonan (1991) said that the message is clear that site-based management is meant to change this. Individual schools, in working out their own accountability system, must do the following: 1. Tie in with the school’s specific mission and identity and provide a factual foundation for the school’s reputation. 2. Treat accountability as an integral part of the school’s strategic planning process, not as a separate specialized function. 3. Encourage frequent communication between staff and parents and neighbors. 4. Rely on informal assessments and expert judgments as the main methods of evaluating unique aspects of the school program. 5. Rely on the central office as a source of information about the school's circumstances and performance relative to other schools and broader norms. 6. Otherwise, rely on formal outcome measurements only when the school system central office can supply instruments and data that unambiguously fit the school program. The Rand researchers addressed the issue of choice, which they thought offers a structure for upward, downward, and lateral accountability. They said parent demand would most likely be a good earmark of a school’s performance. They noted that none of the districts they studied included choice as part of their site- 49 based management initiatives but that "many central office, union, and school-level leaders acknowledged that choice is a logical consequence of site-based management" (Hill & Bonan, 1991). The Rand study also emphasized the school "plan" as being fundamental to site-based management. Whereas often a school plan is basically dead (filed away and forgotten), in the schools the researchers visited, school plans were "living documents" that involved continuous planning. The "living" plans were distinguished by three things: "(a) based on school-specific baseline data and formulated to address needs and problems revealed by those data, (b) openly discussed and approved by the school’s main constituencies, and (c) revisited throughout the year" (Hill a Bonan, 1991). Specifically, for site-based-managed schools to have an adequate accountability plan, they must possess the following attributes, according to Hill and Bonan (1991): 1. They must integrate accountability considerations into the school’s basic internal processes of problem-definition, strategy development, review of outcomes, and program adjustment. 2. They must let one set of reports and meetings serve the purposes of upward, downward, and lateral accountability. 3. They must rely on informal assessments and expert judgments as the main methods of evaluating unique aspects of the school program. 4. Finally, they must rely on the central office, rather than the school staff, to collect objective data about school-level needs and outcomes. Hill and Bonan (1991) reached five major conclusions in their landmark study on site-based management. These are: 50 Though site-based management focuses on individual schools, it is in fact a reform of the entire school system. Site-based management will lead to real Changes at the school level only if it is the fundamental reform strategy, not just one among several reform projects. Site-managed schools are likely to evolve over time and to develop distinctive characters, goals, and operating styles. A system of distinctive, site-managed schools requires a rethinking of accountability. The ultimate accountability mechanism for site-managed schools is parental choice. Some of the implications from this study include the notion that numerous tight central controls are probably not compatible with individual increased initiative and responsibility. Because, as schools are "doing their own thing," it is still imperative to preserve universal standards, the challenge of the current reform movement will be to uphold these standards within a system of loosely regulated schools. Hill and Bonan (1991) predicted that "the basic character of American public education will be determined in the course of working out the tension between the responsibilities of central authorities and individual school staffs." David (1989) reported from Cawelti that there are seven key elements of site- based management. These are: 1. Various degrees of site-based budgeting affording alternative uses of resources. A team operation affording groups to expand the basis of decision making. School-site advisory committees with key roles for parents and students at the high school level. 51 Increased authority for selecting personnel who are assigned to the school. Ability to modify the school’s curriculum to better serve their students. Clear processes for seeking waivers from local or state regulations that restrict the flexibility of local staffs. An expectation for an annual report on progress and school improvement. David (1989) said that the rationale for school-based management is based on two concepts: (a) decisions should be made at the lowest level possible (the school), and (b) change cannot be imposed from without but requires ownership and participation along with flexibility for adaptation. These translate, she said, into two policies that Illustrate the substance of school-based management: (a) expanding school autonomy through local budgetary management and easement from restricting regulations, and (b) sharing decision-making power with teachers and relevant others. David (1989) highlighted five conclusions from her synthesis of research on school-based management: 1. School faculties make different decisions about elements of staffing, schedules, and curriculum when they are given actual control over their budgets and relief from restrictions. Teachers report increased job satisfaction and feelings of professionalism when the extra time and energy demanded by planning and decision making are balanced by real authority; conversely, marginal authority coupled with requirements for site councils, plans, and reports results in frustration. School-based management affects the roles of districts as well as school staff; to change their roles and relationships, teachers and 52 administrators need extra time and a range of opportunities to acquire new knowledge and skills. 4. The leadership, culture, and support of the district have a far greater Impact on the success of school—based management than its Operational details. 5. Implementing school-based management involves a lot of pieces and takes a long time, from 5 to 10 years; it is premature to pass final judgment on districts in the early stages. The Michigan Eduwtion Association (MEA, 1989) stated that potential enefits for schools of site-based management are (a) improved decision making Iithin the school, (b) greater teamwork within the school, and (c) higher morale and Iotivation among employees. On the other hand, potential risks forthe same would e (a) lowered morale, (b) diminished team spirit, (c) increased tension, and (d) eightened community dissatisfaction. For teachers, the MEA stated that potential enefits are (a) strengthened networks among colleagues, (b) expanded authority nd empowerment, and (c) Increased job satisfaction. Potential risks for teachers re (a) inequitable treatment, (b) lack of input, and (c) responsibility without authority. :learly, site-based management could have negative as well as positive results. The MEA (1989) viewed collective bargaining as a vehicle for obtaining the otential benefits of site-based decision making and as a way of avoiding the risks Ivolved: Site-based decision making should supplement, not supplant, bargaining. In reality, the two processes can be combined as forceful means of Association member advocacy. The relationship established between site-based decision-making and collective bargaining is one of the most critical aspects of any site-based decision-making effort. As with any aspect of the process, guidelines and contract language regulating the effort are best developed by those who will 53 be involved. In this way, a proper fit can be ensured among local needs, existing language and the effort itself. The MEA (1989) viewed bargaining and site-based decision making as omplementary processes. Bargaining helps site-based decision making in the allowing ways. It (a) enumerates critical components of the process; (b) provides .framework and structure to Association and member rights; (0) excludes potential ubjects from site-based decision making, when desired; (d) guarantees the Issociation’s continuing role; (e) clarifies resources; and (f) protects the process 'om unilateral changes. Site-based decision making helps bargaining in the >llowing ways. It (a) expands the range of issues to include previously unresolved ~r excluded issues; (b) resolves issues that may arise mid-contract; (c) documents we need for specific contract improvements; (d) tests new ideas on a limited, ontrollable basis; and (e) broadens support for future bargaining efforts. The Board of Directors of the National Education Association (NEA) adopted Ie Action Plan for Educational Excellence in 1984. In this plan are nine principles at will be guiding the NEA’s efforts to improve the quality of education in America. rinciple 5 states: Authority must be vested in the local faculty. Key decisions about teaching and learning should be made by those closest to students and the community, not by large bureaucracies whose assembly-line approach diminishes expectations of students and teachers. Much of the literature on site-based management is found under headings of articipative decision making, restructuring, and decentralization. As mentioned arlier, there is much overlapping in many of these related areas. Before moving on 54 to these and other specified areas such as climate, the theoretical roots of site- based management are reviewed. These roots are anchored in the human relations approach to management. This approach most frequently is seen as a reaction to classical theory or scientific management. In the latter, workers were viewed as being motivated by economic rewards, organizations had distinct divisions of labor, employees were highly specialized, and there was a well-defined hierarchy of authority (Etzioni, 1964). From this theory came the concept of the formal organization. Human relations theory, on the other hand, stressed the unplanned, emotional, and nonrational components of organizational behavior. This theory also pointed out the significance of social groups and friendships among workers for the organization. Emotional communication, leadership, and participation were other factors that were believed to affect the organization. The human relations approach gave rise to the Idea of the Informal organization. It was believed that, by attending to the noneconomic, social, and cultural needs of workers, management could increase worker satisfaction and productivity (Etzioni, 1964). It was Etzioni (1964) who pointed out the diametrical opposition of the two approaches to management. He stated: The factors one school saw as critical and crucial, the other hardly considered, and the variables one viewed as central, the other largely Ignored. . . . Neither saw any basic contradiction or insoluble dilemma in the relationship between the organization’s quest for rationality and the human search for happiness. Scientific Management assumed that the most efficient organization would also be the most satisfying one [and] the Human Relations approach assumed that the most satisfying organization would be the most efficient. 55 Recognizing this opposition, the structuralist school ofthought has broadened the concerns of organizational analysis to include: 1. Both formal and informal elements of the organization and their articulation. 2. The scope of informal groups and the relations between such groups inside and outside the organization. 3. Both lower and higher ranks. 4. Both social and material rewards and their effects on each other. 5. The interaction between the organization and its environment. 6. Both work and non-work organizations. (Etzioni, 1964) Etzioni (1964) said that, although many people still adhere to either a classical or human relations approach, most are moving toward a synthesis of the two, like the structuralists. Site-based management, although emphasizing a human relations approach, is most likely also a reflection of a structuralist outlook. This is particularly true in urban school districts where decentralization is as important as participation in successful implementation of site-based management. Other early theorists such as Leavitt (1962) argued that human relations alone is insufficient as an approach to analyze management of organizations. Leavitt claimed that viewing large organizations as "differentiated sets of subsystems," as opposed to "unified wholes," was most appropriate. He said this leads to a "management—by—task" perspective that recognizes the variety of tasks found in the copious subparts of an organization. Individual schools in a large 56 district are subsystems, and therefore a differentiated approach to management is called for to balance any human relations, participatory approach. Although acceptance of the idea of worker participation has become fairly universal, the degree and type of participation are still debated. The wide acceptance of worker participation is rooted in the work of Maslow (1954), which is classic in managerial theory. Maslow's hierarchy of needs was as follows: (a) survival, (b) security, (c) social, (d) ego, and (e) self-actualization. These were in order of potency, and Maslow claimed that a higher order need does not become a motivator until the next lower order need has been satisfied. lf physical needs have all been met, then the psychological needs become the motivators. So, while participation was originally seen as something that would motivate workers, it has evolved to being seen as the best way to solve problems—not only that the workers would more willingly carry out management directives, but that the workers themselves could help develop the most efficient, relevant, and satisfactory "self- directives" that would benefit the organization in reaching its mission. It is this latter view that site-based management embraces. Also, one of the major concerns of site-based management is to establish the degree and type of participation. From Maslow’s work, McGregor (1960) developed two theories of human behavior: (a) Theory X, based on Maslow’s lower order of needs, and (b) Theory Y, based on Maslow’s higher order of needs. Theory X claims that the average person dislikes and avoids work, resists change and responsibility, and needs to be controlled, coerced, and threatened with punishment. It Is really an extreme view of 57 the person being passive and having little ambition. Theory Y would more likely be embraced by proponents of site-based management because it rests on the following assumptions: 1. Work is natural and can be very satisfying. 2. If a person is committed, helshe will exercise self-direction and self- control. 3. Rewards such as having ego and self-actualization needs met can be realized by achieving organizational objectives. 4. If conditions are right, the average person learns not only to accept responsibility but to seek it. 5. The imagination, ingenuity, and creativity needed to solve organizational problems are possessed by many, not just a select few. 6. In modern industrial times, the intellectual abilities of the average person are only partially being used. McGregor’s Theory Y implies two-way communication and participation in planning, decision making, and goal setting at all levels and influences individuals to identify with the organization’s objectives. Another explanation for human behavior in organizations involves roles within a system. Site—based management brings changes in the roles of educators, so attention to role theory is appropriate here. In systems theory, a site-based- managed school would most likely be classified as an "open" system, or one that interacts or exchanges energies with its environment. According to Griffiths (1979), 58 a system is "a complex of elements in mutual interaction." He said that open systems have the following characteristics. They (a) tend to maintain themselves in a steady state (dynamic equilibrium), (b) tend to have equifinality (identical outcomes can be obtained from different procedures and conditions), and (c) tend to be characterized by feedback (from within or without the system). Scott (1967) explained that a social system is made up of parts, interactions, and goals. The parts are (a) individuals, (b) the formal organization, (c) the informal organization, (d) the physical environment, and (e) status and role patterns. Scott said it is the processes of communication, balance, and decision making that are interwoven to form the organizational system. To maintain balance, a system must keep its parts in harmoniously structured relationships. Along with changing roles, this explains why site-based management takes much time to implement correctly. Arising out of systems theory is role theory. A role, as in the world of drama, is acted out differently depending on the person playing it. It is delineated by expectations and accompanied by specific privileges, responsibilities, and powers (Getzels & Thelen, 1960). Some important aspects of role theory, according to Griffiths (1979), are: 1. Institutions use positive and negative sanctions to insure compliance with roles. 2. Roles are complementary and interlocking; each role derives its meaning from other related roles. 3. The mleset of a position consists of all its complementary roles. 4. A Walla consists of a set of expectations that incumbents of complementary positions have toward a role incumbent. 59 5. I A subjectixemle consists of expectations which a role incumbent has of his own behavior when he interacts with the occupants of complementary positions. 6. An enactedJDle consists of the behaviors which a role incumbent engages in when interacting with those in complementary positions. 7. lntramlmnflict results when a role incumbent comes up against incompatible role expectations from occupants of complementary positions. 8. Bersonality_role_conflict results when an individual’s personality prevents him from fulfilling his role. 9. InteLLQIemnfliszt occurs when an Individual occupies two or more competing roles simultaneously. Because role expectations are anticipatory and normative (Griffiths, 1979), changes in roles might upset the equilibrium of the organizational system. In site-based management, more role conflict might occur during the initial stages, and this would need to be addressed. The Getzels and Guba model traditionally has been used to understand social behavior and to predict and control that behavior. To see how observed behavior comes about from the social system, Getzels and Guba (1957) established the nomothetic dimension and the idiographic dimension. In the nomothetic dimension, a social system is defined by its institution, each institution by its roles, and each role by the expectations attached to it. In the idiographic dimension, 3 social system is defined by the individuals who make it up, each individual by his/her personality, and each personality by its needs. Getzels and Guba believed that any given act results from the concurrent interplay of the two dimensions. 60 In addition to the idiographic (psychological) and the nomothetic (sociological) levels of analysis, Getzels and Guba (1957) identified three others: (a) anthropologi- cal, (b) biological, and (c) transactional. Because institutions are part of a broader culture, they may be thought of in anthropological as well as social terms. They added that an Individual may be perceived in biological as well as personalistic terms. When an individual intelligently decides whether to maximize role or personality according to the situation, they explained, helshe is operating in the transactional dimension, which is a blend of the idiographic and nomothetic dimensions. The transactional dimension is an attempt to balance (a) individual integration with institutional adjustment, (b) socialization of personality with personalization of roles, and (0) stress on role requirements with personal expression (Getzels 8. Guba, 1957). Griffiths (1979) explained this quest for balance as follows: In its search for this balance, a group develops a climate made up of the intentions of its members. It takes into account their common or deviant perceptions, and their explicit or implicit agreements on how to deal with them. The group is of crucial importance, for it can impose institutional requirements on its members or support them in expressing their personal standards. Continuing to explain the Getzels and Guba model, Griffiths went on to say: Commitment or identification is the congruence between needs-dispositions and goals; belongingness isthe congruence between needs-dispositions and role expectations; and rationality is the congruence between role expectations and goals. . . . Commitment refers to the extent to which a role incumbent integrates institutional goals with his own needs; belongingness refers to the extent to which he satisfies role expectations and personal needs- dlspositions simultaneously; and rationality refers to his perception of the logical appropriateness of his role expectations with institutional goals. 61 It Is interesting that, in the Getzels and Guba model, climate appears in the very center of the chart, which might suggest that climate is the essence of what is going on in human behavior within an organization. If one were to explain site-based management in terms of the Getzels and Guba model, one might say that the school climate would be an indicator of change. In site-based management theory and application, the idiographic dimension would receive more emphasis than the nomothetic as the correct balance is sought within the transactional dimension. This is because of the following three aspects of site-based management as it relates to the model: 1. The individual’s relationship to the group is more important than the group’s relationship to the institution. 2. The personality’s relationship to the climate is more important than the climate’s relationship to the role. 3. The needs’ relationship to intentions is more important than the intentions’ relationship to expectations. The emphasis in site-based management on the idiographic dimension would also indicate that identification is more important than rationality. Rationality cannot stand alone in site—based management practice; identification must not only be present, but it must also be strong. As the correct situational balance is sought between rationality and identification in thetransactional dimension, a certain degree of "belongingness" is achieved, which relates to consequent behavior. In site-based management, Getzels and Guba’s concept of belongingness can be related to the 62 triumph of the individual within the small group, as opposed to being lost in the collective. Belongingness should be heightened in an organization that practices site-based management. Administrative theory relating to leadership also can be related to site-based management. The earliest approach was the study of leadership "traits," but this did not offer much direction because it (a) had a one-direction influence process, (b) led to studies with contradictory findings, and (0) required trait definitions that were difficult to agree upon (Griffiths, 1979). The trait approach has been useful in understanding leadership: Recent research shows that leaders differ from followers in self-oriented, task-oriented, and socially-oriented traits. From a standpoint of self- orientation they tend to be self-assured, physically active, verbally fluent, original, adaptable, independent, and tolerant of stress, ambiguity, and uncertainty. They are a cut above the average intelligence of the group they lead. (Griffiths, 1979) Griffiths (1979) also said that, in task orientation, leaders show a high level of responsibility, drive, and persistence. In social orientation, he added, they exhibit high sociability, administrative prowess, and diplomacy. These findings about leaders In general would apply to leaders in site-based-managed schools, as well. The sociological approach claims that traits cannot be studied in isolation, but rather should be studied in the situation in which they appear (Griffiths, 1979). "Leadership is a group phenomenon which varies from situation to situation and even within the same situation at different times" (Griffiths, 1979). Griffiths described this approach as purporting that "leadership occurs only when subordinates obey." He explained that this is necessary, but that it is not sufficient. In site-based 63 management, drawing out creativity, innovation, and problem-solving abilities of "followers" is equally important. His statement that "the leader and his subordinates depend on one another but all the subordinates depend more on the leader than he depends on any one of them" may be suspect. In site-based management, a leader could possibly be in an "equally dependent" situation with the facilitator or chairman of the site-based steering committee. Fiedler (1967) combined the above-mentioned approaches to form a contingency model of leadership that identified dimensions of (a) leader-member personal relationships, (b) degree of task structure, and (c) leader’s position power. He claimed that if a leader is rated high in these three dimensions by his/her followers, the situation is favorable. Conversely, low ratings indicate an unfavorable situation. He argued that the task-directed leader is most effective in very favorable as well as very unfavorable situations, whereas the human relations type of leader does better in mixed situations where his/her influence with the group is limited. Fiedler believed that one can improve a leader by altering his/her authority, task, and interpersonal relations within the group, so good leadership depends as much on the organization as the leader. From this one can conclude that a human relations type of leader would be best in a site-based-managed school and that the district has some power to improve leadership at a given school. The behavioral approach, said Griffiths (1979), does not look at the cause, or ;ituation, but rather objectively describes leader behavior. He said that, in Halpin and Winer’s work, two dimensions of leader behavior were identified: (a) Initiating 64 Structure and (b) Consideration. The former refers to a leader’s behavior in organizing his/her work group, establishing communication channels, and defining procedures and systems; the latter refers to behavior showing respect, friendship, trust, and warmth. A good leader, according to this approach, must score high in botnthese dimensions. If a leader is high in one and not the other, claimed Griffiths, it means that the one area is being emphasized at the expense of the other one. In site-based management, this leadership theory would apply as in any other situation. However, it might be thought that, if one has true site-based management, Consideration would automatically be high, and Initiating Structure would need to be emphasized initially because procedures and systems for running the school will be changing and readjusting. Gates, Blanchard, and Hersey (1976) theorized Situational Leadership in order to help leaders accomplish goals with or through other people. It developed fromthe recognized leader behaviors of (a)one-way communicating to subordinates as to what to do and how, when, and where to do it (Task), and (b) two-way communicating that provides socio-emotional support and facilitates behaviors (Relationship). They applied these to the worker’s level of maturity, which is defined as "the capacity to set high but attainable goals (achievement-motivation), willingness and ability to take responsibility, and education and/or experience of an ndividual or a group." Gates at al. (1976) argued that because maturity varies according to the specific task, function, or leader objective, the maturity variables should be 65 contemplated only In relation to a specific task. They identified four effective leadership styles: (a) high relationship and low task. (b) high task and high relationship, (c) low relationship and low task, and (d) high task and low relationship. The theorists described the basic concept: As the level of maturity of their followers continues to increase in terms of accomplishing a specific task, leaders should begin to reduce their task behavior and increase their relationship behavior. This should be the case until the individual or group reaches a moderate level of maturity. As the followers begin to move into an above-average level of maturity, it becomes appropriate for leaders to decrease not only task behavior but relationship ' behavior as well. A leader should be able to use any of the leadership styles according to his/her needs. To determine which style to use in a given situation, a leader must decide whether the maturity level of the group or individual is (a) low, (b) low to moderate, (0) moderate to high, or (d) high. Gates et al. (1976) suggested that the leader should then match the maturity level to a leadership style as follows: Mandi! Eflcstllejlxle Low High Task and Low Relationship Low to Moderate High Task and High Relationship Moderate to High High Relationship and Low Task High Low Relationship and Low Task A good leader in this theory would try to develop maturity in followers through behavior modification of “positively reinforcing successive approximations of desired behavior.” 66 In site-based management, the thrust is to empower teachers and staff so that they can help reach organizational goals-to remove many restrictions that existed in the past so that the unique talents and skills of each employee (resource) can be fully used. Maturity, as defined by Gates et al., is necessary in employees if site-based management is to be successful. Leaders familiar with and skilled at applying this theory will be most successful in implementing and maintaining site- based management. Acoordingto Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1 958), frequently modern managers can feel uncomfortable fluctuating between "strong” and “permissive” leadership behaviors or deciding when to be "autocratic” or “democratic.” They claimed that there is a range or continuum of leadership behavior available to managers that progressively moves to higher areas of freedom for subordinates, while at the same time moving to lower usage of authority. They defined the following points along this continuum: 1. Manager makes decision and announces it. 2. Manager 'sells' decision. 3. Manager presents ideas and invites questions. 4. Manager presents tentative decision subject to change. 5. Manager presents problem, gets suggestions, makes decision. 6. Manager defines limits, asks group to make decision. 7. Manager permits subordinates to function within prescribed limits. 67 In the seventh point on the continuum, where much freedom occurs and usually happens only when the subordinates are professionals. a minimum of authority or autocratic behavior is used. Because in site-based management the principal must share more of his/her decision making, it is important for him/her to be aware of the various points on this continuum and be able to choose wisely at which point along the continuum helshe would like to operate. In site-based management, not only the principal but also the steering committee may have to decide which decisions need to be made in which way. Determining who makes decisions and how they will be made is indeed part of the very fabric of site-based management. Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) added that a manager should consider three forces when choosing how helshe wants to manage: (a) forces in the manager, (b) forces in the subordinates, and (c) forces in the situation. They said that long-run objectives are much the same for most modern managers: (a) increase employee motivation, (b) develop readiness in employees to accept change, (0) enhance the quality of managerial decisions, (d) increase teamwork and morale, and (e) stimulate employees’ personal development. They cited Schmidt and Buchanan revealing that: Most research and much of the experience of recent years give a strong factual basis to the theory that a fairly high degree of subordinate-centered behavior is associated with the accomplishment of the five purposes mentioned. Tannenbaum and Schmidt concluded that a good manager is not a strong leader or a permissive leader, but rather. 68 He is one who maintains a high batting average in accurately assessing the forces that determine what his most appropriate behavior at any given time should be and in actually being able to behave accordingly. Being both insightful and flexible, he is less likely to see the problems of leadership as a dilemma. In site-based management there will be many changes in the three forces, especially the situational forces. The site-based manager needs to identify any new forces operating in the three listed areas, especially in the change-over period. If site-based management and participative management continue to spread, not only will classical managerial and leadership theory need to be revisited, but a radical new theory to guide one’s progress may be needed. As the industrial age wanes and the information era further permeates people’s existence, 8 different kind of worker or citizen will be typical. Current thinkers already are addressing the need for a sweeping change in the approach to management. Leithwood (1992) claimed that there will be many leaders at the helm of today’s school instead ofjust one. He argued that the "instructional leadership" of the 19803 is being replaced by the "transformational leadership” of the 19903. He cited Sarason as saying that the reason school reforms have not worked is that they haven’t transformed the existing power relationships. Leithwood recalled Sykes as saying that this view is prevalent, judging by most of the current restructuring efforts that attempt to alter these power relationships: (a) school-site management, (b) increasing parents' and teachers' involvement in decision making, and (c) encouraging teacher leadership. In general, Leithwood thought this followed Ouchi’s Type 2 organization, which promoted ”strong cultures" to help equalize the status 69 of all organizational members and emphasized participative decision making. He added that the power exhibited in this type of organization is worked ”through" and not 'over" others; it is consensual and facilitative in essence. This power comes from teachers meeting higher-level needs and using their "collective capacities." He said, While most schools rely on both top-down and facilitative forms of power, finding the right balance is the problem. For schools that are restructuring, moving closer to the facilitative end of the power continuum will usually solve this problem. Leithwood (1992) elucidated how transformational leadership differs from instructional leadership. Instructional leadership focuses on "first-order“ changes, which involve close monitoring of what is happening in the classroom. Transformational leadership emphasizes "second-order" changes, which involve things like developing a communal vision, bettering communication, and cultivating shared decision—making processes. While supporting transformational leadership, Leithwood claimed that transactional leadership is a complementary style that is useful in preserving the organization but not in improving it. In his studies, he found that leaders in schools who used transformational styles were seeking the following goals: (a) to assist in developing and maintaining a collaborative and professional culture, (b) to facilitate teacher development, and (c) to aid teachers in collectively and effectively solving problems. Poplin (1992) also described a radical new view of leadership, which calls on school administrators to act as: is 3G mar 70 servants of collective vision, editors, cheerleaders, problem solvers, resource findersl/lfhile our new role of administrator/servant places leaders at both the top and bottom of the hierarchy, administrators of the future who can tolerate the ambiguity of the role will spark the change that can only happen inside institutions where everyone is growing. Sagor (1992) reported that if a school has a transformative leader, it is likely to have a culture conducive to success. These leaders, he claimed, base their style on three underlying concepts: ”(a) a clear and unified focus, (b) a common cultural perspective, and (c) a constant push for improvement.” The unified-focus or shared-vision concept was supported by Fullan (1992), who believed that this is more important than a leader with his/her own vision, which helshe attempts to manipulate the staff into pursuing. He thought that too much emphasis is placed on the leader as a solution rather than the enabler of solutions by building collaborative work cultures. Other proponents of transformative leadership are Mitchell and Tucker (1992), Who saw it as being used along with transactional leadership. They cited McGregor Burns as stating, ”Some cultures emphasize transactional control through the distribution of incentives, while others work bytransforming the goals and aspirations of organization members.” Mitchell and Tucker said that when the community is satisfied and simple compliance with accepted procedures and methods is needed, a leader can behave in the transactional manner as a supervisor or in the transformational mode as an administrator. If innovation and problem-solving work activities are called for, the leader can behave in the transactional mode as a manager, and in the transformational mode as a leader. They defined leadership in 71 terms of these four possible behavior modes. Mitchell and Tucker based this definition on the concept of the existence of two cultures: frontier and settlement. The latter refers to situations in which established practices are satisfactory and the former to situations in which innovation and problem-solving work activities are needed. They thought that transformational leadership should be used when “leaders are more concerned about gaining overall cooperation and energetic participation from organization members than they are in getting particular tasks performed." Although Mitchell and Tucker (1992) supported change in leadership practices. they were particularly concerned about balance: The nation’s children will be well served if school executives devote as much skill and energy to supervising well-established programs, ministering to the needs of teachers and students. and managing the utilization of scarce resources as they are now being urged to spend on mobilizing and focusing energy on sweeping revisions and fundamental changes. Their caveat should be noted as the quest for a radically different leadership model is undertaken, as extreme views abound such as completely eliminating the position Of principal (Holzman, 1992). Sergiovanni (1992) said that we should look for substitutes for leadership. He claimed that there is too much focus on direct leadership and that if we find substitutes for it, teachers will become more self-managing. He asked whether the leadership 'mindscape' includes the following beliefs: (a) schools are formal organizations, and (b) schools are communities. He argued that the latter is most important if one wishes to motivate, inspire commitment, and achieve high 383; l 72 performance. He cited Shils as saying that communities are defined by their centers, centers being ”repositories of values, sentiments, and beliefs that provide the needed cement for uniting people in a common cause.” Community norms are one substitute for leadership, which should define the morally held obligations of teachers, Sergiovanni explained. The second substitute for leadership that he proposed is the professional ideal. He said that professionalism and leadership often are promoted together as a solution to school problems, but he thought in many ways these two concepts are directly opposed. He stated, ”The more professionalism is emphasized, the less leadership is needed. The more leadership is emphasized, the less likely it is that professionalism will develop." Sergiovanni (1992) described professionalism as competence plus virtue; professional virtue has four aspects of commitment: (a) exemplary practice, (b) community-valued social outcomes, (0) teaching profession (not just one's own classroom), and (d) caring. These four he derived from the work of McIntyre, F Iores, and Noddings. Sergiovanni stated that the third substitute for leadership is collegiality, which he said is not the same as congeniality or contrived collegiality built by the principal for his/her purposes. He cited Johnson in saying that collegiality must be driven from within and also involves working together, debating about goals and purposes, coordinating lessons, observing and critiquing each other’s work, sharing successes and offering solace, with the triumphs of their collective efforts far exceeding the summed accomplishments of their solitary struggles. Sergiovanni (1992) added that, in the old organizational model, which assumes that people are motivated by self-interest only, "what gets rewarded gets 73 done." He said that two new motivational approaches emerge if the school is viewed as a community: (a) ”What is rewarding gets done," and (b) ”What we believe in, think to be good, and feel obligated to do gets done." He stated that in these two cases people will not need close supervision, external rewards, or direct leadership in order to get things done. Denton (1991) is another researcher who proposed a new management theory, which he called Horizontal Management. Key features of this style are (a) altering relationships and responsibilities, (b) win-win competitive strategy, (0) decentralization of the organization, (d) participative decision making, (e) delegation of responsibilities to lower levels, (0 creating equity and fairness, and (g) ending genuine differences among the various levels of the organization. He argued that a 8 this style of management becomes more pervasive, one may see the emergence of “compeers” instead of bosses and employees. He stated: Joint employee educational and developmental efforts . . . can be a powerful competitive advantage, but its success depends on both management and labor accepting more equitable agreements. . . . They call it co-responsibility. Each has to understand the other and accept the legitimacy of the other. Each must see the other as compeer and equal. In relating this to education, one could think of compeers as 'edupeers." In fact, the concept of educator was meant to encompass all those involved professionally in education, but past administrative and union practices have produced a schism between administrators and teachers. The idea of being equal educators probably needs a comeback. Site-based management addresses this need. 74 Brandt (1992) reported on the ideas of Sergiovanni, where he was "rethinking” leadership. He said that if an individual bases his/her leadership on bureaucratic authority, helshe will most likely be cold, manipulative, and lead by ”outrage.” When a person operates on psychological authority, he/she will be sensitive to the needs of subordinates, but perhaps be condescending. On the other hand, he said, If a person grounds his/her leadership on moral authority, that person will be able to act normally and treat people more ”authentically.” In his view, "The only thing that makes the leader special is that she or he is a better follower: better at articulating the purposes of the community; more passionate about them, more willing to take time to pursue them” (Sergiovanni, cited in Brandt, 1992). Sergiovanni (cited in Brandt, 1992) said his position had moved from a process point of view to one of substance. He added that when a person feels very strongly about something, that becomes the person’s source of authority. Sergiovanni’s work in the past was rooted in psychologically based theory; now he points out that Maslow and Herzberg did not study females. Sergiovanni believed that is why their work promoted competition and achievement but not nurturing or caring. He stated: Management literature traditionally was written by men for men, and its values—individualism, competition-define success in a masculine way. Maslow’s theory exults self-actualization. . . . As a group, women tend not to define success and achievement that way. They are more concerned with community and sharing. (cited in Brandt, 1992) Sergiovanni believed that this deserves more consideration. He found that, whereas men had the majority of principalships, they were not equally represented in 75 successful principalships. This brings up an interesting point. Is it possible that the radical new theory of management that is needed, and seems to be evolving, is one of feminization? McGrath (1992) pointed out that women who have been in leadership positions often have had to emulate masculine styles, and , in the name of equality, natural differences were not taken into account. She cited Gelman and Powell in describing one female advantage called "blending.” This term means trying as hard as one can to comprehend the other person’s viewpoint and synchronizing one’s m oves to his or hers. Many authorities believe that because persuasion rather than intimidation is part of females’ experience growing up, they are especially good at blending. McGrath (1992) described a study by Glass and Sclafani, in which most SU perintendents agreed that climate building and personnel management are essential skills for the position and that both genders demonstrate mastery of these skills to the same degree. Male superintendents said that the areas in which they believed they needed improvement were (a) communication, (b) curriculum, (0) \eaCher evaluation, and (d) changes in educational methodology. McGrath said it is interesting that these are the areas in which women excel. She added that if the predictions of Naisbitt and Aburdene come true. there will be many more women in management positions. She said that the ensuing diversity will demand more negotiation, consensus building, and discussion. Because men excel in areas of 76 (a) operations, (b) finance, and (c) facilities, she claimed, men’s and women’s styles are actually complementary, and joined they could even be more productive. Helgesen (1990) reported on Gilligan’s "web of connection," which stresses empowerment, ”affirms relationships, seeks ways to strengthen human bonds, simplifies communications, and gives means an equal value with ends.” She said this concept is applicable to school leadership, which is moving away from the strict hierarchy to a “more supportive, inclusive structure." Site-based or participative management requires newleadership techniques, as has already been discussed. Many of the desired skills are those that come most naturally to women. As women leaders have had to adapt or "blend" to traditional ma (1 agement theory or practice. it may now be men’s turn to try to adapt or hone som e of the skills that may be less familiar to them. The kinds of innovations taking Place today are requiring new practices. During the industrial era, the scientific app roach was effective--so effective, in fact, that it influenced management in all aren as in and outside of industry. Other things like bureaucracy, hierarchical PYTa mids, and so on, were also adopted out, later to be humanized somewhat by the human relations school. Now, with the information age being more and more established, a new theory can be expected to crystallize. The United States has been a great industrial leader. Other countries, including and especially Japan, have emulated American ideas. Americans have aChieved a standard of living second to none. But time marches on, and through the media other countries have become familiar with the American society and standard 77 of living, as well as industrial leadership. If one accepts the idea that "number two tries harder,‘ then the United States is up against more and continued stiff competition to maintain this standard of living for future generations. We must mobilize our resources to the fullest capacity. One thing we are still ahead is in the development of women. If, for argument’s sake, we say that 50% of genius is bestowed on females, then it makes sense not to overlook the potential of women and their special gifts. Specifically, for school leadership, where more than half of a ll doctoral students in administration are now women (McGrath, 1992) and most women still in the ranks of teaching have come full circle in terms of experience and tra i ning, it seems appropriate to look at the issue of feminization. Schaef(1981) explained factors that might affect leadership theory were they to b e recognized. The prevalent and official mode of understanding, interpreting, an d affecting the world is rooted in what she termed the "white male system.“ This SYSt em is a good one, but her argument is that there are other systems that are also 90°C! and could contribute to the general welfare. For instance, by not 3°Khowledging a female system, women who want to explore their own perceptions and abilities are limited, and so are the men who want to experience and learn from them. To remove these limitations, it is necessary to recognize four myths of the White male system: (a) exclusiveness of existence; (b) innate superiority; (c) all- knowingness; and (d) possibility of being totally logical, rational, and objective. It is the fourth myth that may have influenced past leadership theories. 78 The prevalent male system has other drawbacks according to Schaef (1981). These are (a) emphasis on control rather than understanding, (b) misuse of the scientific method, and (c) absolute faith in the validity of numbers. Schaef clarified that the white male system is not all bad and the female system is not all good; each has its positive and negative points, which can either help or hinder. She pointed out: The important thing to realize is that each is only a system. Neither is the way the world is. We must learn to see this. When we do, we suddenly find that we have a wide range of choices where we originally thought none existed. And both power and wisdom are contained in the knowledge that one is free to choose. A Although not all of Schaef’s (1 981) ideas can be explored here, a few of them that might relate to leadership/management theory are summarized in Table 2.1. Both men and women are capable of the behavioral approaches listed in both syst ems, Schaef explained. However, through inclination and habit, people may be overly focused in one or the other. Certainly, past management practices have promoted the ideas listed under Schaef's white male system, and clearly today man agement practices are beginning to emphasize ideas listed under Schaef’s temale system. In particular, site-based management and related reforms embody many of the attributes of the female system. Within the new reforrns of restructuring and site-based management there are signs indicating a need for a radically new leadership theory, and this need is also evidenced by our changing society. Thinkers are attempting to define a new management approach, and it has been shown that transformational, horizontal, 79 feminized, substitutions for, and even 'no' leadership, are among the concepts being studied. All of these concepts embody the principles of participative management and equity. Table 2.1: Characteristics of the white male system and the female system of leadership. Characteristic White Male System Female System I Defining power Zero-sum (if you give some away, you will have less) Limitless (it increases when given away) / Money Absolute, real, and having intrinsic value Meaningless except in relation to specific purchases A Leadership Leading from ahead Facilitating, enabling others, nudging from behind . majority rules, efficient, expedient ! R ules Take precedence over the Are in process; increase individual individual; support the system freedom to meet needs Defining thought Linear process; efficient for Multivariantlmultidimensional, reaching conclusions creative " Method of Brain centered, rational, left- Solar-plexis centered, right-brain processingfidata brain oriented oriented, intuitive Logic Used to winning; may not have Clear, balanced progression; both internal consistency or balance grace and power are possible Defining Maintain edge; stay one up Bridge; understand and be c<>t11munication understood Negotiation Manipulating others, winning Win-win approach; meeting everyone’s needs; satisfaction in process Defining Accountability, blame Ability to respond to need(s) responsibility Decision making Robert’s Rules of Order, Consensual, individual good considered, creative, increased support 80 D I I' l' Massie and Douglas (1977) described decentralization as being a process of propelling decisiOn making to the lower levels of an organization. Decentralization pertains to delegation of authority and is a matter of degree. To decentralize, they said, two things should be considered: (a) skill and competence of subordinate managers and (b) distribution of critical information to decision-making sites. Massie and Douglas listed the advantages of decentralization as follows: 1.~ Decision making can be spread and actions can be implemented quickly without awaiting approval from higher levels. Managers at the lower level have more flexibility to adjust to changing conditions. Managers tend to develop more quickly, and initiative is encouraged by a more challenging situation. The y added that decentralization also has two important disadvantages: 1. Control and coordination at the top level is more difficult, since the top manager may not be aware of critical problems as they emerge. Duplication of effort by the more autonomous divisions tends to reduce the advantage of specialization on certain activities provided by the organization as a whole, and managers may overlook the value of expertise within the organization. Massie and Douglas (1977) pointed out that in modern society people are becoming more educated and consequently are pushing for more participation in organizations in the spirit of democracy. They said that this is why the concept of decentralization has become increasingly significant. 81 In education, the terms "decentralization” and "site-based management" sometimes are used interchangeably, and decentralization is considered a crucial aspect of site-based management. Hill and Bonan (1991) stated: Decentralization of school systems has progressed slowly and with difficulty. It is not that site-based management has failed. Rather, school boards and central offices have failed to recognize that their structures, operations, and cultures must change along with those of schools if site-based management is to improve students’ education. But the difficulty of decentralization is not an argument for rejecting it. One of Hill and Bonan’s (1991) major findings in their Rand study was that e ven though site-based management has to do with individual schools, it is actually a reform of an entire school system. They said that a centralized system cannot mai ntain all of its expectations and controls and expect schools to change. They asserted, "School boards, superintendents, and central office staff must commit themselves to long-term decentralization and enable schools to use their i“dependence for the benefit of students." It is important to clarify that the site-based management and decentralization c(3“113epts today differ considerably from the decentralization and school-based man agement of the 19603 and 19703. The decentralized school-site budgeting at that time was a response to the demand for more political power by local communities, the need for efficiency, and the desire to counteract state control (Wissler & Ortiz, 1986). Wissler (1984) found that decentralization occurred because of criticism of bureaucracy. She cited LaNoue and Smith as saying this criticism developed because the systems were too (a) large, (b) segregated, (c) unproductive, and (d) 82 unresponsive. Wissler cited Gittell as finding that in the New York Public Schools (the first to centralize decision making) the "central office personnel had so centralized their power that even the school board was excluded from decision- making.‘ Further cited were Fantini and Gittell in saying that principals, too, were unresponsive and manipulative with parents and that decentralization was necessary to lessen unresponsiveness. Wissler explained that when parents learned of the F leischman Commission Report they realized that massive failure of black and Hispanic children meant something was wrong with the system; the system needed to be broken up so that academic failure would cease. In addition to the public outcry and student failure, Wissler added, was a teacher assault on the bureaucracy. Teachers felt powerless within the system and against parents, and this in part led to the growth of teacher unions. Wissler (1984) described external factors that influenced or catalyzed the decentralization movement: (3) parents, (b) cities, (0) integration, (d) federal laws, (9) foundations, (f) trends, and (9) media. Parents favored decentralization because they wanted to participate in policy development, which they thought would lead to . Teformation of schools and social structures, accountability, and psychological benefits for students and teachers. She cited Fantini and Gittell as saying, "The ultimate right to citizen participation had to be claimed by some parents as a last resort, as a desperation-stage effort to reform their public schools.“ With regard to cities, Wissler (1984) found that size correlated with decentralization: the larger the city, the more likely it would have a decentralized 83 school system. Changing demographics such as white flight and dwindling revenues fueled demands for decentralization. Regarding integration, Wissler cited Steinberg as claiming that: To a great extent the decentralization/community control movement came about as a result of (1) the civil rights movement, (2) the failure of school integration to be put into place, and (3) the existence of an inadequate structure for participation. Wissler stated that, in the 19603, there were requests for integration and compensatory education, but this was transformed to demands for increased community control during the 19703. Wissler (1984) claimed that, although the government started passing laws in 1 949 that required citizen participation, the concept was greatly expanded in the 1 9603. Funds were withheld from organizations that did not comply. She cited Fa r‘n tini and Gittell in saying that these "participatory Community Action Programs (CA PS)” led directly to demands for decentralization of the schools. Besides rTial'mdatory participation, she continued, the government added to the increased dem and for decentralization by providing funds and leadership training for the poor. F0“ ndations, as well, contributed money and personnel to support neighborhood 9T0u p3, which energetically pushed for decentralization of schools. Trends that fueled the movement to decentralize were, according to Wissler (1984), (a) electronic communication, (b) equality revolution, (c) retrogradation of political parties, and (d) an "antibigness movement.” In order, she cited Howe, LaNoue and Smith, and Moore. She added that the media were also a contributing factor, and cited Fantini and Gittell, LaNoue and Smith, Ornstein, and Tyack in 84 concluding that "a ’spate' of published criticism both triggered and fed the decentralization movement.” Wissler (1984) cited Pilo as studying the decentralization models up to that time. Pilo addressed two key factors: (a) greater participation in school decision making by members of the community and (b) more authority granted to local administrators for school decision making. Decentralization during the 19603 and 19703 did not include the concept of shared decision making among the staff at a local school the way the concept of site-based management does today. It addressed demands for more community involvement in decision making and more school responsiveness. Site-based management today addresses the need to fully use every available resource to make the educational changes needed to maintain our global position and standard of living. Decentralization did result in more teacher participation in decision making, but the site-based management of today allows for teachers (and staff) to actually make decisions. As opposed to Weberian bureaucratic decision making, decentralization involved governance by inclusion rather than exclusion, Wissler (1984) explained. It was defined. she said, by ”transformed social relationships,” which resulted in a leveling of status. The emphasis on managing was transformed to a concentration on student learning. In her study of decentralization in the Riverside Unified School District in California, Wissler found that seven stages were necessary for what she termed the ”intentional organization": 7. 85 Conceptualizatinnof"Cooperative Community" bythe superintendent, who "intended" to actualize the community to fulfill the schools’ mission. Communication of concepts to key organizational members for suppon. Qhangingmnltamffinfi personnel from "commanding" to "servicing." Cadre gathering of emissaries. Challenging principals to become instructional leaders. "Clustering" teachers into decision making, giving them direct access to superintendent and board. Some district mentraflzation, Several interesting points were made in the Decker report, which help to clarify what decentralization is and is not: (a) it can be part of any management system, not just participatory management, (b) it can be identified by the levels at which decisions are made, and (c) it may appear in some areas of a management system and not in others (Decker & others, 1977). Cunningham (1976) stated that decentralization intends a wider distribution of authority to more individuals, but it involves delegation to subordinates from a superior within a bureaucracy. The hierarchy remains intact, and upper management can withdraw the delegation at will. Lopez (1983) compared decentralization to site-based management: Unlike decentralization, site-based management is not necessarily a structural change. More often than not, the actual structure does not change, but its responsiveness to the individual school units is altered . . . by giving individual schools flexibility and autonomy in responding to student needs. 86 Lopez described Corwin’s hypothesis, which states, "The more turbulent the environment outside the school, the more complex the organization will become. Decentralization then becomes necessary because the turbulences increase the number and complexity of decisions." Lopez illustrated the idea that decentralization is best used under conditions that are changing, uncertain, and unpredictable and that a more formal, rigid centralized system is more appropriate under conditions that are stable, routine, and predictable. He cited Hage and Aiken, Burns and Stalker, and Lawrence and Lorsch to establish this illustration. David (1989) argued that the current interest in decentralization, or site-based management, revolves around the desire to change educational practice and empower school staff; she cited Goodlad and the Carnegie Forum. In addition, she pointed to the work of Meier and Corcoran et al. and stated, "Current interest is a response to evidence that our education system is not working, and, in particular, that strong central control actually diminishes teachers’ morale and, correspondingly, their level of effort." Etzioni (1964) claimed that there are two ways to lower centralization: (a) limit the kinds of decisions that have to be referred to or' approved at a higher level, and (b) increase the degree of autonomy given to sites on each decision area. Factors that he said may affect levels of centralization are (a) cultural norms, (b) level of education of the site leader, and (c) the head executive’s personality. He added that the strength of a centralized organization is that it usually is more able to afford special services than are individual units, and more efficient in some 87 personnel procedures. Negatively, it tends to restrict local innovation and flexibility. Etzioni pointed out that decentralization is not always welcome. Gardner and Moore (cited in Etzioni, 1964) reported that, in one case, it resulted in (a) breaking up central office people, who were assigned to lower-status sites; (b) isolation broke up some past socialization practices; (0) feelings of isolation resulted from less frequent contact with superiors; and (d) many varied complaints were voiced. Timar (1989) expressed a dilemma in the decentralization movement. He stated: Bureaucratic decentralization . . . lies at the heart of restructuring . . . [yet] swims against a 30-year current in education policy, which has relied on centralization and regulation to achieve specific policy goals. Indeed, many state-level reform strategies adopted since 1983 perpetuate the regulatory orientation of school improvement . . . teacher and student testing and the adOption of statewide curriculum standards and of policies governing homework, class size, and teacher salaries. Timar added that how individual school-improvement efforts fit into this "policy stream" is something that school reformers need to address. He added that it is not enough for schools just to change their own "microcultures," but that they must also change the "macrocultures of district and state policies in which they are embedded." Timar (1989) cited Hawley in saying that restructuring cannot occur without a change in culture. Culture demarcates their ideas, commitments, and social structure, which In turn delineate working rules and procedures. He cited Raywid as saying that in most schools today the cultural belief system appears to include a commitment to bureaucracy as the only plausible, viable form of social organization. At levels too fundamental to be challenged, many 88 of those in schools have accepted that there must be differential status and authority assignments, fixed roles, clearly divided responsibilities and accountability measures, and written rules governing interactions. . . . Such understandings, and the interaction patterns they produce, yield a school’s social order. This order determines the way in which its constituents do school, and this, in turn, generates the school's climate. Timar(1989) stated that the roles and responsibilities of everyone connected with schools must be redefined if an organization is to have an "integrated response" to restructuring. He said one just can’t throw in some new programs or change a few duties here and there and expect to have a conglutinated organizational response. Without a policy climate that is conducive to this kind of response, efforts may result in fragmentation, conflict, and diffused energy. Timar warned: Over the past 50 years, the response of schools to external demands has been to multiply programs and regulations. The absence of a broad consensus about the purpose of schooling has created a patchwork of programs designed to meet various--and often competing—demands. This trend toward fragmentation poses the most serious threat to the current movement toward restructuring. Timar(1989) seemed to be indicating that a dichotomy, or perhaps a paradox, may exist In the school restructuring movement. The trend for more state requirements for accreditation, testing, and certification may not bode well for efforts at decentralization. He claimed that "restructuring must fundamentally alter the way schools do business, and that will not happen if restructuring becomes just another piece of state-mandated baggage that schools drag around with them." Timar concluded that we must have change in (a) local school structures, (b) state policy atmosphere, and (c) the essence and spirit of the dialogue about schooling if we are to have restructuring success. 89 If policy makers and school reformers are in favor of decentralization, they should keep In mind Armenia’s (1986) admonition that decentralization is not installing innovations. Rather, it entails the empowerment of people and cultivates the capability of organizations and their members to change. D .. III' In decision theory, Barnard (cited in Griffith, 1979) said decision making is "the central process of adaptation in organizations." Simon (cited in Griffith, 1979) equated decision making with the process of managing. Griffith (1979) said that, without a doubt, decision making permeates the administrative process, and it "includes not only the steps leading to the decision but also those necessary to put it into effect." Griffith argued that the essence of decision making is problem solving, which is removing obstacles to goal attainment. Crucial to this process is recognizing that a problem exists. He defined decision making as "a complex series of steps beginning with the recognition of a problem through the consideration of proposed solutions and the final acceptance of a mode of action." Griffith (1979) added that there are many ways to classify decisions; these include (3) individual or group; (b) personal or organizational; (c) programmed (regulatory, routine, and repetitive) or nonprogrammed (discretionary, unique); (d) Intermediary (authority to decide delegated to a subordinate), appellate (problem Is referred to superior for decision), or creative (from initiative of decision maker); and (e) rational or nonrational. 90 Strand (cited In Griffith, 1979) developed a decision-making model that incorporated the key elements of (a) time, (b) goal orientation, (c) history and present situation, (d) choice (alternatives), (e) possible outcomes of choices, (f) desirability (values of those involved), (9) probability (how outcomes might be judged), and (h) perception (unique to individual); to these Griffith added (i) decision environment, (j) Implementation, and (k) critique. Griffith’s (1979) rationale for staff participation in decision making is as follows: First, everyone should have a say in determining policies which affect his welfare. Secondly, policies which are cooperatively developed are easier to implement. Thirdly, participation results in better decisions. Finally, when employees share in decision-making their morale is raised. Teachers’ attitudes toward decision making may affect site-based management. Griffith reviewed some research which showed that. in general, everyone wants teachers to participate, including themselves (Hoppock). and that teachers want more independence for their schools and influence in curricular and instructional decisions (Sharma). He also found that teacher involvement was often restricted to routine areas, and they saw this as "bogus" participation (Godfrey). However, Griffith also found that teachers did not want to be involved because of the work and time required to participate in school decision making and would rather spend that time and energy on more important or pleasing matters. In addition, he found that employees often were willing to leave the decision making to superiors (Dill) and actually preferred not to make the decisions (Seeman). He said that 91 teachers did not want to be involved in decisions that fell in their "zone of indifference" (Barnard) but would challenge those that were outside of that zone. Simon wrote in 1944 that the organization involves a vertical specialization of decision making, which is necessary for (a) coordination, (b) expertise, and (c) control. Di3cretion in decision making at the top of the hierarchy is limited by broad general goals and methods; it is limited at the lower levels by more specific objectives and procedures. Important to organizational decision making, he said, are the processes of planning and review. Review, especially, affects the degree of decentralization. Simon explained: Decision making is said to be centralized when only a very narrow range of discretion is left to subordinates; decentralized when a very broad range of discretion Is left. Decision making can be centralized either by using general rules to limit the discretion of the subordinate or by taking out of the hands of the subordinate the actual decision-making function. Both of these processes fit our definition of centralization because their result is to take out of the hands of the subordinate the actual weighing of competing considerations and to require that he accept the conclusions reached by other members of the organization. In Simon’s writing on decision making, he emphasized the decisions made by individuals at various levels in a bureaucracy and the effect of management on those decisions. He discussed review forces that lead to decentralization or centralization, but he did not address participatory decision making. Kirst (cited in Hill & Bonan, 1991) described four types of school-level decision making: (a) principal as the school manager, (b) lay (parent/consumer) control, (0) teachers as school policy makers, and (d) parity (a combination of the above three). Hill and Bonan said that any of these approaches can be effective, 92 and although the parity model is appealing, it demands much time and attention on parents. They said different sites will vary on how much the teachers want to be involved In decision making and how much they would just as soon leave it up to the principal or the principal and the union representative. They said that if a staff is to develop a "culture of collaboration," they will need to set the terms. Hill and Bonan suggested that districts may want to devise one of the following styles: A cabinet system in which the principal consults informally with representatives of teachers, parents. and other interest groups but remains ultimately responsible for major policy decisions. A coleader system in which the principal and an elected lead teacher may initiate any change in school policy that they can agree to. A modified coleader system in which the principal and an elected teacher leader appoint staff-wide task forces with authority to solve particular problems. Aforrnal constitutional decisionmaking process with elections, interest representation, decision by majority vote, and some veto powers for the principal. A cabinet or coleader system with an elected principal subject to removal at any time by a majority vote of teachers, administrators, and parents. They added that ifthe district set a single style of decision making for all schools, it would maintain control and formality while not affecting the substance of shared decision making. Conley, Schmidle, and Shedd (1988) said that those with school and district decision-making responsibilities can benefit by participation strategies, which will give them information and advice from those with direct access as well as lessening reliance on more formal reporting methods. They argued that there is an often- overlooked argument for teacher participation that involves the nature of teachers’ work. They cited Doyle, who said that "teaching is increasingly characterized as a 93 decision-making process conducted under conditions of unpredictability and uncertainty in highly Interactive settings." These researchers developed a teaching- responsibility matrix that showed 12 responsibilities; these are instruction, supervision, counseling, and school management, each of which goes through three processes: (a) planning, (b) implementation, and (0) evaluation. Althoughthese are conceptually very distinct, they added, teachers have to "continuously integrate" them. Because of these multiple and integrated functions, they said it is wrong to look at teacher participation as an issue of whether or not teachers should be involved in school management. They referred to Berliner, who said teachers are already executives, and to Conley and Bacharach, who saw them as line managers who are in'touch with students, the school’s primary workers. Conley et al. saw the real Issue as one of closer integration of administrative decision making at three levels: (a) district, (b) school, and (c) classroom. They added: One of the greatest strengths of participation as a managerial strategy is that ittends to build consensus on goals and agreement on priorities, allowing the relaxation of controls over the means that individuals will use to serve those ends. Conley et al. (1988) claimed that the "insular, cellular structure" of schools, known sometimes by the term "isolation of teaching," stands in the way of teachers’ sharing knowledge, information, and skills obtained through the decision-making processes they individually go through as they integrate their multiple responsibilities. This isolating structure has resulted in "norms of noninterference." They cited Bishop as observing that this isolation, structurally imposed, actually becomes positively valued. They also cited Lortie, who found that teachers were not 94 interested In additional ranks or differentiations and thus had an "egalitarian norm." They suggested that management is a way to overcome some of these problems: "Indeed, many responsibilities typically reserved for district and school administrators constitute nothing more than indirect ways of coordinating the activities of teachers in adjacent classrooms." Conley et al. (1988) added that teachers already are responsible for making most of the managerial decisions in schools which occur at the classroom level. They listed four school managerial processes: (a) direction, (b) organization, (c) support. and (d) monitoring. They concluded that it is important for policy makers to see that teacher participation In management decision making is something to be "received" rather than something to be "given." They also concluded that more research Is needed on the traditional (ad hoc) committees, faculty meetings, and departmental structures) and current (quality circles, peer assistance, and career ladders) forms of teacher participation. Some career-ladder programs actually restrict the number of teachers allowed to participate in managerial decision making, in comparison with traditional approaches. When Duke et al. (1980) set about to study shared decision making in schools, they assumed that teachers would be eager to increase their participation in school decision making. Instead, they found that many teachers were apathetic or held negative attitudes about it. Possible explanations, they said, were that (a) teachers were content with the traditional system of administrative decision, (b) there was a lad of opportunities for teachers to get involved, and (c) teachers believed the 95 costs of such involvement exceeded the benefits. The researchers studied the latter line of reasoning and identified five potential costs of shared decision making: "(a) increased time demands, (b) loss of autonomy, (0) risk of collegial disfavor, (d) subversion of the collective-bargaining process, and (e) threats to career advancement." They also identified three benefits of shared decision making. The first benefit was "feelings of self-efficacy." This refers to the satisfaction one receives from reaching an important goal. These authors pointed out that just involvement in decision making alone will not result in these feelings if one’s involvement does not affect the outcome of the process. The second benefit they found was "ownership." This refers to a person’s feeling that helshe is part of the "collective enterprise," in contrast to feelings of alienation or anomie. The third benefit they found was "workplace democracy." This refers to the rights of workers to be involved in decisions that will affect them. When these costs and benefits were put in the form of interview questions asked of real teachers, it was found that of all the potential costs, the only one of real concern for the majority of teachers was the increased demands on time. Conversely, in regard to potential benefits, respondents agreed highly. The researchers were surprised, in light of this, that these teachers felt "less than anxious" to be involved in school decision making and got very little satisfaction from itwhen they were Involved. Of the teachers who participated, more than half thought they had no real influence. Some of the problems found were that teachers (a) viewed shared decision making as a "formality" or an effort to devise an illusion of 96 teacher Influence, (b) thought that realizing the benefits of shared decision making was not very likely, (c) needed evidence of influence, and (d) did not detect any change in power relationships. Duke et al. (1980) stated: Since the benefits of shared decision making accrue, not from mere involvement, but rather from a combination of involvement and influence, it would seem unwise to offer opportunities for shared decision making which do not Include provisions for actual influence over decisions. Mohrman, Cooke, and Mohrman (1978) said that efforts to increase teacher influence should focus on certain types of decisions as teacher participation in different domains of decision making is differentially associated with teacher satisfaction. Where traditional outlooks on participatory decision making included a flattening of the hierarchical pyramid, a focus on decentralization, a vertical approach. and a unidimensional perspective, these researchers supported a multidimensional perspective and a horizontal approach to various decision-making domains. They divided up the 12 decision areas of Belasco and Alutto into three decision-making domains: (a) managerial, (b) technical, and (c) negotiation. Results of their research showed that teacher satisfaction and role ambiguity were associated only with their involvement in technical decisions, a fact that was hidden, they said, when all the decisional areas were merged into one universal measure. They also found that teacher satisfaction was related not only to the degree of participation, but also to the types of decisions in which teachers participated. They added that perceived participation could be the result of stmctural arrangements of leader behaviors. While teachers reported deprivation in the area of managerial decisions, said the authors, they indicated that little satisfaction was gained from 97 participation In same. They said this paradox may have been 'a result of the decisions In the two domains not being integrated enough. These researchers presented a thought-provoking insight: Perhaps teachers want to participate In decisions that have to do with the coordination of managerial and technical decisions, and not simply managerial decisions. It Is interesting to note that Edwin Bridges developed a model for shared decision making in the school principalship in 1967. The evidence, he showed, Is quite solid that worker participation results in higher productivity (Guest, Vroom, Maier, and Wickert). Bridges argued that these findings from industry can be applied to school settings: One might argue that participation would have less of an impact on teachers than on industrial workers because the opportunity to participate would provide less of an increase in status for teachers than for industrial workers. On the other hand, one might argue that the autonomy expectation is more deeply ingrained In the professional than In the factory worker and that for the teacher to be denied a share in decision-making would have more disastrous consequences than it would for the nonprofessional. Bridges cited Chase as saying, "Teachers who report opportunity to participate regularly and actively In making policies are much more likely to be enthusiastic about their school systems than those who report limited opportunity to participate." Bridges (1967) explored four issues related to shared decision making. First, he looked at the conditions; teachers resented a lot of extra paper work and meetings, especially Ifthey thought they were being asked to make decisions that were the principal’s job to make. He cited Barnard as saying that subordinates do 98 have a "zone of indifference" wherein a manager’s judgment is totally accepted. He cited Barnard, Chase, and Bridges as saying: 1. As the principal involves teachers in making decisions located in their zone of indifference, participation will be less effective. 2. As the principal involves teachers in making decisions clearly located outside their zone of indifference, participation will be more effective. The principal, Bridges said, must decide whether decisions then are in or out of the zone of indifference by applying the tests of (a) relevance and (b) expertise. Sometimes, due to high acceptance being desired, or a very important decision, the principal may bypass the two tests. said Bridges, but in doing so he or she may alienate the staff. Next, Bridges (1967) addressed the role of teachers in the decision-making process. Compared to today’s writers, the decision-making process Bridges described was very principal centered. He cited Tannenbaum’s procedures for choosing among alternatives: (a) define the problem, (b) list possible alternative actions, (0) predict the possible consequences of each alternative action, and (d) choose from the alternative actions. The principal, as described by Bridges, carefully guides his staff through this procedure. One thing that still applies today is Bridges’s admonition: It is Important for [the principal] to make quite clear to the teachers the boundaries of their authority and the area of freedom in which they can operate. Vague authority restricts thinking and results in unimaginative problem-solving behavior. The next Issue Bridges (1967) addressed is that of "constituting" the decision- making group—whether he or she will be an active participant in the group’s i/ sai Sho. ’0 [OI during , emdent was GXp SUSiliestic WWI the problem WI deCIQHSGd l 99 discussions. Bridges listed three possible arrangements, all of which give the procedures for decision making: (a) participant-determining (consensus required), (b) parliamentarian (majority rules. decision binding on all), and (c) democratic- centralist (all bound by decision reached by person in final authority). The first procedure would be most appropriate, Bridges said, when decisions fall obviously out of the staff’s zone of indifference or when complete agreement is necessary. The second method is most suitable when consensus is unlikely and when individuals who are in conflict in some areas are in agreement in others--when a well-established clique that always votes as a block does not exist. In this case, he said, steps should be taken so as not to alienate the minority. The third method should be used when the decision is legally the principal’s but where helshe wishes to lower the staff’s resistance to the decision or to improve the grade of his/her decision. Bridges (1967), along with Doyle, found that if the principal was present during a parliamentarian mode of decision making, the group was less productive, efficient, and risk taking. The effect of status differences on group decision making was explored in a study by Torrance (cited in Bridges, 1967). He found that suggestions made by lower-status members of the group often were ignored even though these members had more correct solutions. If the group was addressing a problem with no right or wrong solution, the influence of the lower-status members decreased more. 100 The last issue Bridges (1967) discussed was the role of the principal as a facilitator. He said that ifa principal is using the parliamentarian style, helshe must make provisions for the minority viewpoint to be heard; otherwise, the social pressures imposed by the majority will tend to silence the minority. If the participant- determining mode is being used, the principal should help build consensus by (a) helping polarized segments of the group to see the similarities of their positions, (b) having polarized factions list advantages of their positions and then help develop another alternative that incorporates the main advantages of each, (0) suggest experimenting with both approaches, or (d) help the group determine what their obstacles are In reaching consensus. When the democratic-centralist method is being used, Bridges added, the principal should try to avoid the tendency for the group to conform to the leader’s viewpoints and also to promote a focus on the problem-solving process, synchronization of the group’s efforts, a definition of the problem, a listing of possible barriers, a listing of alternative actions, predictions of possible consequences for each alternative action, and a delaying of a premature solution. Bridges (1967) provided other suggestions for the role of the principal as a facilitator. He indicated that risk taking can be Increased by not evaluating ideas or showing surprise at unusual suggestions. He added, citing Argyris, that the principal should minimize any negative consequences related to the open expression of both ideas and feelings. The principal should try to identify things that "bind" the group by having the group discuss what they think impedes their progress from time to 101 time, or taping the sessions for later viewing. He cited Maier in recommending the "risk technique," which involves getting the group to consider the risks or dangers that could result from a decision. This allows teachers to express their fears, anxieties, and so on, before implementing a decision and therefore gives the principal an Idea of possible resistance and a chance to provide more information to teachers that would develop a "climate of acceptance" for the implementation of the decision being reached. Bridges (1967) said that a thorough understanding of these factors is necessary for the principal who wants to be an effective leader. Today, these suggestions still apply, but the term "principal" might be replaced with "chairperson of the site-based committee," "teacher-leader," or "facilitator." A person holding less power than a principal, however, would not be likely to use the democratic-centralist mode because of lack of legal authority. However, it is not inconceivable that such a person could have strong Opinions or his/her own agenda and also be capable of manipulating the group! Conway (1984) reviewed participative decision making because he saw the need to "clarify the status" of this subject in order to help researchers and to suggest implications for school leaders. He cited Lowin, who argued that workers were motivated to participate: 1. to meet ego-needs of achievement, autonomy, power, and self- realization; 2. for financial incentives as with profit sharing plans; and 102 3. to bring meaningfulness to the work, that Is, for job enlargement and enrichment. In addition to the three above-mentioned Incentives, managers also observed the following: 1. an improved quality of those organizational decisions dealing with the technical aspects of the system, 2. an increased likelihood for worker carry through since participation in decisions fosters a social pressure not to renege on a stand, 3. increased productivity as internalization of the goals occurs among the participants, and 4. a pressure from subordinates to more carefully considerthe decisions being made as well as their multiple effects. Conway (1984) referred to the work of Greenberg and described the four major perspectives on participation. The first is the management school of thought, which proposes that alienation and job fragmentation would be reduced, resulting in higher morale and thus higher productivity, efficiency, and profitability. The second perspective is one of humanistic psychology, which argues that the work environment should foster the healthy development of the individual and is ethical in nature. The third school of thought is one of democratic theory, which purports that a democratic personality will develop in a participatory setting. The participatory left is the last approach described; it sees participation as a way of enlightening the working-class populace and bringing about anti-capitalistic attitudes and a revolutionary awareness. Conway quoted Greenberg in saying that all four share the same proposition: 103 Involvement In a (1) specified participatory environment at the workplace results In a set of (2) predicted attitudinal and behavioral changes in participant individuals, and when a sufficient number of such persons are involved, leads to (3) predicted social and political consequences. Conway (1984) cited Melcher, who found that variation in training and methods rather than participation Increased productivity and proposed that goal setting may have been more important than participation. Sorensen and Baum (cited in Conway, 1984) expanded the concept that participation was a strategy for increasing the amount of control found in an organization, except that in the case of academic Institutions the opposite was true: total control was related inversely to productivity in publishing. Conway cited other reviewers, Dachler and Wilpert. as finding four dimensions throughout 135 studies; these were (a) social theories, (b) properties of participatory systems, (0) social environmental settings, and (d) outcomes from the first three dimensions. Dachler and Wilpert concluded that there is "a disturbing fragmentation in the conceptualization of participation and the research on it." Locke and Schweiger, said Conway (1984), hypothesized that participative decision making (PDM) would result in direct outcomes related to productivity and indirect outcomes related to satisfaction. They found that many studies of nonprofessionals showed that PDM was superior to directive management, but none of the studies on professionals showed this. They stated that there Is not a distinct tendency'that favors PDM over directive management. Conditions that are conducive to PDM remain illusive, he added, and ties to satisfaction are too 104 questionable in too many cases. He said much caution is warranted in drawing parallels between "professional bureaucracies" and "machine bureaucracies." Conway (1984) claimed that PDM is an intersection of the set of concepts related to decision making and those related to participation. Conway pointed out that PDM can be delimited by viewing it as (a) internal versus external, (b) mandated versus voluntary, (c) formal versus informal, and (d) direct versus indirect. He continued to say that quality of the PDM process can be assessed in terms of (a) the degree of participation, (b) the substance of decisions for participation, and (c) the scope of participation in a decision. In looking at the research on PDM in education, Conway (1984) first looked at external studies that dealt with citizen involvement, such as in advisory councils. He said that "representativeness" is more important than "who" participates: do their opinions accurately reflect the community at large? To increase representativeness, he said, the base of participation should be expanded, and he suggested telephone conferencing as a successful way to do this. He believed that cable television will open up new possibilities for direct involvement. Conway (1984) stated that Miller’s hypothesis—that the opportunity to participate in school decisions (A) increases satisfaction and feelings of attractiveness toward the school (B). In turn, the citizen is more willing to work toward the success of the school and to contribute to its support with tax monies (C) that contribute to the overall effectiveness (i.e., productivity) of the school (D)-that is, A .. B - C - D. -is simply not supported by the research. Conway found the primary outcome of citizen participation was an "increased feeling of self-worth and of personal growth 105 and development." Many citizens actually end up with a more negative view of the school and especially toward administrators. Conway concluded: It appears that citizen direct participation in educational decision making is likely to continue, but the rationale for it will be based necessarily, more on political reasons, such as increased satisfaction or maximized decisions as a result of PDM. Second, Conway (1984) looked at internal studies that addressed teacher and student involvement In PDM. He claimed that the idea that direct Involvement is needed for workers to accept and implement changes is apparently a myth. He added that very little evidence has emerged that would alter the conclusion Giaquinta reached in 1973: "Little can be said about the effects of participation strategies as compared to strategies where administrators introduce change without rank-and-file involvement in the decision." Conway (1984) described numerous studies that have borne out the relationship between PDM and satisfaction; however, he added. one out of three studies did not confirm this relationship. Other studies have suggested that the effects of PDM are influenced by other conditions. Factors that come into play in this area are the degree of participation, the types of decisions participated in, teachers’ zone of acceptance, and organizational trust. PDM also was not related to student alienation, according to Conway. Student PDM in the classroom was positively related with Indirect measures such as attitude, but not with student achievement, he explained. Conway (1984) cited a study done by Greenblatt, Cooper, and Muth, which suggested that effective teachers, as judged by students, were those who were not 106 so involved In administrative tasks, yet did play a consultative role on issues that directly affected the classroom. He referred to a study by Huff, Lake, and Schaalman, who found no significant difference in emphasis between high- and average-performing schools In terms of participatory decision making. Conway concluded that a mid-level participation is probably most appropriate for teaching and student achievement. Conway (1984) explained that because (a) teachers’ view of their role in decision making is situational, (b) excessive participation is detrimental, and (c) satisfaction is related to the substance of current issues, leaders need to determine when to use a participatory leadership mode. He referred to Field’s analysis of the Vroom-Yetton contingency model, in which 23 problem types are related to seven decision rules and seven problem attributes, and stated that Field noted that the consultative style of decision making was included In the possible options for 19 of the 23 types of problems. Field reported that, of the other four types of problems, total group decision making with the leader was Included in the feasible options. He proposed the following basic rule: If acceptance of the decision by subordinates is critical to effective implementation and it Is not reasonably certain that subordinates would accept an autocratic decision, but they share organizational goals (or decision quality Is not Important), use GZ (total group decision style). otherwise use C2 (the consultative decision style). (Conway, 1984) Conway reported that a more balanced procedure based on Field’s problem typology would be as follows: 107 Emblem Decision Type I Mandatory quality/easy acceptance Type II No quality criterion/acceptance critical Type III No quality criterion/acceptance not critical Type IV Quality critical/acceptance critical For a Type I problem, the leader collects information when and if necessary from the staff, and then helshe makes the decision. For a Type II problem, the group decides with or without leader involvement. In the case of a Type III problem, Conway continued, the leader or the group may make the decision, but overinvolvement of the staff must be avoided. In a Type IV problem situation, the Involvement of the leader with the group I3 mandatory, and his/her persuasion may be required. Conway said it Is a hard task to go much further than this simple model, and he concluded that "the mastery of PDM Is still as much a theory-based art as It is a structured science of behavior." In his research, Conway (1984) discovered seven myths about participative decision making. These are: i 1. Citizen participation leads to increased support. 2. To co-opt a recalcitrant constituent, get that person involved in decision making or on advisory councils. 3. Direct involvement is necessary for organizational members to accept and implement changes. 4. Participation In establishing goals is needed for goal accomplishment. 5. Participation in organizational decisions increases satisfaction with the organization and the job. 108 6. Student participation in decisions about instructional topics and activities leads to higher test achievement scores. 7. Higher levels of teacher participation in decisions is related to a higher quality of teaching. Conway (1984) described many mysteries surrounding PDM. For example, he asked, "Could it be, for example, that feelings of satisfaction with the job and the organization make teachers more likely to volunteer for committees and thus increase their felt and expressed involvement in decision making?" Conway asked many other thought-provoking questions that do indicate that there is indeed an aura of mystery around this topic. He claimed that acceptance of PDM has been based more on "faith a'nd logic" than on evidence from research. He gave numerous suggestions for naturalistic and exploratory inquiry, as well as carefully-thought-out and controlled field studies. In the meantime, he said, If Naisbitt’s analysis of trends is at all accurate, an ever increasing demand from Americans for more intense and direct involvement in the decisions affecting their lives will be seen. As that demand continues, administrators will continue to walk the contingency tightrope as they practice their theory- based art and await the answers of science. Wood (1984) found that high participation in decision making resulted in (a) high decision quality, (b) better subordinate satisfaction or morale, (c) commitment, (d) productivity, (9) more asceptance of change, and (f) reduced absenteeism. She cited Blumberg, who found that there was a rare consistency in social research on participatory decision making, which Indicated "generally acknowledged beneficial consequences." In spite of this, Wood said, teachers often respond that frustration rather than fulfillment is the outcome of their participation. Looking into this 109 phenomenon, Wood discovered many factors mediating the effects of participatory decision making; these include (a) organizational climate, (b) the nature of the problem, (0) group cognitive abilities. (d) group psychological concerns, (e) group information sharing, (f) individual influence on group decisions, and (g) a tendency of groups to quickly coalesce to avoid conflict to "strain toward convergence" (Hall & Williams, cited In Wood, 1984). Wood (1984) said that the "strain toward convergence" is so common that it stands out from the other factors. Because of the lack of power equalization, a type of self-censorship occurs in many groups. Group members will still acquiesce to avoid conflict in cases where power equalization is not a problem, such as when a group is very cohesive and has developed norms of conflict avoidance. Wood said that Janis labeled this "Group Think" and Harvey called it the "Abilene Paradox." Choosing not to go against group norms, or start conflict, members settle for "pseudo-participation," which results in depression or hostility. The third major problem Wood (1984) found is that there is a difference between the actions and beliefs of many superordinates. She said they frequently espouse values and attitudes that differ greatly from their actual behaviors and the structures and processes they actually employ in decision-making enterprises. Wood stated: It Is not enough for administrators and committee chairpersons to embrace the beliefs and values surrounding participation. Appropriate structures and processes must be adopted so that subordinates have both the power and the capacity to participate actively in decision-making ventures. 110 Wood gleaned from a survey of literature many of the values, structures, and processes required for power equalization to occur in participatory groups (see Appendix A). The fourth problem Wood (1984) discussed Is the tendency of people to equate participation with participatory decision making. She explained that they are not synonymous. They are autocratic, consultative, and advisory models of decision making that allow for some subordinate participation, but they are not the same as true participatory decision making. In real "joint decision making," superordinates and subordinates (a) have equal Involvement and influence, (b) generate and evaluate possible solutions together, (0) share ideas, and (d) decide together which problem(s) should be worked out by the group. Wood stated: When work group members state that participatory decision making does not work because their input seems to be ignored, they may in fact be "appraising a non-event" (Charters 8. Jones. 1973). It may be that participatory decision making does not work in these instances because it was never actually attempted. Wood (1984) gave four suggestions for improving the effectiveness of participatory decision making. First, she stated that superordinates must let their subordinates know what style of decision making they plan to use. She described the possible choices, which she based on Vroom and Yetton’s work (see Appendix A). The main thing to keep in mind here is not to confuse autocratic or consultative styles with participatory or delegated styles of decision making. Wood’s (1984) second recommendation was that administrators must not only believe in their staffs and that their participation can enhance decision quality, but 111 they also must behave or act like that is true. They must provide structures and processes that will facilitate participatory decision making. Wood’s third suggestion was that a district should have participatory decision making at all levels of the organization, from top management to inside individual classrooms. Wood also suggested that sufficient training be given not only in the substantive and technical areas. but also in the areas of group dynamics and self-expression. Wood concluded by giving two warnings to those who would wish to use or evaluate participatory decision making: Participatory decision making is neither the best decision-making practice nor a panacea for the ills of the organization. Rather, it is one approach which, if employed under the right circumstances, can yield highly positive results. . . . If the processes and structures adopted in a group facilitate pseudo-participation rather than active participation, the positive results of participatory decision making cannot be expected to occur. The relationship between levels of satisfaction experienced by teachers and their state of decisional participation was studied by Belasco and Alutto (1972). They borrowed from March and Simon as well as Katz and Kahn the definition of satisfaction: "a willingness to remain within the current school organization despite inducement to leave." They defined decisional participation as the "discrepancy between current and preferred levels of participation." Three states of decisional participation can be Identified using this approach. The first is "decisional deprivation," where there is participation in fewer decisions than desired. The second state ls "decisional equilibrium," where there is participation in as many 1 12 decisions as desired. The third state is "decisional saturation," where there is participation in more decisions than desired. Belasco and Alutto (1972) argued that organizations must be assured of a sufficient supply of skilled workers and a willingness on their part to work cooperatively to reach organizational goals. They said that because of this dependency, organizations must be concerned with the satisfaction of their members’ needs and expectations. They pointed out that a persistent theme in previous research has been that levels of satisfaction vary directly with a sense of "distributive justice" related to issues of economic salary levels, benefit levels, physical environments, organizational climate, and style of supervision. In other words, an employee’s perception of how fairly helshe is being treated parallels satisfaction status. Belasco and Alutto (1972) connected the desire of dissatisfied employees to modify the type of supervision they receive to participation in organizational decision making. .They pointed out that the desire for more participation in decision making . is not equally and widely distributed among teachers. In past research, they said, increased job satisfaction was found to be related to (a) higher work achievement, (b) more effective organization, (c) less role conflict, (d) less job tension, (9) more trust, and (f) Increased productivity. The relationship between increased productivity and satisfaction, however, has not been clearly established. In their study, Belasco and Alutto found that (a) the decisional climate had a major influence on teacher satisfaction levels, and (b) more highly satisfied teachers felt less job tension and 113 had less militant attitudes. Although they also found that the desire for increased participation was not equally distributed among teachers, they did not find any relationship between satisfaction and role conflict lessening or increased trust. They said that low satisfaction along with high tension could often be accompanied by undesirable outcomes such as (a) lateness and absenteeism, (b) mental absence, (c) reduced performance, and (d) hostility or aggression. In summing up, they said: The data suggest the necessity for a management strategy which recognizes that a similar decisional participation approach will have a varying Impact on satisfaction levels in different strata of the teaching population. It is thus necessary to identify those substrata within the teaching group which are particularly deprived, then design a participative management program which meets the needs of those particular teachers. Later, Belasco and Alutto (1973) found three major themes In research on member participation in organizational decision making. Much research has focused on the desire of teachers for more participation in decision making, but Belasco and Alutto said It is not wise to assume a general overall desire among teachers for increased participation. They said some will desire more, some less, and some neither more nor less. The second theme found in this body of research had to do with the assumed conflict between the professional aspirations of teachers and the school system bureaucracy. Belasco and Alutto (1973) said that this "professional-bureaucratic conflict" Is what leads to teachers’ desire for participation In organizational decision making. Because professional aspirations and commitments vary, and the existence of multiple career ladders for teachers (administrative, specialization, and master 114 teacher paths), teachers may not all demand participation in similar issues. Belasco and Alutto wrote: Given the variegated pattern of professional aspirations in the school system population, it is reasonable to assume that there will not be a universal demand for increased participation. Rather, certain segments of the school population may very well demand increased participation in some decision areas while simultaneously seeking decreased participation in others. Belasco and Alutto (1973) added that the third theme in the literature on decisional participation is one of the desirable outcomes forthe organization that are associated with increased participation. Some of these that have not already been mentioned are (a) personal integration into the organization, (b) increased administrative control due most likely to resulting member recognition of the legitimacy of superiors who implement standards that they have helped establish, and (c) higher likelihood that change will be accepted and implemented successfully. As previously pointed out by Wood (1984), Belasco and Alutto (1973) also emphasized past research, which has indicated that "given varying shades of the participation phenomenon, it has been suggested that not all forms of participation will produce Identical or even similar organizational outcomes." The researchers warned that, for teachers who are at the point of decisional saturation or equilibrium, an increase in participation could actually prove to be very dysfunctional. They also found that teachers who experienced the most conflict also tended to experience more decisional deprivation. Their findings confirmed the belief held by some that decisional deprivation provides a powerful base for an increase in teacher militancy. 115 Organizationalflimate Morse and Lorsch (1970) said that researchers have found that there is no best way to run an organization; the best organizational approach depends on the nature of the work done there. If the organization’s tasks are highly predictable, it will perform better using a classical approach of very formalized procedures and hierarchical management pyramids. If organizational tasks are very uncertain, and if they require more problem solving, a less formalized approach is in order; this is also true if worker self-control and participation in decision making are emphasized. These researchers proposed their contingency theory, which deals with the fit among task, organization, and people. They believed that "the appropriate pattern of organization is‘contingent on the nature of the work to be done and on the particular needs of the peOple involved." ‘Morse and Lorsch (1970) studied four organizations: (a) an effectively perforrnlng manufacturing plant, (b) a less effectively performing manufacturing plant, (c) an effectively performing research and development lab, and (d) a less effectively performing research and development lab. The plants had a more certain task of manufacturing standardized containers with production-line methods, whereas the labs had the more uncertain task of research and development In the field of communications technology. Morse and Lorsch looked at the organizational characteristics of the four through two sets of factors: (a) formal characteristics and (b) climate characteristics. They discovered that the high-performing manufacturing plant had a pattern of formal relationships and duties that was very structured and 116 highly defined, which fit their predictable task. The high-performing lab had a very low structure and loosely defined rules, which fit their unpredictable task. The two organizations, while both high performing, were almost opposites in terms of flexibility and rigidity. There was a tendency for time dimensions formally acknowledged to be short term in the manufacturing high performer and long term in the scientific high performer. In the two less-effective organizations, stated Morse and Lorsch, the formal characteristics did not fit their tasks nearly as adequately. Morse and Lorsch (1970) also studied the climate characteristics of these four organizations. They found that in both high-performance organizations the climate was well-suited to the task, whereas the low performers had a lower degree of fit between these two. Climate characteristics they looked at included (a) perception of structure, (b) distribution of influence, (0) relations with others, (d) time orientation, and (e) managerial style. In the high-performing organizations, Morse and Lorsch (1970) found the following differences between the manufacturing plant and the research lab. Manufacturingflant Perceptions of tightly controlled behavior and a high degree of structure Perceptions of low total influence, concentrated at upper levels in the organization Low freedom vis-a-vis superiors to choose and handle jobs, directive type of supervision Besearchlab Perceptions of a low degree of structure Perceptions of high total influence, more evenly spread out among all levels High freedom vis-a-vis superiors to choose and handle projects, participatory type of supervision 117 Manufacturingflant Bessarchlab Perceptions of many similarities Perceptions of many differences among colleagues, high degree of among colleagues, relatively low coordination of colleague effort degree of coordination of colleague effort Short-term (time orientation) Long-term Manufacturing (goal orientation) Scientific More concerned with task than More concerned with task than people people (top executive’s "manage- rial style") Morse and Lorsch (1970) argued that people are motivated by a desire to have an individual sense of competence. Their contingency theory, based on their findings, states that workers have a variety of needs and motives, and the desire to obtain a sense of competence is central among these. This desire can be fulfilled in a variety of ways contingent on how it interacts with the varying degrees of the other needs of power, structure, affiliation, autonomy, and achievement. If the task fits the organization, they added, competence motivation is most likely to be fulfilled. If a competence goal has been met, individuals will set a new one, and this, they explained, is why a sense of competence continually motivates. The work of Morse and Lorsch is important to this study because they illustrated the link between climate and motivation. Also, the professionals who staff a school can be seen as their counterparts who staffed the research and development lab. If there is to be a fit between the task of a school and its organizational structure, perhaps there should be more (a) perceptions of a low degree of structure, (b) perceptions of high influence spread over all levels, (c) 118 freedom vis-a-vis superiors to choose and handle projects and participatory management, (d) perceptions of a lot of differences among co-workers and a lower degree of coordination of effort, (e) long-term outlook, and (f) concern for task than for people. Keeping in mind that these are all in relation to a manufacturing or highly predictable organizational task setting, it may be that schools should lean more in the above-mentioned directions in most instances. This has not been the case as teachers have perceived high bureaucratic structure, low levels of influence, and pseudo-participatory management. Seeing that the elements of contingency theory are all interlocking, it can be said that lack of organizational fit affects the climate, and both of these affect worker motivation. Garfield (1992) cited Alvin Toffler, who believed all companies now face what he termed the "innovation imperative." Garfield espoused that organizations create an "environment of innovation." He stated: Creating a hospitable climate is critical if innovation is to blossom within the organization. It’s true that innovation can spring up in the most controlled environments, just as flowers can force their way through the cracks in a sidewalk. But for innovation to tnriye, for it to be continuous and consistent, the organizational climate must encourage and nurture it. Because innovation is the product of knowledge and empowerment, said Garfield (1992), the climate conducive to innovation is one in which employees (a) are encouraged to continually obtain knowledge, (b) have ready and total access to information, (C) have norms of open communication, and (d) are empowered to take action on their amassed wisdom. Without such a climate, Garfield said, people may be working from separate agendas and lack a shared vision. He said experience 119 has shown that even when the attempt to innovate is sincere, it may fail due to an unfavorable climate; innovation cannot succeed "in an organizational context structured, however subtly or unintentionally, to sabotage innovation." It is worth mentioning here that Garfield (1992) described a change in the climate of society that will certainly, but gradually, affect the climate in organizations. He stated that the machine is the central metaphor for life in the twentieth century. The psychological effects of the industrial age seem to pervade our lives and organizations. Garfield said that, In the past, there was a "human quest for maximal growth," but this has now turned to "sustainable" growth because people are recognizing that resources are limited. He added that "hard" technologies that caused pollution and waste will mesh with "soft" technologies such as recycling, redistribution of resources, cooperation, and resolution of conflict. Where the "old story organization" reflected a mechanical view of the world, the "new story organization" will be viewed as a living, dynamic ecosystem responsive to its environment. The machine view sees the organization as being independent from its environment, whereas the ecosystem view sees It as being dependent on a larger ecosystem of which it is a part, Garfield continued. That is why, he said, that they cannot be understood by analyzing all the parts individually. Garfield stated that the interaction of the parts must be considered, as well as the interaction with the external environment. He explained a new outlook: "We are witnessing the gradual emergence of systems thinking In the corporation as we move into the 1990’s. Systems thinking is a discipline for viewing things as wholes, in their context, rather 120 than as independent objects, operating in isolation." Although this change in thinking is not directly related to school organizational climate, it is probably safe to say that, as in the past, general societal and organizational changes will eventually find their way to the schoolhouse. Monahan and Johnson (1973) said that an open climate is necessary to achieve decentralized decision making. They claimed that such a climate would embody the placement of responsibility and authority at all levels. Climate, along with curriculum and suitable pedagogy, is an issue that Hill andBonan (1991) said needs to be addressed, as a result of their study on decentralization and accountability. Otto and Veldman (1967) studied the relationship between perceptions of control structure and perceptions of organizational climate on the part of elementary school principals and teachers. The control structure, or organization for decision making, consisted of four problem areas: (a) educational program, (b) development of personnel. (c) managing the school, and (d) community relations. Using the McLeod Control Structure Description Questionnaire or the Vignette Instrument and the Halpin-Croft Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ), they found that school districts differed in decision power and influence assigned to principals. Principals viewed themselves as involved in development of personnel and managing the school, whereas they saw their teachers as involved with development of personnel and the educational program. On the other hand, Otto and Veldman found that teachers saw their own involvement only with the 121 educational program. In addition, teachers saw their principals even more highly involved with the educational program, and also with development of personnel. These researchers discovered considerable incongmity between principals and teachers in most of the dimensions of school climate. Decision domains perceived by teachers, said Otto and Veldman (1967), seem to have little relationship to their perceptions of school climate. They found that prinCipals and teachers viewed decision making and organizational climate from very different perspectives. The researchers were surprised to see such a contrast between the views on decision making and climate of teachers and principals, especially that teachers’ analysis of the climate was not related to their perceptions of their own autonomy; principals did see such a relationship. Otto and Veldman (1967) found that principals perceived the school climate in relation to their own decision domain. Two distinct patterns of principal leadership behavior emerged: (a) democratic and (b) principal dominated. The researchers were puzzled because of the lack of any strong relationships between teachers’ autonomy in the Educational Program area and their view of the school climate. If teachers are true professionals, this would seem to be a crucial aspect of the relationship between climate estimates and decision-making power. There must be some unrecognized factor here. Perhaps the unrecognized item is the nature of the teachers’ professional domain. In looking at this, Otto and Veldman recalled Stinchcombe and compared the role of the teacher to that of construction workers who use contracts and blueprints and do not need directives because they have already been consolidated into the "professionalized culture" of the workers. They said this comparison was supported 122 by Lortie, who said that the authority that teachers possess emerges from the self- contained classroom type of spatial arrangement, which he said Is not only a physical situation, but also a social system that keeps the teacher free from immediate supervision or intrusions, and endows equality among teachers. Otto and Veldman suggested that this idea of "autonomy-equality" of Lortie’s may have more relationship with teachers’ perceptions of organizational climate than the decision domain. They said that Lortie believed that the autonomy-equality pattern of authority is not the type usually connected with the prestige-imbued word "professional." They added that this should raise serious discussion as to whether teaching should be seen as a highly professional endeavor, as is the case, or rather as a highly technical and circumscribed activity. Whichever is decided to be the case should Influence preservice and inservice programs in a realistic way. Halpin (1966) identified six kinds of school climates: (a) open, (b) autonomous, (0) controlled, (d) familiar, (e) paternal, and (f) closed. In his research, he tried to clarify what people had thought of as the "feel" of a school, or Its "personality." He wanted more precision than previous studies on morale exhibited. Halpin developed the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ). He used the results to map behaviors, which led to the isolation of the six climates listed above. An inductive empirical approach was used. Eight dimensions of organizational climate were Identified. In summary, these are: (a) disengagement or the teachers’ tendency to be "not with It," or just going through the motions; (b) hindrance or teachers’ feeling that they are overburdened by busywork required by 123 the principal; (c) esnrit or teachers’ morale, (d) intimacy or teachers’ enjoyment of socialization with each other, (e) aloofness or impersonal and formal principal behaviors, (f) nmguctien_en1nnasis or highly directive principal behavior characterized by close supervision, (g) thrust or principal behavior that tries to "move the organization" and sets an example to motivate teachers; and (h) eensideratien or principal behavior that attempts to do little extras for teachers and treat them "humanly." From these eight dimensions, six possible organizational climates can be identified. An open climate embodies low teacher disengagement behavior and low principal hindrance behavior. Although they are friendly, teachers do not need a high level of intimacy and have sufficient motivation in an open climate. Principal behaviors are high thrust and consideration but low aloofness and production emphasis. The autonomous climate is one of almost complete teacher freedom and has relatively high levels of esprit and Intimacy. In this climate, principal behaviors are low In hindrance, high in aloofness, average in consideration, and low in production emphasis. Teacher morale, or esprit, is high, but not as high as in the open climate. The principal does provide thrust. The controlled climate Is marked by high esprit in spite of being overweighted toward task accomplishment and away from socialization. Principal behavior shows high hindrance and production emphasis, average thrust, and some degree of 124 aloofness. Teacher behavior shows low disengagement and intimacy. This climate is considered more open than closed. Halpin (1966) described the familiar climate as one that reflects extreme friendliness. high disengagement behaviors, low hindrance, high intimacy, average esprit, high consideration, and low aloofness and production emphasis. There is also high, but suspect, thrust. Halpin (1966) also described the partly closed paternal climate. It comprises high disengagement and low hindrance, intimacy, esprit, and aloofness. There is also high production emphasis, some consideration (suspect), and average thrust. The eighth climate described by Halpin (1966) is the closed climate, which Is characterized by high disengagement, hindrance, aloofness, and production emphasis. Also evident are average intimacy, low consideration, and thrust. Esprit is extremely low. Hoy, Tarter, and Bliss (1990) said that the idea of organizational climate has been popular among researchers, even though after years of empirical research its meaning still is not clear. They added that professionals will continue to use the construct because It is generally believed that (a) a good climate Is achievable and advances useful outcomes, and (b) understanding organizational behavior and norms Is relevant to management. Hoy et al. (1990) stated that organizational climate is an amorphous and Intricate concept and lacks a standard definition. Lately, they added, the emphasis on culture has added to the perplexity. They pointed out that Ashforth tried to 125 explain the difference: "Culture consists of shared assumptions, values or norms, whereas climate is defined by shared perceptions of behavior." Hoy et al. offered as solid concepts of organizational climate definitions by Miskel and Hoy: "A broad term that refers to members’ shared perceptions of the work environment of the organization" and by Taguiuri and Litwin: "An enduring set of internal characteristics that distinguishes one organization from another and influences the behavior of its members." Hoy et al. (1990) compared measures of school health with measures of school climate and discovered that the former is most appropriate in predicting goal achievement, innovativeness, loyalty, and cohesiveness, whereas the latter is most suitable for predicting openness in communication, authenticity, motivation, and participation. These scholars confirmed others in stating that how the principal views the health or climate of the school is often at odds with teachers’ views. They said that such a discrepancy is symptomatic of another problem. When it comes to organizational development, they explained, "if a secure atmosphere can be created in which teachers feel free to be candid in their appraisals of the work environment and their recommendations for change, then teacher programs for effective organizational development can become a reality." Hughes (1968) connected organizational climate to the process of innovation. In comparing Innovative school districts to much less innovative districts, he found that (a) Innovative systems were more similar to the open climate, and (b) noninnovative systems were more similar to the closed climate. He also discovered 126 that innovative districts showed less disengagement and greater esprit than did noninnovative districts. Superintendents, Hughes said, behaved with more thrust In innovative districts. He found differences in money per pupil spent, with innovative schools spending more, and concluded that it was the willingness of districts to expend wealth that made the difference, not the amount of available wealth. Although this was a study’of central offices. Hughes’s findings are relevant because they connected an open climate to innovation. Folger and Poole (1984) claimed that climate is important for understanding groups and group conflict because it offers "continuity and coherence" to group endeavors. They believed that climate delineates the group’s prevailing attitudes, outlook, and temper. They defined climate as "the relatively enduring quality of the group situation that (a) is experienced in common by group members, and (b) arises from and influences their interaction and behavior." They said that people’s perceptions mediate the climate's influence on their behavior and that is why perceptions help create and maintain the climate. They pointed out that climate cannot be diminished to individual members’ feelings or convictions; although an individual’s perceptions of the climate affect maintenance or change in the climate, they are not the same as the climate. Folger and Poole claimed that group members experience the climate commonly and this creates a unifying theme but certainly not interpretations that are identical. Because climate originates from interaction, F cigar and Poole explained, no one individual can be held responsible for it. Climates are persistent and rather enduring, and they are not likely to change with every change 127 in interaction. They said that the longer a climate persists, the more established it will become because it reinforces the types of interactions that created it. Folger and Poole (1984) specifically addressed the relationship of climate to conflict. They said that people are always trying to deal with uncertainty and are therefore always trying to estimate the future. People project the prevailing climate into the future, and ittherefore sets norms for behavior in conflict. Because climate is so "diffuse and generalized," they said, the reasoning involved In this future projection is often called intuition. Of special importance in future estimations are people’s attempts to determine what the intentions of others are. These researchers cited Sillars on a construct called attribution, which refers to a process whereby people analyze the words or deeds of others and then draw conclusions, which may be biased. They cited Thomas and Pondy in pointing out that climates of cooperativeness breed perceptions of cooperation; climates of competitiveness lead to competition; and "the prevailing climate . . . colors members’ interpretations of one another, thereby encouraging certain types of behavior and reinforcing the situational climate." As individual members use the climate, their actions give a momentum to the group as a whole, or "the influence climate exerts on individual members’ behavior translates into a more encompassing influence on the direction of the group as a whole." Folger and Poole (1984) added that a climate can best be explained as "general themes" incorporated into group interaction; examples they gave of themes are "lack of respect," "dedication to a common task," and "competition for scarce 128 rewards." They said that themes such as these fall into four basic categories, which they described as (a) dominance and authority relations, (b) degree of supportiveness, (c) sense of group identity, and (d) interdependence. Folger and Poole (1984) claimed that if one really wants to understand a group’s climate, the "specific combination of themes" in the group should be identified. They warned that these themes give a rather "frozen" view of the climate and do not reflect the ongoing renewal that might be occurring, and they also are not independent Folger and Poole (1984) explained that when members make a move or"bid" for change successfully, it is viewed as a "critical incident." These "turning points" can affect the prevailing climate. Such a move usually must meet three criteria; it must (a) relate to a significant group problem, (b) capture the circumspection and imagination of the group, and (c) not stimulate powerful members to a negative response. Climates can experience temporary "shifts" resulting from temporary changes in interaction patterns; however, Folger and Poole said, much effort is required to institutionalize a temporary improvement in the climate. A key point they made about climate is: Members forget that climate depends on how they interact and assume the group is "just that way," that the enduring qualities of the group are independent of what people do. When this happens, it becomes a trained ineanaeity. In failing to realize that they themselves hold the key to maintaining or changing their group’s atmosphere, members are thereby controlled by the atmosphere. Any change in climate occurs very gradually, they said, but if, and only if, change questions the very purpose of the existence of the group at once, the group can be 129 thrown into "chaos." Although they claimed this is rare, it Is wise to recognize the possibility because assumptions about the climate may not hold in that case. Whereas Folger and Poole (1984) were addressing climate In terms of its interaction with conflict, their insights are relevant for the climate of groups in general. And although their research has contributed significantly to the area of small-group communication, it Is applicable in education to small groups such as staffs of elementary schools. staff committees, and, in particular, site-based steering committees. Summary Site-based management is a form of school administration that developed in the 19603 as a response to social pressures and involved decentralization of decision making in school districts, more citizen participation, and more power at the school site level. Today the term encompasses the concepts of shared decision making, teacher empowerment, participative management, and school restructuring, in addition to the qualities listed above. Participative management provides procedures for all of those concerned with certain decisions to take part In making them. It is a response to the need for more effective organizations and the needs of workers whose views reflect democratic principles. Participative management has been proven to be one very effective way to solve problems. Decentralization refers to a lessening of the number of decisions being made at the "top" or central level. It is related to horizontal-management concepts or a 130 flattening of the traditional hierarchical pyramid. Decentralization strives to have more decisions of higher quality made at the level in the organization where the workers are most knowledgeable about the problem at hand. Decision making is at the heart of all management practices. Many models and procedures for decision making exist, but when participatory decision making is discussed, it seems a special quality or benefit can be derived, such as group synergy, which results In decisions that are possibly superior to those that one individual might have made. Organizational climate is the prevailing mood or personality of the group that comprises the organization. It is an illusive yet real concept, which reflects interactions of group members and has a significant influence on the effectiveness ofthe organization. Identifying "dimensions" or"themes" of an organization’s climate is somewhat easier than determining the climate Itself, and when taken together, they give some understanding of the climate. I The decisional status of teachers related to dimensions of climate in their organizations and to their propensity toward site-based management has the potential, with proper analysis, to help predict the outcome of an effort to implement site-based management and to help guide efforts in that direction. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY inlresiuetien The basic focus of this study was to investigate the differences in climate and decisional status of staff members between schools that had chosen to implement a site-based, shared decision-making structure and those that had not, in order to determine what factors might be conducive to implementing such a structure. In addition, principals’ perceptions of site-based management were examined to determine whether there were differences between the schools that had chosen site- based management and those that had not. Components, merits, and drawbacks of site-based management were examined to determine whether this is a positive movement in education. Facilitating conditions and obstacles to site-based management both were investigated to help define ideal conditions for implementation. Chapter III contains an account of the procedures used to conduct this study. First, the research hypotheses are stated. Second, the population of the study is described. Third, the instruments used in the study are explained. Fourth, processes for gathering the data are described. Fifth, the statistical procedures used 131 132 in analyzing the data are explained. Finally, ethnographic data-collection procedures used in the study are reviewed. Researcntlxpotnsses The following hypotheses, stated in the null form, were formulated to test the data collected in this study. tlyngtnesislz There is no difference in teacher disengagement behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. Hynotnesjfl: There Is no difference in teacher hindrance behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. Hynetnesiezz There is no difference in teacher esprit behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools madmnm. Hypothesisfi: There is no difference in teacher intimacy behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools mmdMnm. Hypgtnesisj: There is no difference in principal aloofness behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. Hymtnesisj: There is no difference in principal production-emphasis behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. Hypothesisl: There is no difference in principal thrust behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools mmdmnm. Hypothesis}: There is no difference in principal consideration behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. 133 fixpgthesisj: There is no difference in decisional-status levels among teachers in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. Hyngtnesjsfl: There is no difference in perceptions of site-based management of principals in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision—making structure and in schools that did not. 0 'I' [IIE II' The population for the statistical portion of this study comprised 956 instructional staff members at 33 elementary schools in a large urban school district. One hundred fifty-three of these individuals worked in 1 of 7 schools that had decided to adopt a site-based decision-making structure in the spring of 1990, to be implemented in the fall of 1991. The other 803 worked in 1 of 26 schools that had decided they did not want to implement a site-based decision-making structure. Rather than using the full census, a determination was made to randomly select 7 of these 26 schools for the sample, thus resulting in 2 approximately equal groups for a comparison study. The non-site-based group, then, consisted of 163 staff members working at 1 of the 7 randomly selected schools. The total sample was then 316 staff members working at 1 of the 14 included schools. The population for the ethnographic portion of this study were the 33 principals of the elementary schools in this large urban school district. Seven of these principals presided over schools that had decided to adopt a site-based decision-making structure. The other 26 administered schools that had decided not to adopt such a structure. Of this second group, the seven principals of the randomly selected schools were retained for the sample, resulting in a total sample 134 of 14 principals. In addition, key figures in the district were interviewed or observed as part of the Site-Based Management Steering Committee. Instrumentation Information required for this study included data on school organizational climate, school staffs’ actual and desired decisional participation, school principals’ perceptions of site-based management, and background information unique to the school districts and to individual respondents. To obtain information on school climate, the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire designed by Andrew W. Halpin (1966) was selected. To acquire information on decisional- participation status, questions were adapted from an instrument designed by James A. Belasco and Joseph A. Alutto (1972). To assess principals’ perceptions of site- based management, questions were developed for structured interviews, based on a review of the literature and the specific situation in the school district. To obtain demographic information on questionnaire respondents, eight questions were developed. to be answered in a categorical-choice method, and were included as part of the questionnaire. To acquire information of a background nature unique to the school district, field-study techniques of interviews and observations were used. (See Appendix C for a copy of the survey Instrument.) Q 'I'IDI'ID 'l'Ql" The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) was developed by Halpin in 1966, in order to determine the organizational climate, or 135 quality of the environment, in elementary schools. The 64 items In this instrument comprise eight subtests, which Halpin delineated by factor-analytic methods. Four of these subtests relate to the characteristics of the faculty group; these are (a) Disengagement, (b) Hindrance, (c) Esprit, and (d) Intimacy. The other four subtests have to do with the principal’s leadership characteristics; these are (a) Aloofness, (b) Production Emphasis, (c) Thrust, and (d) Consideration. The OCDQ uses Likert- type items, which are marked according to frequency of occurrence as follows: (a) rarely occurs, (b) sometimes occurs, (0) often occurs, and (d) very frequently occurs. This instrument makes it possible to identify six climates that may exist in a school; these area (a) open, (b) autonomous, (c) controlled, (d) familiar, (e) paternal, and (f) closed. However, this researcher used the eight aspects of any of these climates for comparison, rather than labeling each school with one of the six climates. Although there have been some criticisms regarding the validity and reliability of the OCDQ (Hoy & Clover, 1986; Hoy et al., 1990; Watkins, 1978), including some from the maker himself, its wide use and acceptance for more than 20 years by experts in the field of education (Hoy & Clover, 1986) testify to its validity in looking at the organizational climate of a school. The publisher of the instrument granted permission to use the OCDQ in this study. The 64 items in this instrument are the first 64 items in a lengthier survey questionnaire that was developed for this study. 0 I . l E If i l' The second part of the survey questionnaire contains 24 questions designed to measure decisional participation. These questions were taken from an instrument 136 designed by Belasco and Alutto (1972). The questions are based on 12 decisional situations that occur in school systems. These situations have to do with (a) hiring, (b) textbook selection, (c) learning problems of individual pupils, (d) instructional method selection, (9) instructional policy making, (f) policy making for classroom discipline, (9) school budgets, (h) faculty assignments, (i) faculty grievances, (j) facilities, (k) community group problems, and (I) salaries. Belasco and Alutto's instrument asks teachers whether they currently participate in and whether they desire to participate in each decision. An index then can be obtained by summing the number of decisions in which a teacher presently participates and those in which helshe desires to participate, and figuring the algebraic difference between the two numbers. These algebraic differences form the index of decisional discrepancy. If a teacher’s current participation is less than desired, helshe is in a state of decisional deprivation. If his/her current participation is equal to his/her preferred participation, 3 state of decisional equilibrium exists. If a teacher’s present participation is greater than preferred, helshe is said to be in a state of decisional saturation. For this study, the above-described instrument was modified for the sake of brevity In administration of the overall survey questionnaire. In the original instrument, a simple answer of "yes" or "no" was requested, and additional clarifying questions were asked. For this study, the questions regarding actual and preferred participation in decision making were turned into statements requiring one of four responses: (a) strongly agree, (b) agree, (0) disagree, and (d) strongly disagree. 137 This format still forces a choice, but it allows the respondent a chance to indicate stronger discrepancies and degrees of participation. Dr. Alutto mailed the researcher a copy of his original questionnaire, which served as a guide in developing the 24 paired items that comprise the middle section of the three-part survey questionnaire used for this study. BackgroundJnformation The third section of the survey questionnaire was designed to obtain some basic demographic data. It contains eight questions, and respondents are asked to select one of five categorical choices in each of the following areas: (a) length of employment with the Flint Community Schools, (b) race or national origin, (c) number of accumulated sick days, (d) present assignment, (e) number of assignment changes while employed by the Flint Community Schools, (f) age, (9) years of professional experience, and (h) educational achievement. This was done mainly for descriptive statistics, but also to make it possible to determine whether any of these might correlate with aspects of climate or decisional status In a future study. Eieldfludx For this study, data were needed on the principals’ perceptions of site-based management and their points of view as to the decision-making process in schools using site-based management. Because there were 14 principals in the schools participating in this study, it seemed that personal interviews could supplant a 138 questionnaire-type instrument and would allow the researcher to garner more insights. After reviewing literature and interviewing some experts in the field, the researcher devised a structured interview form that consisted of eight questions. These had to do with the following areas: (a) benefits of site-based management, (b) problems of site-based management, (c)job priorities of the principal, (d) reasons for staff's decision to become or not become involved in site-based management, (e) principal’s present philosophy of school decision making, (f) what the philosophy of principal in a site-based school should be, (9) teachers’ desire for involvement in decision making, and (h) types of decisions best handled by a governance committee. For the fifth and sixth areas, principals were asked to pick a point on a six-point continuum that was similar to the autocratic/democratic continuum of leadership behavior suggested by Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) and others. Other background information was obtained by interviewing key figures involved with the site-based management or restructuring program in the Flint Community Schools. Although not originally part of the design of this study, observations of the meetings of the Site-Based Steering Committee were included after the school district issued an invitation to do so and made it possible for the researcher to attend. Datafiatneringfirocedures On April 3, 1990, the researcher wrote to the Macmillan Company to request permission to use the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (Appendix 139 B). Permission was received on April 12, along with specified conditions that were met (Appendix B). Also in April, Dr. Joseph A. Alutto at the State University of New York at Buffalo was contacted by telephone regarding the questionnaire used in his studies on teacher decisional participation. He provided permission to use it and mailed the researcher a copy. Furthermore, in May, permission was obtained from the Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Subjects (UCRIHS) to conduct this study. Dr. Nathel Burtley, Superintendent of the Flint Community Schools, granted his permission to conduct the study in April and referred the researcher to Stevan Nikoloff, the Director of Research and Testing. Mr. Nikoloff was to supervise and assist with this research project and any related activities in the school district. Because the school staffs had been asked to decide during that school year (1989—90) whether or not they wished to become involved in site-based management the following year, it was decided to administer the survey questionnaires in the spring of 1990 while their thoughts on the decision were fresh in their minds. It was recognized, however, that the last two months of the school year would not be the ideal time to make additional requests of the teachers’ time. Therefore, special care went into the communications. On April 25, communications and materials were sent to the principals of the 14 selected schools through the school district’s own mail system; these materials were to be distributed and collected in May (Appendix B). A letter of instruction was also sent to each principal (Appendix B). These letters were signed by Stevan 140 Nikoloff, Dr. Burtley, and the President of the United Teachers of Flint, Peter Murphy. The principals were asked to collect and return the questionnaires by May 11. The letters to the respondents, which were attached to the survey questionnaires, were also signed by the above-mentioned individuals and directed the respondents to return the questionnaires to their principals, who would, in turn, forward them to a special school mail box at the administration building via the school mail. The initial response rate was poor, with only 27% of the surveys being returned; three schools did not respond at all, and six others had very few responses. A telephone call from a union representative at one of the schools revealed that the teachers there feared the principal and would not return their questionnaires tohim/her. The union representative forwarded some questionnaires from that school and suggested that perhaps respondents should be given the option of mailing their survey questionnaires directly to the researcher or giving them to their union representatives to forward. Ata meeting on May 10 with Dr. Leonard Murtaugh, Assistant Superintendent and Chairperson of the Site-Based Management Steering Committee, it was discovered that people were nervous and untrusting about filling out the survey questionnaire because they feared that it would be used to evaluate them in some way. In a discussion regarding this problem with Dr. Murtaugh and Stevan Nikoloff, it was decided that another letter needed to go out to reassure the participants that any information obtained in the research would not be used to evaluate them ortheir schools. 141 On May 14, a second letter went out to teachers, which clarified the purpose of the research and gave some other options for returning the survey questionnaires (Appendix B). These were sent with a cover letter to the principals, requesting that they be distributed to the staffs once again (Appendix B). The response rate rose to 33%, which was still unacceptable, so another round of letters was mailed on May 29 (Appendix B) to the principals for distribution. Again, a cover letter was included (Appendix B). This only resulted in a slight increase in the overall response rate, bringing it to 36%. Because this rate was still unacceptable, it was decided that a summer home mailing would be necessary. Another letter (Appendix B) and another survey questionnaire were mailed to 316 individuals at their home addresses. These were mailed out about two weeks after the school year ended, on June 20. Address labels for teachers and professional staff at the 14 schools in the study were provided by the Research and Testing Office. A stamped envelope return addressed to the researcher was enclosed with each letter. Computer "bubble sheets" were not Included in the home mailing, and respondents were allowed to mark their answers directly on the survey questionnaire; later, the researcher transposed their responses to the bubble sheets. The response from the summer home mailing brought the overall return rate up to 54%. Two survey questionnaires that were returned had to be eliminated, resulting in a final return rate of 53%. During the last week of May, appointments were made by telephone with the principals for their structured interviews. Most of these interviews were conducted 142 the first week after school let out, yet the principals were still working in their buildings. A brief note confirming these appointments and a copy of the eight questions contained in the structured interview format were mailed to each of the 14 principals. Permission was obtained at the interview site to tape record the interviews In all but one case; the researcher also took handwritten notes during the interviews. Additional questions were asked during the interviews to get the respondents to expand on their answers. Some respondents were more than willing to talk at great length, whereas others were conservative in their responses, so additional questions were asked in response to each unique respondent and situation, as appropriate. Thank-you notes with comments regarding each interview were mailed to each principal after the interviews. Interviews were also conducted with Leonard Murtaugh, Chairman of the Site- Based Steering Committee and Assistant Superintendent; Larry Cywin, Facilitator of the Site-Based Management program in the district; Steven Nikoloff, Director of Research and Testing; and Peter Murphy, President of the United Teachers of Flint, in order to obtain background information as needed during the study. These interviews were conducted during the spring of 1990. Observations of the Site-Based Management Steering Committee were undertaken during the 1990-91 school year, which was the first year of Implementation of the site-based management/shared decision-making program in. the Flint Community Schools. By coincidence, the researcher was assigned for the 1990-91 school year In one of the schools in this study that had chosen to participate 143 in the program, so some informal observations at this one site were possible, as well. For the formal observations of the Steering Committee. the method used was simply to write down as much of what was happening as possible, as well as any strong impressions made on the researcher at the time about what was occurring. Before and after the meetings, the researcher engaged socially with the participants, but during the meetings the role of the objective observer was strictly adhered to. SI I' l' I I l I When the administration of the survey questionnaires was competed, the information was coded into the IBM computer at Michigan State University. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (S PSS) was used for analyzing the data. Means and standard deviations were determined forthe teachers’ responses in each of the variables being studied: (a) disengagement, (b) hindrance, (c) esprit, (d) intimacy, (e) aloofness, (f) production emphasis, (g) thrust, (h) consideration, and (i) decisional participation. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for each item on the survey questionnaire, as well as the above-mentioned variables and the demographic variables. In addition to the two groups of schools being compared, site-based and non-site-based, individual schools’ mean responses were calculated for each item and all the variables. Atwo-tailed test of significance was used to determine whether the means of the responses from the seven non-site-based schools (Group I) differed from the means of the responses from the seven site-based schools (Group II). An independent group t-test was used; to be considered significant, t-values had to be 144 less than .05. A p-value was calculated to test the equality of the variance for the site-based and non-site—based groups. If the probability level of the F-value was smaller than .05, then the two groups did not have the same variance, so the pooled estimate was eliminated from consideration and the separate variance estimate had to be used instead. For Part I of the survey questionnaire, there were four possible responses for each of the 64 items: (a) rarely occurs, (b) sometimes occurs, (c) often occurs, and (d) very frequently occurs. These had respective values of 1, 2, 3, and 4 except for Items 4, 8, 25, 53, and 63, which all had respective values of 4, 3, 2, and 1. In Part II of the survey questionnaire, which consisted of 24 paired items, each Item had four possible responses: (3) strongly agree, (b) agree, (c) disagree, and (d) strongly disagree. In method A (IDD1) of analysis, each positive response received a value of 1 and each negative response received a value of 0. In method B (IDD2) of analysis, the respective values assigned were 2, 1, 0, and -1. Also, using method B, means were figured for "present" items alone (IPDP) and "desired" items alone (IDDP). In both methods, the differences were computed between the first and second items in each matched pair—that is, between the current or present decisional involvement and the desired or preferred decisional involvement. Summary Teaching staff in seven schools that had decided to implement site-based management/shared decision making and seven other schools that had not made 145 that decision were asked to complete survey questionnaires. These were all elementary schools in the Flint Community School District. One hundred sixty-seven usable completed survey questionnaires were obtained. The development of the three-part questionnaire was described In this chapter. Data—gathering procedures were described, including those for interviews and observations. Statistical techniques used in analyzing the survey questionnaires were listed, and these were applied using SPSS. Tests run afler coding the data into the Michigan State University IBM computer included the independent groups t-test and one- and two-way univariate and multivariate analyses of variance. The research hypotheses were listed. Alternative groupings for data analysis were explained. In the next chapter, results of the statistical analyses of the data are presented in detail. Information obtained through thetechniques of interviewing and observing is presented and analyzed. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA lntreduetion The researcher’s purpose in this study was to determine what differences in (a) school climate factors, (b) decisional status of staff members, and (c) principals’ perceptions of site-based management existed between schools that had chosen to implement a site-based shared decision-making structure and those that had not. The data related to the goal of this study are presented in this chapter. First, Information obtained from the first part of the survey questionnaire is given. The first eight hypotheses are examined with data from the eight scales representing principal and teacher behaviors connected to school climate. The statistical treatment described in Chapter III was performed. A breakdown of all the questions comprising each scale and overall means of each scale are shown in Tables 4.1 through 4.8. Then the data obtained from the second part of the survey questionnaire are presented. This information on the decisional status levels in schools was also given the statistical treatment as outlined in Chapter III and was examined in relationship to the ninth hypothesis. Tables 4.9 through 4.11 are presented for clarity. The 146 147 decisional status of all participants, individual schools, and Group I and Group II schools is analyzed. Next, the field data are presented and analyzed in regard to Hypothesis 10. The ethnographic information collected from principal interviews is given separately for each interview question. Within each interview question presentation, each school principal’s data are given as part of either Group | or Group II school category. After the field data are analyzed, the results of the analyses are given. To help clarify the data, Tables 4.12 through 4.18 were constructed for this section. ResulteoLAnalxsestQLBssearcnfixpotneselenmugnj A t-value probability level of .05 was set to indicate the level of statistical significance. In the following tables, VE denotes the variance estimate, P denotes that a pooled variance estimate was used, and S denotes that a separate variance estimate was used. Results are given for each hypothesis, and then results are given for each scale for every hypothesis. lzlxpotbesiel There is no difference in teacher disengagement behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. The null hypothesis was not rejected (see Table 4.1). There were no significant differences in teacher disengagement behaviors between Group I (non- site-based [NSB]) and Group II (site-based [88]) schools. Disengagement means teacher behavior in a task-oriented situation where the teacher is merely going 148 n. ma. 3. em..- as. 8.. B. 8.. m... 8.. 28:. __sm>o n. on... 3.. 8. - 2m. 3.. 3.. 2a 8. EN 8 n. 0%. .m. 8. - 80. o... .... .3 mm. ed 8 a 8m. 5. 3. one. x... mm. 2.. 8. mm. 8 m «8. 8.8. S..- 9.0. mm. a. 3.. E. 8.. on m 38. BB. 8. - «.5. 8.. 2. 3.. 8. 3.. «a w 35. 3.3. 8..- 3o. 8.. 8. a... E. 8.. w. m 8... 3.8. «a. so. 8.. 3. 8.. 2. mod ... a m8. 8. 8. 8.... m... E. .5 m... Q. o. a .8. .o. 2..- «8. a. 8.. «Na 5. mos o a 8m. .o. .3. - 8m. mm. 3. E. 2. 8.. m .m . 2 can . 9 .o.w cam—2 dd 522 “a” he.“ .6 H. > __H._..nw_ o:_m>-n_ __ 9.90 _ 9.90 ES. r- “H 90328 EoEomwmcomB 5:89 2 mssmtoa «Em: o. 8283. yo memos. #6 End... 149 through the motions, similar to a state of anomie. It is behavior where the teacher is out of "sync" or not "with it" when performing a task. Hypothesiez There is no difference in teacher hindrance behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. The null hypothesis was not rejected (see Table 4.2). There were no significant differences in teacher hindrance behaviors between Group I (N38) and Group II (SB) schools. Hindrance refers to perceptions orfeelings that the teachers have that the principal hinders, as opposed to facilitates, their efforts. It is the teachers' beliefs that they are being overly burdened with "busywork" or unnecessary tasks such as committee work and other such routine duties. Hypothesis} There is no difference in teacher esprit behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. The null hypothesis was not rejected (see Table 4.3). There were no significant differences in teacher esprit behaviors between Group I (N88) and Group II (SB) schools. Esprit is a state of morale where the teachers feel satisfied, not only with the feeling that their social needs are being met, but also with a feeling of accomplishment in the tasks that comprise their job. 150 Q gr. #9 vmé- new. voé om. 8N em. DEN memo... =Eo>0 n. «3. mm: 3.7 m5. No; 5.. SN 8% mad v n. «am. m3 3. .. «on. mo... mm. and 8. SN w n. mm... 03 Nate. mom. mwé 3. EN Noé cod NF __ n. mum. o9 mm. - ta. No... 3.. med 8% and 9 = a own. we mm. em F. ové ma. mod ow. m r .N on n. 5o. Now as. F- vow. N _. .P mm. Nwd mm. EN vu can) .noi o=_m>-n_ .o.w cams. .D.w 522 E2. -. .5: __ 9.90 _ 320 Elli-“fl 9039.3 8:922 853. 2 9.25.3 mEmg 2 $2082 co 2me ”a... 298. 151 Q va. 3F 2.. mac. 0F.F om. Ned mm. mmN mcmoE =Eo>O Q mmo. 3F ho. F- No F. mmé mm. omN mm. and m Q mm F. mmF mmé New. mo.F 09F ONN vo.F NVN x. Q mow. 3F mm. mF F. NYF wm. mmN No. mod FF Q wmv. mmF mu. . woo. Nmé um. mod 8.. sad FN Q wa. 3F Nm. F Faw. R. F oF.F mod mm. 3N mF Q N23. N2 N5. mom. mo.F no. EN cw. va 9 Q 000. NoF mm. F- vw F. mm.F mo.F 9am on. mFN mN Q VVN. NoF RFF NFv. 0N.F No.F mad mm. mmN 5N Q on F. FoF N... F omv. NF... mm. NNN on. ovN Fm Q woF. mmF mmé 3m. 2: mm. NFN mm. NmN mm . . . .o.m cues. dd cam—2 “MN “MW.“ .6 0:._um> hm...“ 020?“. = 9.90 Em: _ 9.20 $8328 :58 .283 o. m55mtma 28: o. mom—.032 ho memos. ”we 2an 152 lzlxpotbesisA There is no difference in teacher intimacy behaviors In schools that elected to adOpt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. The null hypothesis was not rejected (see Table 4.4). There were no significant differences in teacher intimacy behaviors between Group I (NSB) and Group II (SB) schools. Intimacy refers to the teachers’ feelings of camaraderie or social friendliness. Unlike esprit, it refers to social needs satisfaction not necessarily connected to the accomplishment of job-related tasks. Intimacy is that feeling among teachers that they are part of a big, "happy family." prmnesisj There is no difference in principal aloofness behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. The null hypothesis was rejected (see Table 4.5). Significant differences in principal aloofness behaviors were found between Group I (NSB) and Group II (SB) schools. SB schools had a significantly higher level of principal aloofness behaviors than did NSB schools. The mean for the SB schools was 2.25, compared to 2.09 for the N88 schools, with significance determined at .008. Aloofness refers to principal behavior that tends to be formal and impersonal. It is "going by the book," adhering strictly to rules and policies as opposed to dealing with teachers in a face-to-face or informal manner. Aloofness refers also to a style of leadership that requires at least an "emotional" distance from the staff. 153 20328 >882: 858. 2 9559.8 «ES. 2 $288. .6 memos. a .8. 8. .... 2... a... on. EN 0... new mfimfacgo: a «at B. B. mt. 3.. 3. SA a. 8d mm n. SN. 8. 8..- 8°. 8.. 8. new 8. 8.. mm #— n. Sm. mm. 8.. as. v... 8.. VS 8. and t __ a 8... 8. .3. - 5.. 8.. mm. 2.“ 8. 3a m. __ a .8. .m. mo. - «we 8.. a mg. «m. a... an. m... a 8.. 3. .....- Be. a... . . a . .wa =MM s o ..w> hm.“ magi ”vi 2an 154 w woo. voKmF ofiw- noo. moF 3.. mud mm. mod memos. =So>0 w oNo. NN.mmF vmd- hoo. ooF F F.F ooF Fo. NoF mo Q moo. moF Fwd- boo. NF.F ooF 3N oo.F miw mm Q moo. NoF N. F. - oF F. NF; moF cod no. No... ov Q one. FoF Fm. . mum. oNF No.F mod om. hoF Fm Q Now. NoF n F. .. oF F. NYF mo... ooN ow. hoF vm Q ooo. FoF Fv. new. m. F .F Fo.F omF vo. mod 3 Q mmo. NoF ov. - mom. oNF mF.F FNN Fo.F mFN em Q moo. voF mod- on F. NMF mo.F tum no. «MN on Q ooN. coF 5N. F- Fho. oF.F mo.F cod om. med 5 . . . :DW cam: .O.w 6G0: m a...“ .. a“; a...“ 2....-. .95... as... s. 90328 9858.... .8655 o. ass—“Ema «Em: o. 3288. oo memo: ”we 2an 155 prmtieeisj There is no difference in principal production-emphasis behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools mmdwnm. The null hypothesis was not rejected (see Table 4.6). There were no significant differences In principal production emphasis behaviors between Group I (NSB) and Group II (SB) schools. The mean for the NSB schools was 2.09, and the mean for the SB schools was 2.19. Production emphasis refers to principals’ behaviors that are of a highly directive nature and are reflected by a style of closer supervision. It refers to principal insensitivity to staff feedback and a one-direction- only style of communication. Hyeothesisl There is no difference in principal thrust behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. The null hypothesis was rejected (see Table 4.7). Significant differences in principal thrust behaviors were found between Group I (NSB) and Group II (SB) schools. The SB schools had significantly fewer principal thrust behaviors than did the NSB schools. The mean for the SB schools was 2.55, compared to 2.85 for the NSB schools, with significance determined at .004. Thrust refers to principals’ behaviors that are indicated by evident effort of attempting to "move the organization," and motivation of the teachers through personal example. It also refers to highly task-oriented principals’ behaviors, but ones that are viewed favorably by staff. 156 n. I|.m~. .8. om. .- Sm. No. 8. my 8. 8N 28.: .355 n. Eu. 8. mm..- mew. 8.. 8.. cud 8. 8H 2. a wee. mm. 3..- 08. .m. m... 8.. mm. 8.. 8 n. «8. .o. 9N cm“. 8.. B. R.“ 8.. New 3 a .3. .o. cod- 8...... .m. 8. new .m. mod 2. n. .8. 8. new 8... w... B. 5.. 8. m..~ .o a 3.... mm. .3. - mom. on. 8.. EN 8. .od 9. a woo. 8. mod. 8.. mm. m... New 3. ~..m mm . . . .040. coo-2 .D.m coo—2 m a...“ .. ..._... .fi 2.... @8323 m_mmcaEm 5:02.05 .3855 o. oscfitoa mEog o. 3283. ho memos. no... 2an 157 a .81 8. EN .8. 8.. 2. 88 8. 84. 88.: =85 m 08. 3...... N... .8. ...~ 8.. 88 8. m... 8 8 Eu. 8. 8.. S... 8.. 8. SN 3.. 8.~ 8 n. .8. .8. 8. m8. 3.. m... ....N 8... New 8 m 8o. 8.8. 8.. 8o. 8.. .... 8.~ 8. 88 8 8 8o. 8. 8.. .8. 3.. 5.. :8 8. .2 8 a .8. 8. 8.. 8o. 8.. 3.. «.8 8. 2... .e m .8. 8.8. 88 So. 8.. 8.. 88 8. 88 8 __ a 8m. .8. .N. 88. 8.. 8.. 2a 8.. 8.“ 8 __ m 8o. 8.8. 8... 8o. 8.. 3.. .3 8. 8...” 8 do. Q .D.w cams. d.w Ewes. ..m.F-N 2.3)-“. __ 9.20 .955 E2. "HE! 8555.. 82.... .8855 2 9558.8 mEog 0. 89888 .o 88.2 ”he Sow... 158 Hypothesisit There is no difference in principal consideration behaviors in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. The null hypothesis was rejected (see Table 4.8). Significant differences in principal consideration behaviors were found between Group I (NSB) and Group II (SB) schools. The NSB schools had a significantly higher level of principal consideration behaviors than did the SB schools. The mean for the NSB schools was 1.97, compared to 1.65 for the SB schools, with significance determined at .000. Consideration refers to principals’ behaviors that indicate the doing of a little ”something extra" in human terms for staff members. It is characterized by the tendency to act "humanely" toward teachers. It indicates an attempt to satisfy teachers’ social needs. BesuItLQLAnalvseseQDecisionaLStatus 51mm There is no statistically significant difference In decisional-status levels among teachers in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision- making structure and in schools that did not. In the following discussion of decisional status, IDD1 denotes the Index of Decisional Discrepancy as determined by Method A, IDDZ denotes the Index of Decisional Discrepancy as determined by Method B, IPDP denotes the Index of Present Decisional Participation, and IDDP denotes the Index of Desired Decisional Participation. IPDP and IDDP were both figured using Method B. Means of decisional status for all participants are shown in Table 4.9. 159 n. o8. 8. t... 88. 8.. 8. 8.. 8. 3.. 88.: =85 a 88. 8. 2. - .8. 8.. 8. 8.. Q. 8.. 8 n. 8... 8. 2.. 8m. 8.. 8. t... 8. 8.. 8 a 8.. 8. 8.. 8o. 8.. 8.. 88 8. 88 we m .8. 8.8. 8.8 .8. m..~ a... 8.. 8.. 8.. 8 n. .8. 8. .8 28. m... 8. 8.. 8. and 8 a .8. 8. SN 88. .... 8.. t. 8. EN 8 .m . o. o: a . o. dd :85. dd :85. new. he.“ 8 ._. > hfim 28>-.. __ 89o . 820 58 1|. 8.58:8 5.8.8588 .8658 2 859.8 8.9. o. 8888. .o 885. no... 2an IhNe49: ‘ — Decision same \001 \002 W09 8 ‘TT EE931 schoo Tabk (“DD ”Nee Ofde deck It- and be I 160 Table 4.9: Means of decisional status for all participants. Decisional Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum Valid N Status IDD1 -3.26 3.80 -12.00 2.00 166 IDDZ -7.96 9.61 -36.00 4.00 166 IPDP .34 .72 -1.00 1.83 166 IDDP 1.02 .45 -.33 2.00 166 g Means of IDD1 for individual schools are shown in Table 4.10. The Group II (SB) schools had a higher level of decisional discrepancy than did the Group I (NSB) schools. The difference in the means of the two groups was 2.1753. Like findings resulted when comparing the two groups using Method B (see Table 4.11). The Group II (SB) schools had a higher level of decisional discrepancy (IDD2) than did the Group I (NSB) schools. There was a significant difference in all three areas of decisional status between Group I and Group II schools: present level ofdecisional participation (.007), desired level ofdecisional participation (.035), and decisional discrepancy (.000). The null hypothesis was rejected. EJeJLLDaIa Win04: In your Opinion, what are the two or three most important benefits that will come from site-based management when it is fully implemented? W SchooLAuPrincipal A stated that teachers would have a better quality of life and be happier due to more involvement. This would have an effect on kids. The 161 Table 4.10: Means of IDD1 for individual schools. Group School Mean Std. Dev. Cases | A -3.2727 3.4667 1 1 l 8 -1.6923 2.4962 13 l C -1.4118 2.3468 17 l D -3.0909 3.7001 1 1 I E -2.8000 3.7645 15 I F -2.2500 3.3040 4 l G - .5000 1.51 19 ll H 4.0625 4.2657 16 II I -5.4286 4.5356 14 II J -5.4000 4.7188 10 ll K -5.1818 4.3547 11 ll L 4.5556 4.9777 9 II M 32000 2.4553 15 II N -2.4167 3.7769 12 Overall mean -3.2590 3.7994 166 Group | -2.1454 79 Group II -4.3207 87 162 a mac. v0. N F .N- mmm. 5.. vv. 8.. 9.. mm. don: n. So. 5. «RN owe. R... 9... cm. no. on. non: w coo. 8.3. mmd moo. Nod mod. 9.6.- a...» ewd- Noo— .m . 0.. can . 9 .O.m cam} .D.w cam—2 ..w a a :3 _> a n. o:_m>-u E> __m._.-N -~ __m._.-N __ 95.0 _ 9.90 200:8 __ 9.90 28 _ 9.20 .0. 3.98 3.838.. .o 2.522 n. 3 033. 163 second benefit mentioned was that better decisions would result because of the broader input going into them. The third was teacher satisfaction. SchooLB--Assistant Principal B said that the benefits of site-based management would be (a) increased funding, (b) willingness of staff to get more involved if they bought into it, and (c) flexibility in areas such as time schedules. SchooLcuPrincipal C believed that the benefits of site-based management would include (3) opportunities to make decisions that affect the school at the building level, (b) opportunities to implement programs that otherwise could not be implemented, and (0) opportunities to involve more parents. SchooLD—Principal D stated that one of the benefits of site-based management would be increased parent involvement, which helshe thought would benefit the classroom and also have a tendency to keep the staff "on their toes." This principal also said that teachers would be more involved and hence would work harder. Another benefit mentioned was that there would be more movement in one direction or another because deviations could be obtained from the central office mandates. The last benefit listed was that the central district office would be giving extra support and/or leeway to schools that became site-based managed because it was something in which the district was very interested. SchooLE-Principal E claimed that one benefit of site-based management would be teacher empowerment—teachers having the feeling that they had input into what was going on. They would be able to feel the benefits of their hard work and input into the building. This principal believed that everybody would really ”buy into” 164 it. Other benefits mentioned were teacher recommitment and more enthusiasm for thejob. SchooLE~Principal F stated that the benefits of site-based management were (a) improved student academic and citizenship progress, (b) improved classroom control for more on-task student behavior, and (c) increased and more effective parent involvement. Scum-Principal G expressed the benefits of site-based management as being (a) teachers’ power of decision making; (b) having more say in what was going on; (0) teacher ownership would make the school run more smoothly; (d) working together to settle difficulties and differences; (e) the ability to restructure some aspects of the entire building, including the budget; and (f) the opening up of opportunities. Summary—Fourteen benefits were mentioned in terms of "teachers.” Teacher involvement was mentioned three times; teacher empowerment and buy-in were each mentioned twice. Other terms or phrases used relating to teachers were (a) better quality of life, (b) happier, (c) satisfaction, (d) willingness, (e) work harder, (f) feeling, (9) recommitment, (h) enthusiasm, (i) more say, (j) ownership, and (k) working together to settle problems. Four benefits were expressed in terms of students; these were: (a) effect on kids (positive), (b) improved academic achievement, (0) on-task behavior, and (d) improved citizenship. b..- Twr involveme Hfi These inc lexibllity, classroo district SI school r restruct I 4 belie lerms manag difiere be a ll added be will: that we, Owners!) would be 165 Two responses from the Group | principals were cited in terms of parent involvement. Fifteen responses related to the whole school or entire school program. These included (a) better decisions, (b) broader input, (c) increased funding, (d) flexibility, (e) building-level decisions, (i) new or alternative programs, (9) benefits to classrooms, (h) staff kept on their toes, (i) more movement or change, (j) increased district support, (k) increased leeway to schools, (I) improved classroom control, (m) school runs more smoothly, (n) freedom from district mandates. and (o) ability to restructure the school (including budget). Altogether, the Group I principals mentioned 14 benefits in terms of teachers, 4 benefits in terms of students, 2 benefits in terms of parents, and 15 benefits in terms of the whole school. These principals produced 39 benefits of site-based management in their responses. Without duplication, they produced a total of 34 different benefits of site-based management. W SchQQLtj—Principal H said that one benefit of site-based management would be a more cohesive staff in which teachers would work better together. Helshe added that teachers would be interested in becoming more involved, and they would be willing to give of their own time. Two other benefits of site-based management that were mentioned were a greater commitment on the part of the staff and more ownership by them. This principal claimed that the single most important benefit would be getting the opportunity to do the many things that had been planned in the 166 past but had never been implemented because they were not approved by central administration. Principal H viewed this benefit as being a kind of catalyst from central administration that would make all these past ideas for change happen. SchQLl—Principal I stated that one benefit of site-based management would be more involvement of the staff. Helshe added that this benefit would lead to another, which would be staff ownership of ideology; in turn, this would lead to more commitment to the theories or ideologies to be acted upon. This principal claimed that teachers would work harder under these conditions. Other benefits mentioned were enhanced professionalism and a structure that would allow inhibited people to be more relaxed and willing to contribute. Principal I stated that the most vocal. pe0ple would not always be leaders due to the number of committees there would be. scum-Principal J listed the benefits of site-based management as being (a) the academic progress of children; (b) better cohesiveness among the staff, parents, and students; (c) a co-partnership forming to help meet academic goals; (d) building self-esteem in students; (e) the maximization of the staffs and parents’ talents and expertise; and (f) parent involvement. SchQLK—Principal K espoused three benefits of site-based management: (a) the staff working together, (b) more parent involvement, and (0) increased morale. SgthL—Principal L stated that the first benefit of site-based management was more staff involvement; the second was greater community support, the third 167 was more awareness on the part of parents, and the fourth was greater parent cooperation. SchQQLM—Principal M claimed that one benefit of site-based management was that principals would have to become committed to a nondefensive and open style of management. This benefit would lead to anotheruimproved communications on behalf of the teachers. This would open up opportunities for staff to solve problems. Another benefit, according to this principal, was that management and teachers’ unions would become committed to working together. Principal M added that the problem-solving component produced greater innovations coming from staff. Increased parent involvement had been noted. Principal M said that there was an increase in satisfaction and involvement among teachers. Helshe added that that also applied to other staff and faculty members; communications channels had been opened up to everyone in the building. The last benefit mentioned by this principal was that the skills of the staff in problem solving and interpersonal relationships had been developing. WuPrincipal N believed that a benefit of site-based management would be that the vision or focus of teachers in regard to the process of schooling would be opened or widened. They would have the ability to see how their "small room” fit into the ”larger picture.” The second benefit listed by this principal was that there would be increased effectiveness in attaining educational goals with their type of clientele, as opposed to the traditional bureaucratic model. A third benefit was that there would be a restructuring of education to better meet the needs of today’s 168 students. The next benefit was that teachers would be willing and able to change themselves. The last benefit mentioned by this principal was that teachers' individual expertise in certain subject areas would be better used. Summary-Group ll school principals cited 18 different benefits of site-based management in terms of teachers. Teacher involvement was mentioned four times. Cohesiveness was listed three times. Commitment and ownership were each noted twice. Also mentioned twice was the use of individual expertise. Other benefits given relating to teachers were (a) giving of their own time, (b) working harder, (c) new leaders, (d) self-esteem, (e) morale, (f) communications, (9) problem solving, (h) innovations, (i) satisfaction, (j) skill development (interpersonal and problem solving), (k) widened focus (broadened vision), (I) professionalism, and (m) speaking up by less vocal teachers. All of the responses listed here included the concept of greater, more, increased, or improved. Group II school principals brought upfour benefits of site-based management in terms of students. These were (a) academic progress, (b) self-esteem, (c) effectiveness, and (d) meeting their needs. This group of principals generated five different benefits of site-based management expressed in terms of parents. Parent involvement was mentioned three times. The benefits that were mentioned once each were (a) maximization of expertise, (b) awareness, (0) support, and (d) cooperation. 169 One benefit mentioned by this group was described in terms of the principals. This was that principals would become more committed to an open, nondefensive style of management. Five benefits of site-based management that were general or applied to the whole school or entire program were (a) freedom from central office restrictions; (b) restructuring; (c) change; (d) a co-partnership of parents, staff, and students; and (e) the opening up of communications channels for all staff members. The last benefit was given by a principal who was the only one to explicitly point out that by staff helshe did not mean just teachers. Other principals in both groups tended to use the words ”staff” and ”teachers” interchangeably. Altogether, the Group II principals mentioned 26 benefits of site-based management in terms of teachers, 4 benefits in terms of students, 7 benefits in terms of parents, 1 benefit in terms of the principal, and 5 benefits in terms of the school. The Group II school principals produced 43 benefits of site-based management in their responses. Without duplication, this same group of principals produced a total of 33 different benefits of site-based management. Wasting]: In your opinion, what are the two orthree most serious problems that site—based management might cause when it is fully implemented? Wags! SQIJQQLA~PrincipaI A said that teachers’ not learning or using consensus could cause splits in buildings that currently were operating satisfactorily. This principal believed that confrontations would result from decision making in buildings 170 where the principal made most of the decisions and teachers were content with that situation at the present time. Rifts that could have been ”kept under wraps" would develop. Principal A stated that some central office staff would be reluctant to "release some of their so-called power that they have now." Helshe went on to say that Flint is "already full of distrust between the administration and teachers,” and it can be seen that further distrust is on the way with site-based management. Principal A stated that there may be some buildings in which the staff and/or principals "simply don’t want it and can't operate in that way.” Helshe commented that some districts had forced site-based management and there had been problems in those buildings “because you, the principal, and/or the teachers simply didn’t want it; weren't ready for it.” Principal A pointed out that people at higher levels in Flint had indicated they did not want to fully enforce site-based management because, in these other districts, ”teachers didn’t function better or did not want to change to function that way.” Another problem this principal saw was the development of hard feelings among staff. The power issue was reiterated: ”Their [central office] level of power control is such that it’s going to be very difficult for them to let go of some of their power.” Principal A added that, upon observing the interplay among the people (central office), one could see that there were (a) some very definite "no buy- ins,‘ (b) others who were ”mouthing and saying" that they had a buy-in, and (c) those who had really bought in to site-based management. Principal A added that there were some who had bought in to parts of it and not other parts of it. 171 ScthB~Principal B’s assistant stated that the possible problems with site- based management would be the time factor (much time being required), competitive aspects, and lack of acceptance. This individual added that the custodians were in favor of site-based management so they ”could tell the principal what to do.” SchoolgnPrincipal C claimed that one problem with site-based management could be negative or unsatisfied parents: On one hand, we welcome parent involvement; on the other hand, we were fearful of some negative parents. There are some people, no matter how good or how well you think things are going, [who] are not satisfied with the program, and those parents, I felt, could have been a detriment. The second problem mentioned by this principal was "time exchange." The additional time that would be required to implement site-based management by the teachers led to this school’s declining to be involved. "They didn't feel that they had the time to devote to the project." ScthnuPrincipal D listed several problems that would occur with site- based management, in his/her opinion: (a) less efficiency because it was easier for one person to decide, (b) lack of time, (c) many people were uncomfortable with it, (d) lack of parameters/parameters nebulous, (9) staff not wanting to be involved in decision making, (f) some staff not wanting to have to do more work, (9) parents may have too much power, (h) staff not in trusting mode with central administration, (i) adversarial relationship between the teachers’ group and the exempt administrative group, and (j) more effort required. 172 ScthE—Principal E claimed that the problems that would occur with site- based management would be (a) apathy in some teachers/unbalanced workload, (b) lack of funds, (c) personalities of the staff/correct matches of right people, (d) unions, (e) the Board, (1') state waivers, (9) unknown obstacles, (h) inadequate resources, (i) different views of the staff, (j) some staff avoiding responsibility, and (k) staff assignments based on tenure and seniority rather than interests, attitudes, and strengths of staff. Scum-Principal F believed thatthe problems that site-based management could cause were (a) lost time on confrontations regarding items not relevant to student achievement (such as wasted time on trivialities like pink or blue walls), (b) power struggles, and (c) a negative atmosphere in the building caused by the power struggles. gamma—Principal G stated that one problem helshe could see developing with site-based management was the negative possibilities from giving teachers power: ”little cliques trying to get someone else out of a certain position or. . . let’s make someone look bad in a certain position.” This principal gave a second problem as too much power for parents: "Parents not education-wise. . . . As far as what would be beneficial for the entire school . . . as opposed to what they think is best for their own individual child.” Principal G saw increased parental power as the precursor to some real problems and something that could "get out of hand.” Helshe added that, when faced with new and innovative programs or different agents or personalities in teaching, parents might be ”narrow-minded" in the sense that they 173 just lack knowledge. Principal G concluded the list of problems with the misuse of power and the misuse of funds. Summary-Group l principals cited 55 problems altogether with site-based management. Seventeen of these problems were in terms of staff's or teachers' negative attitudes or behaviors. Fifteen problems given by these seven principals were in terms of conditions that would be found in the schools. Nine of the problems given made direct reference to power. Six of the problems listed by this group were in terms of parents. In terms of the central office administration, these principals cited five problems. Only one problem was mentioned in terms of resultant needs. None was given in terms of the principals. Other problems these principals cited were (a) competitive aspects, (b) unions, (0) board, (d) state waivers, (e) unknown obstacles, and (f) staff assignments. General themes that emerged throughout all, or most, of the principals’ responses were (a) misuse of, struggles for, or unbalanced power; (b) negative behaviors or attitudes on the part of teachers and staff; and (c) negative conditions in the schools. Three principals in this group mentioned problems in terms of parents, whereas none of the Group ll or site—based principals did so. fimnjhfiitezflased Scthlj—Principal H said that one problem would be the misperception of teachers that "the authority for making the decisions has shifted completely to the teachers.” This principal saw a second problem of low morale developing when staff decided to do something they were enthusiastic about and then downtown (central 174 office) did not approve it. Helshe saw a problem in the staff developing things that were designed for their convenience--to make theirjobs easier—without being sure of the effect on the education of the students. Principal H saw a problem in the district site-based management steering committee to the extent that they disapproved ideas and did not go after state and federal government approval with vigor. Samoan-Principal I claimed that helshe did not know of any problems that site-based management would create, but talked at great length about "issues" involved in site-based management. This principal said that ”with any idealization there will be some kinds that would have to be worked out . . . some things that have to be clarified.” One issue helshe saw was determining what was in the principal’s domain and what was in the domain of site-based management or shared decision making. Principal lemphasized that "there are certain parameters of confidentiality and professionalism that must exist.” This principal believed that a system of checks and balances would be needed, in case the chairperson of a committee was too focal or dominating--in other words. a system to replace a chairperson, if necessary. Another issue this principal brought up for discussion was the assignment and evaluation ofteachers, which helshe thought should be in the principal’s domain, but suspected that teachers might try to interfere in these areas. Principal I saw the need for building a structure that would help "staff members police themselves and have a greater role of dialogue about what they would like to see happen.” Other 175 issues this principal brought up were the need for a time line, the need for periodic evaluations of the problem, and the need for "checkpoints" along the way. SchooLJ—Principal J claimed that power issues were a big problem for a lot of people, but not for him/her. This principal thought it was not an overwhelming problem because there was a dividing line between administrative power and the power that would belong to the governance committee: ”Many decisions will still have to be made by me because it depends on the degree of importance, the time element, and the urgency of the decision." Another problem this principal cited was that ”one or two staff members may get a little bit out of hand, feeling that they’re going to run the show." Principal J pointed out the need for a process leader who would keep the group on task, not let one or two people take over the meeting, and ensure that everyone would get a chance to have their input. Helshe believed that the budget could be a problem because so much inservice would be needed, and that, in ordering instructional supplies, "you really have to be a step ahead of the game.” Scum-Principal K perceived one problem would be that teachers’ inability to see in terms other than their "own room” would hamper the successful implementation of a site-based management program. This principal added that teachers would be thinking in terms of "more power.” Other problems Principal K gave were time restrictions, teachers’ union contract (collective agreement), and lack of resources (including human). 176 SchQQLL—Principal L listed the potential problems as (a) staff disharmony, (b) special-interest groups politicking over issues, (0) lack of support from central administration, and (d) more work from central administration. SchooLM—Principal M believed one problem that would occur would be the "unwillingness of principals to relinquish their prerogatives," which would result in inadequate opportunities for teachers to deal with important issues. Helshe added that the lack of commitment on the principal's part could be another problem; this, too, could lead to unintentional sabotaging of staff efforts to implement site-based management and shared decision making. This principal stated that another problem would be inadequate training of principals, union officials, and teachers in the techniques of participative problem solving. Principal M cited an additional problem helshe called the ”Halloween Syndrome": Teachers are very enthusiastic about the project when they get the original awareness about it; they get involved for the first month, and by October of that first year they go through the "syndrome" because . . . they didn’t have the proper training in . . . techniques [of] . . . communications and conflict resolution. Helshe explained that this syndrome develops when the staff finds out that there are major problems and, because of communication problems, solutions do not come easily. Principal M added that, although a staff may pull out of this awful period, it is also possible that they could become mired there: "You have dissension on the staff; you have a lot of major problems that there might have been there undercover, hidden, but because of the process . . . it comes out.” Related to this idea, the principal added the problems of personalities and lack of clarification. 177 Principal M cited another problem as being inadequate dissemination of site- based management concepts, and principles and practices from one part of the school organization to the rest of the district. Helshe mentioned a number of problems relating to central office staff: (a) uncoordinated effort results in chaos, (b) wasted time results in disgruntled people, (c) power struggles, and (d) shift from a role of control to one of support from central office staff. Principal M saw that the major changes in communication styles that would be required would lead to extra work and a little stress. SchooLN—Principal N stated that one problem that would occur was difficulty in the areas of allocation of resources and redistribution of current resources. Helshe gave the example of a site—based committee developing a program that depends on a particular staff position, and then the central administrative office eliminates that position; this would cause a major problem then in the school’s plan. Another problem that this principal saw was that the "folks downtown“ might cling to the strict staff line relationships of a traditional bureaucratic model. Related to this would be the problem of the gulf between what was being purported or "mouthed” and what was really believed or in reality was happening. Teachers would have fears based on experience with this 'gulf" in the past. Principal N perceived that other problems that might occur were (a) difficulty obtaining waivers, (b) lack of concrete parameters, (c) wasted time and energy when plans are stopped by the central office staff, (d) teachers’ mistrust of central office staff, (e) unrealistic expectations of central office (do more and more with fewer and 178 fewer resources), (0 unwise use of power by staff (because of lack of experience or knowledge), (9) confusion relating to authority or veto power of principal and (h) need for much more guidance of teachers due to their expanded role, especially in matters with legal implications. Summary-Group ll principals cited 63 problems arising from the implementation of site-based management altogether. Nineteen of these problems were in terms of staff’s or teachers' negative attitudes or behaviors. Fourteen problems cited by these seven principals were in terms of the central administration office or central site-based steering committee. Eight problems were in terms of conditions that would be found in the schools. Group II principals described 12 problems as resultant needs. Six problems cited by this group were in terms of power or authority. Other problems listed by these principals were (a) allocation of resources, (b) redistribution of resources, (0) assignments of teachers, (d) evaluation of teachers, and (e) budget. General themes that emerged throughout all, or most, of the principals' responses were (a) need for clarification, (b) need for parameters, (c) central administration, (d) misuse of or struggles for power, and (9) negative behavior or attitudes on the part of teachers or staff. Twelve problems were mentioned in terms of needs by these principals, compared to one given by the other group of principals. 179 Won}: At the present time for the building you are assigned to, what are the most important tasks facing you as a principal? WM SchmuPrincipal A stated that the most important task helshe addressed was instructional leadership. Teachers had been inserviced in the new definition of reading, and starting the next year they would be inserviced on the new math. This principal added that, operationally, instructional leadership was not the most important task; keeping the building safe and organized, and keeping the environment academically conducive, were the most important tasks. Related to this, conflict resolution was cited as the third most important task. This principal said that helshe spent much time dealing with parents in terms of not only teacher problems, but problems between students. This principal reported that helshe also spent a great deal of time talking with students: "I spend a great deal of my time talking to kids. Not only problems that parents come to me with, problems that kids come to me with, in order to . . . try to do some . . . conflict resolution type of things.” Principal A claimed that the two operational tasks took most of his/her available time, but clarified that under ”instructional lead ership" many things were involved, such as: Looking at test scores, looking at textbook material, curriculum material, looking at kids’ pacing, looking at placement of kids, looking at ways to reach kids that are having problems that teachers and I discuss, setting building goals with staff in terms of where we want to be in terms of curriculum. This principal said that, because helshe believed so strongly in the importance of instructional leadership and had focused on it, some parents were unhappy because they thought the focus should have been on obtaining computers for the school. 180 SghogLB»No response to this question was obtained as the principal was not available. The assistant principal provided some feedback in other areas. Scum-Principal C stated that the most important task helshe addressed was implementing a strong academic program, making sure that all staff members were adhering to district policies in terms of meeting grade-level objectives and selected objectives for promotion. The second most important task this principal reportedly addressed was in the area of justice, human or civil rights: "I see myself as a facilitator in terms of making sure that all students are treated fairly and equally. . . . Magnet students are treated just as neighborhood youngsters." Principal C claimed to be committed to the concept of the magnet school and stated, ”If we’re going to be a magnet school, . . . it’s my responsibility to see that we run an effective magnet school and that magnet students are treated just as any neighborhood student would be treated.” When asked whether there were any priority areas in the area of implementing a strong academic program, Principal C said that the “main thing is our effective school team . . . and one of the things that we felt impedes education is behavior.“ This principal said that, because of this, they had some behavior- modification-conoept programs in operation, which they believed were working really well. Helshe stated: We spend a lot of time on the aspect of if you do the right things in school, you will do better academically, and we find the youngsters, the majority of youngsters that do not do well have some type of behavior problem. That’s what we’re working on. 181 SchooLD—Principal D claimed that the biggest task or problem helshe faced was discipline. This principal stated, "We spend an inordinate amount of time handling discipline and student relationship problems, family problems, and you don’t have the time to spend on many of the other things like academics.“ Principal D believed the reason for this situation was lack of staff: ”Wejust don’t have enough people to handle all the problems that we have to handle.“ Principal D explained that, if elementary schools were staffed like the middle and high schools with deputy principals, assistant principals, and counselors, these problems could be addressed effectively. The next task this principal cited was running the school lunch program, which helshe also saw as not being adequately staffed. Scum-Principal E asserted that one major task was handling discipline in an effective. yet positive, way. Another major task this principal expressed was trying to find solutions for parental apathy or increasing parental involvement and interest. Helshe said that the third major task was increasing the school’s relationships with social agencies as a way of helping students: I am real frustrated with . . . the lack of social agencies within the Flint community to support the schools. . . . We are probably one of the highest referred schools for protective services. . . . We all know that Mott Children’s Health Center has a six-month waiting list. There is no way that we can continue to do the things that we are doing with all the social problems that are in the community unless we are helped from the community agencies. The fourth task this principal mentioned was providing parents with parenting skills that helshe believed they did not have. Principal E then expressed that the major task was 'increasing myself to about five different people“ and filling roles that schools should not have to do but are forced to do in this day and age—that is, 182 meeting the parental problems. Principal E believed that to ignore parental problems was ”ridiculous” and to get them counseling requires working together more closely. SgbooljuPrincipal F claimed that the most important tasks facing him/her were the same as the three benefits mentioned in response to Question 1. Paraphrased, these would be (a) to improve students' academic and citizenship progress, (b) to improve classroom control for more student on-task behavior, and (c) to increase and improve parent involvement. Scum-Principal G stated that one of the most important tasks helshe faced was instruction: ”When I say instruction, I'm thinking in terms of actually getting teachers to change some of their methods of teaching lessons and using some of the more recent techniques that researchers have proven to be effective.“ Principal G said that the redefinition of reading was an important area because test scores overall were down; helshe said School G should be ”out in front” in this area because it was a magnet school for reading. Principal G believed in a gradual but systematic change over to the new techniques. This principal claimed that the second important task that had to be addressed was discipline: '[ln] discipline l’m thinking in terms of techniques used in a classroom as well as things that I can do myself, and there are various people out here doing inservices.” Summary—Group l principals gave approximately 34 tasks. An approximate number is given because sometimes a given task was called a subtask of a major task, and the researcher had to determine whether it constituted one or two tasks for 183 comparative purposes. These principals submitted approximately 11 separate task concepts; these were (a) improving the teachers or staff; (b) working with the parents or community; (0) dealing with or improving student discipline, attitude, character, or behavior; (d) improving academic achievement, (9) adjusting for lack of resources or staff, (f) providing academic environment (organized and safe building), (9) ensuring implementation of district policies and objectives, (h) ensuring equal treatment of all students, (i) making the magnet program successful, (j) dealing with and trying to solve social problems, and (k) working with the lunch program. The most important tasks mentioned by principals in Group I schools are shown in Table 4.12. The responses of six principals were used for this interview question. W SchmuPrincipal H said that the most important task helshe faced was dealing with the very high retention rate, which was approximately 18%. This principal believed this problem was caused by such high family mobility and the promotion-requirement system that currently was in place In the district. Solutions suggested were to (a) change the rules regarding promotion, (b) change how promotions were done, and (0) develop a different set of criteria (simpler for students to pass). Principal H stated that another important task in School H was providing opportunities for students who were being retained to attend summer school. 184 Table 4.12: Group I principals’ most important tasks. Task Area Times Mentioned By Number of Principals Student behavior 9 6 Staff improvement 6 3 Parent 8 community 5 3 Academic achievement 3 2 Adjusting/lack of resources 8. 3 2 staff Academic environment 1 1 District policies & objectives 1 1 Equal treatment of students 1 1 Magnet success 1 1 Social problems 1 1 Lunch program 1 1 This principal added that, after the retention rate, parent involvement was the most important task. Because the leadership fell on the principal, helshe said that there was a need to find active parent leadership: "We do have the parent involvement; it’s not the parent involvement per se. It’s the leadership of the parent involvement.” Principal H complained that, just when they began to have effective parent leaders for the parent advocacy program, those parents left, moved, or went someplace. Then, the principal said, "you have to start all over again.“ Scum-Principal I asserted that the most important task was improving the institution, which, in turn, improved the end product, the children. Within this broad 185 task, this principal named three important subtasks: (a) improving student attendance, (b) improving student achievement, and (c) improving student aptitude. Another important task that Principal I discussed was improving students’ motivation to want to be in school, to want to get along, and to want to do their best. In addition, Principal l declared that teacher motivation was an important task also-- to get teachers to want to take on a challenge and to be the best that they could be. The last important task mentioned by this principal was that of character development. Character is a crucial element of achievement and transfers directly to success in the job market. SchQQLJ—Principal J asserted that one of the most important tasks helshe faced was instructional leadership, but helshe went on to say that not much time was available for working with the teachers, observing the teachers, and giving them verbal recommendations. Principal J said that sitting down and talking with teachers was not something there was time to do, but added that they did have their monthly grade-level meetings at which many problems were solved. The second most important task this principal listed was discipline, where the majority of his/her time was spent: ”I spend 75% of my time on discipline—discipline, parents and reports; it should be 75% of the time on instruction. and discipline, parents, and reports should be the other 25%" (emphasis added). Principal J claimed that, when paddling went out, discipline problems increased a little. This principal discussed paddling, which helshe saw as a last resort, but also as being effective. Also discussed were alternatives to paddling that were being used. 186 In addition to maintaining good instruction and good discipline, Principal J asserted that maintaining good relationships with parents was another important task. This principal said that it was his/her job not only to tell them that they were welcome, but also to make them "feel” welcome, wanted, and needed. Several strategies for handling parents effectively were offered. Principal J extended the concept of positive feelings to students when stating his/her main priority: If they’re attentive . . . here every day . . . follow the school rules and listen to their teachers, they will achieve. If they’re here, they can learn; they cannot learn if they are staying home. . . . We’re here for them; we have all the different things that will enhance the regular program to help them achieve. . . . I want them to feel, when they walk through the door, that they know they’re going to have a positive day and when they leave, they will have learned something. SchooLK-Frincipal K stated that the most important tasks helshe dealt with were (a) reducing peer pressure, (b) helping children to grow up, (0) promoting good manners, (d) "selling” education, (e) developing parenting skills in parents, (0 promoting community literacy in general, and (g) holding fund-raisers. Scum-Principal L claimed that the most important tasks helshe faced were working in the areas of (a) achievement, (b) discipline, (0) community involvement, (d) staff cut-backs, and (e) budget restraints. SQDQQLM—Principal M declared that the most important tasks he dealt with were (a) promoting teamwork among the school improvement council and also the rest of the staff members; (b) providing essential training to the school improvement council and also other staff members; (c) evaluating the school improvement council as well as all other building activities; and (d) providing information to the school improvement team, appropriate subcommittees, and the staff in general. This 187 principal added that, in the area of essential training, the focus was on training in (a) group dynamics, (b) consensus-building techniques, (c) conflict resolution, (d) communication, and (e) teamwork. For the task of providing information, this principal was concerned about the staffs perception of his/her withholding information. Principal M believed that "a principal must saturate the council, or the governing body, with information. . . . I think it's far better for the [council] to have too much information, and let them decide for themselves . . . what information’s needed.” Principal M said that information came to the principals in a very "piecemeal process.” The problem was reiterated as "the problem is . . . unlimited information. I have to get them a lot more.” SchQQLN-Frincipal N stated that his major task in the building was to have his/her staff work together like a “family.” In this regard, helshe stated that the staff should not only have a shared mission, and operate at an intellectual level, but operate at an ”emotional level, where they in fact develop a . . . recommitment to their profession . . . and recognize the individual differences of other staff members." Principal N gave another important task as obtaining more parental and community involvement with the school. This principal also expressed his desire to see staff act in a more professional mode; he believed that their primary interaction was of a social nature. Summary-Group ll principals gave approximately 35 tasks. An approximate number is given because sometimes a given task was called a subtask of a major task, and the researcher had to determine whether it constituted one or two tasks for comparative purposes. These principals submitted approximately eight separate 188 task concepts; these were (a) improving the teachers or staff; (b) working with the parents or community; (c) dealing with or improving student discipline, attitude, character, or behavior; (d) improving academic achievement; (9) adjusting for lack of resources or staff; (f) dealing with attendance of students; (9) evaluating the school program; and (h) providing information. Group II principals’ most important tasks are shown in Table 4.13. The responses of seven principals were used forthis interview question. Table 4.13: Group II principals’ most important tasks. Task Area Times Mentioned By Number of Principals Staff improvement 10 4 Student behavior 8 4 Parent & community 6 4 Academic achievement 5 3 Adjusting/lack of resources 8. 2 1 staff Student attendance 1 Evaluation of program 1 1 Providing information 1 1 L~—_——_-.=_—- WW: Why do you believe your staff decided as they did about whether or not to adopt site-based management? WW Scum-Principal A responded by saying that two or three staff members told him/her that they would vote whatever way helshe was going to vote. This 189 principal told them it was really their decision. Principal A told them that they should attend the presentation to find out more about it. The staff discussed the positives and negatives; they had some negatives such as ”time spent.“ Initially, said this principal, the vote was two-thirds in favor of "looking into it," but at the end it was a "resounding up," with almost two-thirds of them voting the other way. Aftenlvards, reported Principal A, two or three staff members came up and said: We don’t want you to think that we don’t think it’s a good idea, but we don't think it’s going to change much in the way that the building operates; you already come to us and ask our opinion about the things that you can, and we feel that when you don’t ask our opinion that you probably won't get much choice anyway. They also said that they did not think it would be much benefit for the amount of time they would have to spend on it. From this, Principal A suspected and predicted that they would vote it down. Principal A reported that helshe had a good relationship with the staff and added that a union grievance had not been filed for many years. Also reported was that the union president had not been in the building for that same number of years and that the building was not union oriented. Principal A went on to clarify by saying, "I don’t mean everybody’s super happy here. . . . Some people are obviously not happy about everything.” SchoolfiaAssistant Principal B provided some information as the principal left him/her to cover the appointment. Helshe stated that the concept or program of site- based management ”came at Flint all of a sudden.“ Assistant Principal B added that there were many questions with no answers. Helshe believed that, in the case of 190 School C, the decision had to do with the fact that that school was presently involved in an Effective Schools program and so the timing was bad. Assistant Principal B stated that at School B the staff thought they did not want to “compete" to become a site-based school because that would possibly be a waste of time. Also reported was that staff at School B were real 'go-getters” and could have done an excellent job, but they saw this as a "serious innovation,“ one that would take much time to think about. Helshe said that the Miami group that presented was unable to answer some key questions. There were also two programs with no common strand. Many people commented on this, helshe reported. Assistant Principal B said helshe believed that low morale may have led to some staff members’ desires for site-based management. Helshe said that a social worker said that schools were for it where the staff did not get much input. Last, this administrator said that custodians wanted site-based management so that they could tell the principal what to do. SchooLcuPrincipal C claimed that there were two reasons why his/her staff voted not to get involved with site-based management. The first reason was that they believed they were already doing a lot of things that were part of site-based management through the Effective Schools program. Principal C stated that they were already involved in the decision-making process, and one of the things that his/her staff kept saying while at the informational meetings was "We’re already doing that." The other reason presented by Principal C was the time restraints that would be put on people. The staff at School C did not want to put in that kind of 191 extra time; they believed that, to make site-based management work, much extra time would be required. Principal C added that, although there were some things in programs that they would have liked to have initiated through site-based management, they thought it would not warrant spending ”that kind of time.” Principal C added that the staff were hard-working; they put in a lot of extra time as it was, and they enjoyed any additional time they could spend on it. Principal C stated that helshe was in favor of the program and everyone knew this, but they also knew helshe was leaving the decision up to them. The staff had voted to go to all the meetings and at least pursue it, but after hearing all the pros and cons, they voted against the program with a very close vote. Helshe said the inservice was held at Bosley’s and the presenters were from Kentucky. SchooLD--Principal D stated that he thought the staff felt like "this was a rush- rush thing—that somebody had a grant and therefore we had to run into this." Another reason helshe gave for the staff voting not to get involved in site-based management was that 'theyjust didn’t have enough answers.” Principal D said that, when they asked the folks who would be providing the answers, their response often was, 'Well, we don’t know that yet.“ Principal D informed the researcher that they had the president of the teachers’ union and a member of the exempt administration visit their school and share their views. They also had three representatives attend the inservices, who brought back information to share. One vote made the difference in the outcome of deciding not to participate. This principal added, "I think it was fear 192 of the unknown as much as . . . we had some folks that were just extremely interested . . . but we had enough others that were fearful or whatever.” SchoolfinPrincipal E asserted that one of the reasons School E decided not to be involved in site-based management was fear of the unknown. Although this principal was a change-loving, impulsive leader, helshe stated, the staff did vote against the program anyway because "there was a lot of apprehension and fear." Because their present school council met after school hours and the staff had their own families that required time, they chose not to make this commitment. In addition to fear of the unknown, time commitment, and family time commitment, this principal added fear of change and apathy to the list of reasons, but said the vote was close. One complaint Principal E had in this regard was: “It really drives me crazy because when you start talking about making a change, people naturally look at themselves first; how is this going to affect me?" Some of the factors Principal E saw coming into play here were (a) being confident and secure in what you are doing, (b) human nature to resist change, and (c) trust among one’s own peers. This principal intended to do some of the same things by continuing with the school council. Helshe commented that those who were already serving on the school council were in favor of becoming site-based. Because School E voted it down, they just would not have the sanctions from ”downtown.” ScthLE-Principal F stated that this school voted ”no,” then "yes,’ and then became hesitant again. The reasons the staff declined involvement, according to 193 this principal, were (a) time problems and constraints. (b) too many meetings after school hours, (c) some teachers and staff had second-job commitments or classes, (d) the superior teachers were not available, and (e) the make-up of the school. By make-up of the school, this principal meant the open, no-walls type of building in which, helshe stated, ”You’re 'on' the minute you walk in." Presently, they were using a majority vote of the entire staff to make decisions. SchQQLG-Principal G declared that the reason his/her staff voted down site- based management was they already had the opportunity that site-based management would provide: ”They have the input that they would basically have with site-based management. Decisions are usually made as a group as much as possible. I only make administrative decisions when it is absolutely necessary for such to be done.” Principal G added that the staff felt “ownership" and did not need site-based management to tell them that they had ownership. This principal said that the staff already had empowerment to do what they wanted, to some extent, and they knew it. Principal G also reported that decisions were made by a staff discussion, and then a simple majority vote decided the question. Helshe would then go for consensus by trying to get the minority voters to ”give it a try.” SummamuPrincipals from the Group I schools offered approximately 52 reasons for why they thought their staffs had decided not to become site-based schools. Of the seven principals from Group I schools who responded, six of them gave some aspect of time as being a reason their staffs had decided not to go into the site-based program. They presented this issue in terms of (a) not enough time, 194 (b) bad timing, (c) waste of time, (d) needing ”think" time, (e) time restraints, (f) time constraints, (9) time problems, (h) needing extra time, (i) meetings after school requiring additional time, and (j) family time, graduate classes time, and time of second-job commitments competing for required time. Two principals from this group claimed that being ”rushed" into it was a reason for a negative decision; they spoke in terms of its being a “rush-rush thing,” and that they felt "rushed into it.” Two other principals from this group brought up the concept of a poor investment-return ratio in terms of time as being a reason; they said that, for the amount of extra time that would be invested, the benefits would not be significant enough to warrant it. Altogether, this group made 18 different references to time. Five principals from this group stated that a reason for declining site-based management was that their schools were "already doing it.“ They spoke in terms of Effective Schools being the same thing, already having a governance council, or already having input. One of these principals gave this as the only reason; helshe spoke in terms of (a) we are already doing it, (b) we have shared decision making, (0) they already have ownership, (d) they do not need site-based management, and (6) they already are empowered. In all, the concept of "already doing it" was touched on 10 times. Two principals from Group I schools gave the lack of answers as a reason. Four comments regarding confusing presenters, not enough answers, and inability to answer the questions were given. Positive qualities of the staffs were mentioned by three of the principals as a reason; they described (a) excellent staff, (b) go- 195 getters, (0) good relationship with the principal, (d) lack of union problems, (e) hard- working staff, and (0 staff enjoys extra time they put in. Less-desirable staff qualities were mentioned by three principals; these included (a) fear of the unknown (mentioned by two principals), (b) apprehension, (0) fear of change, (d) apathy, (e) lack of confidence, (f) lack of security, (9) human nature resisting change, (h) lack of peer trust, and (i) the attitude of "telling the principal what to do.“ It should be noted that all but two of these qualities were cited by one respondent. Other reasons offered by Group I principals were (a) the competitive nature of writing the proposal. (b) a very serious innovation, (c) somebody had a grant, (d) the principal was impulsive and loved change, (e) the open make-up of the school, and (f) superior teachers were not available. One respondent added that he/she thought that the low morale in some other schools was why the staffs had voted ”yes.” This principal also thought that the lack of input at these other schools was another reason they had voted in favor of site- based management. W scum-Principal H stated that School H teachers were really interested in doing a better job and that they saw a lot of stumbling blocks from the board of education and the central administration level in dealing with trying to solve the problems. Helshe reported that the staff were very pleased with the fact that they 196 had become involved in site-based management. Another reason Principal H gave was the influence of competition: When it was a competitive type of thing, competing against other schools, . . . we wanted to make sure if we’re going to get in it that we were successful doing it, so they spent many, many hours writing that proposal and had a pride in the fact that they thought that they could beat out somebody else in writing the proposal. So, there was a . . . competitiveness to it. I think had a lot to do with it, but there still is that basic issue of mistrust between the teachers and the Board and the central administration; you see it all the time. Principal H continued to mention this idea of mistrust throughout his/her response to this research question. Helshe stated that there had been a very poor labor history in the city of Flint: ”There was a past labor history that we have that’s gone back to 1965 that’s been characterized by long, bitter strikes. . . . There is a lot of . . . suspicions about the intent of the Board.” Principal H added that a lot of people did not want to even try because they believed the Board had a hidden agenda in all of this. SchQLl-Principal I claimed that the reasons for this school deciding to participate in site-based management were (a) his/her excitement about it, (b) his/her good attitude had a ripple effect on the staff, and (c) the staff was pleased with him/her. This principal said that if the staff had been unhappy with his/her leadership, they could have come together on this issue, but rather "They come together because they are very pleased with me. They’re the ones who must do the job. All I’m going to do is provide a support base and then to try to make a good climate as best as it can possibly be for what we want to do." This principal also stated that helshe knew that some of the staff had been overwhelmed and surprised 197 that helshe would support site-based management because of his/her leadership style. Samoa-Principal J asserted that one reason the staff had decided to participate in site-based management was that they liked a challenge. Principal J also stated that his/her staff was very flexible. Also, they were willing to discuss any problems or concerns and work together in a positive fashion. This principal believed the staff was with him/her "all the way.” ”If it’s something for children and I present it to them and they know it’s going to be the best for [School J] and for the continuance of the education in the building, they’re behind me 100%." This principal spoke at length about their introduction to the subject of site-based management, their early meetings, and their extensive planning and proposal writing. Also addressed at great length by this principal were the positive strengths and qualities of the teaching staff and other staff. According to Principal J, the staff were "workaholics,’ who worked at each other’s homes on weekends and sometimes until six or seven in the evenings after school. In addition, the staff were cooperative, positive, and excited throughout the period of developing the proposal. This principal stated that helshe knew of two fellow principals who were very "gung- ho" about site-based management, but their staffs turned it down, so Principal J felt good because his/her staff was a "different kind of staff" and voted 100% in favor of site-based management. Principal J also said that the staff knew that helshe would not only listen, but would react immediately to help them solve their problems. Last, 198 this principal offered that helshe thought that the loss of many of their students to magnet schools, and consequently the loss of some staff, had propelled the staff to want to come up with a very exciting program that would draw students back to School J. MKuPrincipal K declared that one reason the staff at School K had decided to go with site-based management was that they desired more input into what was going on in the school and school system, and this program would be an opportunity to have more input. Helshe believed that there were some on the staff who may have been feeling so empowered with the possibility of site-based management that they had an overly inflated concept as to the extent of their input: ”There are a few who think they’re going to run the whole show,“ helshe said. Principal K said that that would never happen; teachers had to be in their rooms during instructional time, so committee chairpersons could not be going in and out of their rooms all the time. This principal indicated that the very demographics of the situation would help hold things in check. Principal K believed that some staff then were wrongly holding notions about their expansion of power. The last reason the principal of School K offered was that the staff believed that it was a good idea to get in ”on the ground floor” and have some time to "work the kinks out.“ It had also been in their minds that they would have to get into site- based management eventually anyway, so they had decided to "jump on the bandwagon.” 199 SQhQQLL—Principal L stated that the reason his/her staff had decided to become a site-based school was that their magnet program staff had been involved with planning and they enjoyed working as a team. ScthIM—Principal M claimed that the reasons his/her staff had decided to officially become a site-based school were (a) desire by staff for autonomy; (b) seeking control over one's work; (0) need for empowerment; (d) wanting freedom from textbook publishers, test publishers, and central office mandates; (e) need to have curriculum set by local educators meeting the needs of the loml community; (f) need for more professionalism; (g) desire for fulfillment, through working as a team, of needs for interpersonal relationships in the workplace; (h) willingness to make a time commitment; (i) desire to improve the climate and morale in the school; and (j) staff's desire to improve their own self-esteem. When reflecting on the reasons offered so far, Principal M declared, ”We can’t say there’s one specific reason," but then helshe went on to say: Site-based management is the umbrella of all other restructuring programs, so staff saw that there were some things we could not do under or in Effective Schools that we could do in the site-based; classic example is the waivers. We can ask waivers from the board of education, from the superintendent, from the state department and from the federal government. . . . We could not do [that] in the other projects in restructuring. . . . They saw the opportunity. ScthNuPrincipal N claimed that the reasons his/her staff had decided to become a site-based school were (a) preparation of the staff on his/her part, (b) his/her ability to foresee this event coming, and (c) the staff’s realization that current methods were not adequate to improve test scores significantly. This principal 200 explained that, when grade-level meetings had been conducted a year before this event, helshe had begun to prepare the staff by giving them the prior knowledge and a basis for adopting site-based management. Principal N believed that preparing the staff had been a key factor in their affirmative decision, as well as helping them recognize that change was needed. Principal N did not believe the district inservice meetings had a major effect on the decision, but said they may have allayed some of staff members’ fears somewhat. SummaryuThe principals in Group I offered approximately 52 reasons why they thought their staffs had decided not to participate in the site-based program. In contrast, the principals from the Group II schools gave approximately 36 reasons for why they thought their staffs had decided to become site-based schools. Three of these principals offered reasons that related to themselves, such asthe principal's (a) excitement about the program, (b) good attitude toward the program, (c) preparation of the staff beforehand, (d) ability to see ”the writing on the wall,” and (6) being pleasing to the staff. Five of these principals suggested reasons in terms of good qualities or characteristics of the staff. These were that the staff (a) liked competition, (b) wanted to do a better job, (0) liked a challenge, (d) were flexible, (9) were willing to be open, (f) were willing to work together, (9) were workaholics, (h) enjoyed working as a team, (i) were willing to make a time commitment, and (j) realized they needed to improve methods. 201 Two principals cited the need to be free of obstacles as a reason; these were (a) the staff saw many stumbling blocks from the board of education and the central administration, (b) they wanted freedom from publishers’ and central office's mandates, (c) they needed freedom from curriculum controls that restrict local curriculum development, and (d) they wanted the ability to get waivers from board, union, federal, and state regulations. These reasons could also be categorized as the desire for empowerment. In the area of empowerment, these same two principals as well as another one gave these reasons: (a) staff desire for more input, (b) overestimation of how much input they would actually have, (c) desire for autonomy, (d) desire for control over their work, and (e) need for empowerment. Three principals from Group II presented reasons that had to do with the previous experience of the staff in matters relating to site-based management. Only one principal from this group gave a reason that was directly related to time; that was his/her staff's willingness to make a time commitment. Two made a casual reference, such as ”time to work the kinks out” and time spent preparing the staff ”ahead of time.” Four Group II principals gave reasons that had to do with the improvement or benefit of teachers and staff. These had to do with needs or desires for (3) improved self-esteem; (b) better morale or climate; (0) better interpersonal relationships at work; (d) fulfillment at work; (e) more professionalism, (f) more teamwork, which they enjoy; (9) increasing staff in building; (h) advantage of ”getting 202 in on the ground floor"; (i) autonomy; (j) more control over work; and (k) empowerment. The last three reasons were referred to earlier, as was the sixth one. Other reasons given by this group were (a) by getting in early, there will be time to get the kinks outnmight as well get in on the ground floor as we will have to get in later anyway; (b) mistrust between the teachers and the board and the central administration; and (c) combatting enrollment declines. W: What is your philosophy at the present time about campus decision making? A. The principal makes the decisions, generally, and informs the staff of all decisions affecting them. B. Generally the principal makes the plans and decisions and keeps the staff informed of them. C. The principal keeps the staff informed of any pending plans and decisions so they may make comments and suggestions, generally, before helshe makes the decisions. D. The principal generally has the staff participate in decision making, with the understanding that the principal will make the final decision. E. The principal has the staff participate in decision making, generally, and when helshe feels that it is appropriate, gives the staff latitude to make certain decisions. F. The principal generally has the staff participate in decision making, with the latitude to make decisions which affect them directly. WW thmLAuPrincipal Asaid his/her philosophy regarding decision making was one of the bottom three options, probably "E." However, this principal continued, “it’s not always the understanding that I make the final decision because if there’s 203 a decision the staff can make and I let them make the decision, even ifl don’t like what they’ve made, I stick by their decision.“ SchooLB-No response was available from Assistant Principal B, who kept the principal’s appointment with the researcher. SchoolQ~Principal C claimed his/her philosophy regarding decision making was somewhere in the "C-D-E" range, probably "D.“ ScthD~Principal D claimed to practice philosophy "F" in most things, and ”E" in others. This principal said that the staff almost always participated in decision making. Helshe added that, in areas where there would be disagreement, such as in room assignments, helshe made the decision. Principal D stated that, in these cases, ”Somebody has to call the tough shot; . . . you get the input you can get; then I have to make the decision." SchmuPrincipal E stated that his/her philosophy on decision making was between 'D" and "E” at the present time. Helshe said, "I’ve alwaysinvolved staff in decisions that were made with the understanding that l have the final decision.“ This statement would actually indicate a position of ”D" on the scale. Principal E stated that the office was his/her domain, and, for instance, once a student is sent to the office, the decision making is now in his/her hands; "Don’t tell me you don’t want to suspend [the student]” after you have sent him to the office. This principal indicated that sometimes some latitude was given, but in certain things like the preceding example, helshe should have the final say. 204 SchooLE—This school’s principal said helshe practiced the decision-making philosophy of 'D" and 'E" at the present time. Principal F stated it was 50/50 between 'D" and ”E.” gem-Principal G claimed that his/her philosophy of decision making at the present time was 'C,‘ ”D," and ”E,” depending on what decision had to be made. This principal said that helshe gave the staff latitude to make certain kinds of decisions. Examples of areas in which this principal gave latitude are: (a) What time do you want to have a particular activity? (b) What do we want to include in this particular program? and (c) How many of these objectives do we want to cover this marking period? This principal stated that there were other areas in which one had to ”draw the line”-in which the principal must make the decision. Principal G declared, "I want your input. I want to hear what you have to tell. I want to know what your feelings are. . . . But if it’s my decision, I’m going to make it because I feel that I should. I feel that I can do it." Summary-None of the Group I principals said that they clearly held just one of the listed philosophies. Most qualified their responses by saying such things as ”sometimes,” “usually," “depending on the circumstances,” and "probably." When the researcher assigned a phil030phy by averaging three responses, four determinations were made. A determination based on a statement was made in the case of Principal E. In one instance, the principal gave two philosophies but said it was 'mostly" one, so a determination was based on the word “mostly.” In the case of the principal who said '50150,” no determination was made. This process yielded . \fr‘i.fltlfi 205 a summary of data as follows: Three principals identified ”D,” one principal identified "D/E,” one principal identified ”E,” and one principal identified "F." W ScthIfi—Principal H stated that the philosophy he/she used for decision making at the present time was not in the list of choices, but if one had to be selected it would be 'D.‘ Principal H explained that the clause ”with the understanding that the principal will make the final decision” was not accurate. Principal H went on to say: "I don’t make the final decision. . . . I don’t make any decisions under site-based that the staff hasn't bought into, and likewise, the staff doesn’t make any decision that I don’t buy into.” Salmon—Principal I claimed that his/her approach to decision making was a combination of the responses and exclaimed, “I don’t even want to pick one!‘ This principal finally said that, generally speaking, he/she was ”B.” This was quickly qualified by the addition of "B and C, I think. . . . I might be an A." Principal l asserted that helshe never scrutinized himself/herself too much because there were plenty of people to do that for him/her. This principal commented, 'I have had quite a bit of involvement as far as allowing staff members to do a whole lot of things because I think I must be astute enough to have people involved in doing certain things and then I can do pretty much what I want to do anyway." SchQQlJ—Principal J stated that this question was very difficult. This principal then said, "I'm C, D, and E, okay?” Helshe went on to share some philosophy 206 regarding keeping the staff informed, and then concluded by stating, 'So C, D, and E; you just have to lump them all together." ScthK~Principal K stated that his/her philosophy of decision making at the present time was "D,’ but that it had been 'C” up until recently. SchooLL—Principal L stated that his/her philosophy of decision making at the present time was generally "E.” However, helshe said that "in some things directed from central administration,” ”B” was used. SQDQQLM—Principal M declared emphatically that "F is the one I believe in; F is the one I am thinking about.” Helshe later added that, "for questions 5 and 6, F is my answer no matter what.” Principal M clarified his/her philosophy further: As an administrator I can be autocratic because the Board of Education says you have to do this. . . . I can be a democratic principal, which we’re talking about when it comes to site-based, shared decision-making process and so forth, and I can also be Iaissez-faire, which is what ”F” is all about. ”Staff, here’s some areas you can work on, here’s your latitude. . . . You have all the information you [need] . . . now go for it. I’m not going to look over your shoulder and see if you’re doing it." Principal M stated also that 'F" was ideal. SQDQQLN—Principal N claimed that his/her philosophy of decision making at the present time was ”C,“ ”D,” and "E.” Principal N added that helshe had a ' management style that could be described as either “C" or "D." This principal commented that most teachers were used to an autocratic type of management style and that they might be uncomfortable with 'C" and ”D." Summary—One of the Group II principals made a very clear choice from the six philosophic options. Most of these principals qualified or were somewhat 207 indecisive in their responses. One principal did make a clear statement of choice on 'F.‘ When the researcher assigned a philosophic designation by averaging spans of three designations offered by two principals, it could be summarized that three principals identified 'D” as their decision-making philosophies. Similarly, by averaging the three-designation span of one other principal, in summary one principal selected choice “B.” In the case of the principal who had always philosophized 'C" until recently, when helshe changed to "D,” a determination of 'C" was given. In the case of the principal who selected two nonconsecutive choices to cover two different circumstances, the choices were averaged, resulting in a designation of "C/D.” WM: Using the same scale above, from A to F, what do you feel should be the philosophy of a principal in a school where site-based management is being implemented? W593! SghooLA-Principal A reported that the philosophy of a principal in a school implementing site-based management should be ”F." However, this principal did not believe personnel decisions such as evaluations and reprimands should be included in that decision-making process. Helshe also indicated that there was a problem with 'F” and alluded to mistakes being made, but tempered that with the idea that teachers “can learn by making their mistakes." ScthB-No response was made available. 208 SchooLC—Frincipal C stated that his/her philosophy regarding decision making as it should be in a school implementing site-based management would be 'E.‘ SghQQLD~Principal D said that the philosophy of a principal in a school implementing site-based management in regard to decision making would still be 'E” to 'F" from what helshe understood about site-based management. This principal stated: There are still those things contractually that you have to live up to. In many ways it’s more comfortable when you have lots of input and lots of help in the decision making. [Yet] there are those kinds of decisions that have to be made that you can gather all your input, but it comes down to what you finally decide. SchQLEuPrincipal E claimed that he/she would stay with the same philosophy presently being used, between "D" and "E.” Then this principal modified that position by stating, "I probably should be down in ’F’ and maybe I am at some point.” When this principal presented his/her ideas about fund raising to the staff in an effort to get direction from them, helshe was met with more input that actually desired: But they were ready to give me a decision about what they wanted me to do for fund raising. In the back of my mind I’m thinking, ”I don’t know if I want them to tell me what I can do for fund raising. . . ." I’ve always handled the fund raising and said teachers get 50% of it. . . . And when l have fund raisers, I never. . . involved teachers in that. . . . It was all handled external of the teacher. . . . I’m more than willing to share decisions, but there are some in the back of my mind that are still kind of sacred to me. One of them is getting money for the school. SC lh be Sit Se Illa 209 SghooLE—Principal F had previously stated that helshe would be at 'D/E” on the scale, but now stated that helshe W under ideal conditions in a school in which site-based management was being implemented. Scum-Principal G declared that his/her philosophy regarding decision making in a site-based school was "E." Helshe added that helshe agreed with staff participation and, when appropriate, would give the staff the latitude to make certain decisions because "when it’s inappropriate, you just make the decision yourself.” This principal communicated his/her understanding that, in Flint, site-based indicated that the principal would still have "veto” power. "If the administrator feels that maybe it should not be, he or she would have the opportunity or the ability, the power, whatever, to veto it." Summam-Of the six respondents, two selected phil030phies of decision making labeled "F,“ two selected ”E,” one stated "E to F,” and one declared ”between ’D’ and ’E’ but should be ’F." One of the "F'-responding principals said that this would be under ideal conditions. WM Scum-Principal H asserted that "none of these things fit what we’re doing because the way that you have it is you’ve got principal or staff and it’s principal and staff; that’s the way we’ve got it originated.” Therefore, helshe did not make a selection from the list, but rather offered his/her unique philosophy on decision making: I see it like the President of the United States, that l have veto power and they have veto power. It’s like the three branches of government: the 210 executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government, where all three . . . are going to have to work together. Helshe discussed the political forces that will come into play with these three groups ”administration, staff, and parents: ”Everybody is approaching this with various . . . motives; it should be the motive of improving instruction, but I’m not sure that that's true.” SchooLI-Principal I claimed that the decision-making philosophy that he would select for a site-based school would be ”E." Helshe added, ”There will always be decisions that the principal will make. That’s not something that is negotiable.” Principal l declared that, if principals go beyond the confines of ”E,” there will be a "breakdown.” This principal believed that people serving on a committee will be prone to certain kinds of favoritism. From this, helshe stated, Then you create a diverse relationship and if there is a relationship that is of that nature, I would prefer it that it be to me . . . if it is to me then people will kind of get together, get rounded together . . . if they’re rounded together at least you still have that cohesiveness. That’s what I’m looking for. I want cohesiveness. Principal I stated that helshe did not have any "prima donnas.” This principal focused on respect. Helshe stated that respect, not popularity, was his/her concern. Principal I said that if you get respect, you have to return it, not keep it. Helshe said, ". . . as long as they respect me. They may not like me as a person, but they respect me as an administrator.“ SghggLJ—At first, Principal J was inclined to select ”F,” but after reflection decided that helshe was predominantly "E” in his/her philosophy of decision making in a site-based school. Principal J asserted that in philosophy 'E" helshe would 21 1 prefer to delete the part that says ”when helshe feels that it is appropriate.” Principal J claimed that that gave the staff only the latitude to make certain decisions. This principal believed that that would leave it ”wide open" for the principal. ScnmLKnPrincipal K stated that his/her philosophy regarding decision making in a site-based school would stay the same—that is, choice "C/D.” This principal said that helshe would not change his/her decision-making philosophy under site-based implementation unless helshe could seethe staff "comingtogether as a group.” This principal believed that staff did not want to do any more than they had to at the present time, but helshe also believed that this attitude could be affected by making the staff feel that they were a part of things (decision making). SghgoLL—Principal L claimed that his/her philosophy of decision making in a site-based school would probably be "F." Helshe added that it would at least be "D” and/or ”E.” ScthLM-Principal M stated that his/her philosophy regarding decision making would stay the same (choice 'F”) in a site-based school. Helshe stated that his/her philosophy had always been the same; helshe gave the staff a “faculty decision” to be made, gave them the information, and then abided by the staff’s decision. Sputum-Principal N asserted that his/her philos0phy in a site-based school would be choice 'E.‘ This principal added that, in theory, "F” was probably the closest to what it ”should“ be, but that in the Flint Community Schools it would be a 212 combination of 'E" and ”F.“ This principal said that principal “veto” power was included in the school’s proposal. Summary-Of the seven respondents from Group II schools, three selected decision-making philosophy “E.” Two of these principals selected choice 'F.‘ One of these respondents chose phil030phies "CID," and one would not make a selection. WW: Do you think teachers in your school want to be more involved in school-wide decision making? In what ways? W521! SchooLA--Principal A stated that helshe thought School A staff wanted to be more involved. This principal added that three staff members asked him/her whether they could start a principal’s council, which would be like a site-based council. This principal said that they decided to start one the following year. Helshe said that three or four people were interested in pursuing this and wanted to be involved in decision making and doing other kinds of things. Ideas would be taken back to the whole staff for their reaction. This idea unofficially started at the end of the current year: "It was kind of like a principal’s advisory council where I’d get input from the staff and take their ideas back to the total staff for reaction.” Helshe stated that this method was unofficial because of the small size of the school and because helshe kept the lines of communication open, where most of the staff felt free to come and talk to him/her. Principal A claimed that two-thirds of the staff had voted against having site- based management. Some of them had gone to Principal A afterwards and said, 213 "We voted no, but we want to be involved in it.“ This principal stated that, although they wanted to be involved in it, they did not want to do so officially. Principal A stated that possible reasons for this were (a) hesitancy, (b) lack of trust, (c) time commitment, and (d) desire to set their own timelines and not have ”deadlines dictated to them from downtown” (central administration). The staff at School Awere very involved in innovative curriculum and delivery changes and, as a hard-working staff, put in much extra time as it was. This staff, according to Principal A, did not want to be involved in peer evaluation and had been resistant to official forms of "peer coaching,” but they did share ideas and materials with one another. Principal A stated, ”They are really concerned about the budget,” and yet said, "I don’t think they’re going to get into budget.“ Further comments on the budget were restricted to a description of how it presently operated, where each teacher received a certain allotment for his/her classroom. SghgoljuAssistant Principal B met with the researcher in the principal’s place. This question was not addressed at that meeting. SchoolQ-Principal C said that the staff at this school were involved, wanted to be involved, and helshe tried to involve them in the decision-making process. When asked to clarify whether or not they would want to be mQLe involved, Principal C stated, 'Well, I don’t know if it would be more. . . . I don’t think they would want to be more involved or they would want to be involved [in site-based management].' Principal C said that the staff did have input into building policies. Helshe wanted 214 to ensure their input into those policies and also ensure that district mandates, objectives, requirements, and guidelines were adhered to. SchooLfluPrincipal D stated that his/her staff did not want to become more involved In school-wide decision making. Helshe believed that there were some staff ”who just don’t want to work that much more than what they’re having to do at this point in their regular classroom setting.” Principal D said that site-based management would ”clearly . . . take more time and effort on everyone’s part," and that his/her staff might have held the philosophy that ”you don’t get something for nothing“ regarding the donation of extra time. Helshe added that site-based management would take effort if it was going to work. SchooljnPrincipal E declared that his/her staff was seemingly divided between those who were excited about getting involved in new ways and those who did not want to be more involved. Principal E stated that several of his/her staff got up at several points during the service and stated, ”We’re doing all this, you know, why is it different? We input to our principal. We're doing all this.“ Principal E understood that, although the staff believed that they were already "doing" site- based management, they actually were not: "But we weren’t, you know, we were making decisions together, but we weren’t making decisions as far as budget, which we can’t do now anyway.” This principal thought that a lot of his/her staff thought they were already involved in school-wide discipline or decision making. Helshe added, "It’s clear that those that are active in [school governance council] now are 215 very interested in [site-based management], and they are frustrated because other staff members aren’t coming on in.” SchoolfinPrincipal F asserted that, according to the recent vote, the answer would be ”no”; the staff did not desire to be more involved in school-wide decision making. Helshe stated that they had had three chances to vote, and that the staff must be part of such a decision being a success. Principal F modified his/her stance by adding that there 'might" be some interest in more decision making. SchQQLG-Principal G stated that his/her staff did not want to be more involved in school-wide decision making. Helshe went on to say: I think the staff is satisfied with the amount of involvement that they have at this point when it comes to decision making for the school. . . . They do have the opportunity to voice their feelings and opinions. It falls right back to 'E”; when appropriate, they’re going to have latitude. Principal G elaborated by stating that when helshe had first been assigned to that school as principal, it did not need changing: ldidn’t even attempt to try to change it because I liked the way it worked. I like the idea of teachers telling us, "Well, I have something to say. I can see it. I’m part of this.” I like the idea of them taking ownership; I think it just makes for a better school. Summary—The six responding principals in the Group I schools generally believed that their staffs did not want to be more involved in school-wide decision making, based on the four negative responses received by this researcher. One of the Group I principals replied in the affirmative. Another principal in this group did not answer negatively or affirmatively; helshe said that ”some” of the staff did want 216 to become more involved in school-wide decision making and "some" of the staff did not want to become more involved in it. W SchooLtl-Frincipal H responded that there were certain things that his/her staff might be interested in and other things that they would want tojust leave to the principal. Helshe believed that they were ”being selective” in the things that they wanted to be involved in. Helshe concluded, “So the answer is 'Yes!’ they want to be involved, but they’re not wanting to be involved to the extent of turning the school upside down.” Principal H said that a committee similar to a site-based governance committee had been in operation, and helshe had observed that some staff did not want to stay for evening meetings: They go home, but yet they were interested in the topic, then the next day they find out that the committee has come up with some format that they can’t buy into. Well, that’s democracy. So that's representative government. . . . If you want to be involved, you got to be there. . . . If you don’t and you go away and when you come back the staff has done something, that’s your problem. . . . That’s happened several times. Principal H said that this was amusing because, under the old plan, ”teachers hollered" when the principal did things; now helshe saw that the principal was outside of the ”hassle.“ Helshe added that the ”hassle" was now among the staff, and that was refreshing to him/her; where the principal can sit back, kind of smile and grin that helshe is not involved in the argument ”because those are the hassles that principals used to be in. Now the teachers are arguing among themselves, and that’s healthy; that’s a healthy dynamic for them to figure out what’s happened." 217 When responding to this question, Principal H also stated that this was bringing commitment back to teaching and that helshe saw a lot of commitment and dedication that helshe had not seen before. Helshe added, "I don’t know if anything good is going to come of this. . . . I’m not sure if it’s going to change the school dramatically, but the fact that we have that one element [commitment] makes it worthwhile.” This principal stated that the teachers’ morale had been low, but because this had caused them to work more closely together, helshe could now see their morale going up: They still see the same problems and ldon’t know if they’re going to solve the problems but they’re working together. So, from that aspect, I can’t sit back and tell you that I see all of the roadblocks falling down and education taking off, but some of these little side points make it very interesting. SchQQIJ—Principal l declared that the teachers in his/her school did want to be more involved in school-wide decision making. Helshe added that everyone wanted to have ownership and to have input into these decisions. This principal added that vocal staff members would no longer have more input as the site-based structure for decision making would ensure that a monitoring system would be in place. This system would provide the opportunity for all staff members to participate equally. Helshe pointed out that the staff would be able to have maximum participation in everything. ScthJ—Principal J stated that his/her staff wanted to be more involved in school-wide decision making. Looking at how things had been in the past compared to site-based management, helshe stated, "Even though they had input, the final decision has always been mine to make, whereas with site-based management I 218 have one vote along with them. So, their input will be responded to by consensus rather than just my making the final decision.” Principal J pointed out that some decisions would not be voted on at all, but in those that were to be voted on, helshe would have one vote. Principal J claimed that helshe was not interested in keeping the right to "veto" decisions: ”It will be something I will be able to live with, too, and we will always have in writing how we felt about it." This principal explained that a secretary took notes and got them typed up and ready for the next day. SchmuPrincipal K stated that half of his/her staff wanted to be more involved in school-wide decision making, and the other half would rather be told what to do. Helshe added that some people were comfortable with that; they liked to know exactly what was expected of them. Helshe believed that the staff were more interested in having input into policy and/or staffing decisions than in curriculum decisions. Principal K added that the staff might be interested in more involvement so that they could make decisions that would make it easier for themselves. Subsequently, that may be why they voted in favor of site-based management. SgngQLL-Principal L responded that his/her staff wanted to be more involved in school-wide decision making. Helshe said that the staff wanted to be more involved in all aspects of decision making at the school. SchQQIM—Principal M stated that the teachers in his/her school did want to be more involved in school-wide decision making. Helshe added that they wanted to be involved in the following ways: (a) solving problems of student achievement, (b) receiving recognition as a staff for their accomplishments, (0) having 219 opportunities to meet and share with staffs from other schools, (d) having a chance to take risks without fear of being penalized, (e) sharing authority with the principal, (f) budgeting, and (g) staffing. SchQQLN—Principal N responded that the teachers in School N did want to be more involved in school-wide decision making. Helshe said that people generally liked power and believed that they had better answers; however, their answers might be too simplistic for complex problems. Helshe believed that the staff would learn that their solutions might be simplistic and only sometimes work. Some of the factors Principal N mentioned were (a) staff’s desire to do a good job; (b) interplay in staff’s personalities; (c) professional versus personal skin; (d) staffing in an open setting; and (e) community, legal, and political ramifications of decision making. Principal N stated that a motto to which helshe was partial was, ”If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” Summary-Seven Group II school principals responded to this question. Five of these respondents answered affirmatively, that their staffs did want to be more involved in school-wide decision making. One principal did not answer the question directly but said that there were some things that his/her staff would be interested in and other things that they would just want to leave up to the principal. One other principal stated that half of his/her staff wanted to be more involved in school-wide decision making, and the other half would rather just be told what to do. 220 W: What kinds of decisions do you think are best made by a governance committee and best made by the principal? fimnnhflflfifltflam SchoolAnPrincipal A stated that the kinds of decisions that are best made by a governance committee are (3) those that directly affect teachers in the classroom, (b) those dealing with curriculum concerns, (c) those dealing with operational kinds of concerns within constraints of state law and board policy, (d) those dealing with discipline, (e) those dealing with classroom management, (f) those dealing with the budget, and (9) those dealing with staffing. Principal A claimed that the kinds of decisions that are best made by the principal are (a) teacher evaluation, (b) personnel concerns that are interactive with other schools or within the district, (0) discipline of staff, (d) interpersonal concerns among the staff, and (e) interpersonal concerns between staff and parents. Helshe said, ”Sometimes committees don’t have enough experience and/or input to initially make those kinds of decisions and, besides, they may not be aware of or have enough experience to look at the total picture.” SchooLB-Assistant Principal B said that, with an ideal committee that had adequate training and experience, a principal should not have to make any decisions on his/her own. Helshe modified this stance by adding that, when a committee goes astray, the principal must step in and make a decision. Assistant Principal B stated that there should be a “range of acceptability" regarding decisions made by the governance committee. Helshe added that immediate decisions needed on crisis- oriented issues should be made by the principal. 221 Scum-Principal C claimed that decisions dealing with individual youngsters and parents should be made by the principal. Helshe stated that decisions regarding most building policies should be made by the governance committee. SghgoLD—Principal D stated that the decisions best made by the principal are (a) personnel issues, (b) problems calling for an immediate decision, and (c) some budgeting. Helshe said that the decisions best dealt with by the governance committee relate to (a) school policies, (b) school curriculum, and (0) some budgeting. SchooLE-Frincipal E stated that decisions regarding final discipline, such as suspension, should be made by the principal. Helshe said that evaluation of staff is an area in which the principal should make the decisions. Principal E claimed that decisions that would best be made by the governance committee are those dealing with the curriculum and the budget. Helshe thought that perhaps the governance committee could have some input on staffing, but then said that until helshe felt more comfortable with it, staffing decisions should remain in the principal’s domain. SghggLE—Principal F did not directly answer this question, but helshe said that the decision making (a) depends on the situation, (b) has no general guidelines, (c) depends on the timeline, and (d) depends on the importance of the decision to the total school. smegma-Principal G stated that helshe did not feel comfortable stating that helshe should make all the decisions concerning curriculum or inservice for staff. 222 Principal G explained that 'it would be based on what is needed at that particular time" and that all decisions should be based on “natural consequences.” When given a specific type of decision area. such as staffing the building, hiring, firing, and evaluation, this principal did not state whether it would be in the principal's decision- making domain orthe governance committee’s domain of decision making. Principal G said, 'It could go both ways.” Helshe added that the governance committee would have to be very knowledgeable, however. SummamuThe principals in the Group I schools as a group named 13 kinds of decisions that are best made by the governance committee; their unduplicated total was eight. Three principals in this group did not place any kind of decision in this category. This group of seven respondents named 13 kinds of decisions that are best made by the principal; unduplicated, their total was 10. This time, two of these principals did not place any kind of decision in this category. Group I principals said that decisions best made by the governance committee would be those related to (a) having a direct effect on teachers in the classroom, (b) curriculum concerns, (0) operational kinds of concerns, (d) discipline, (e) classroom management, (f) budget, (9) staffing, and (h) building policies. They said that decisions best made by the principal would be those related to (a) teacher evaluation, (b) personnel concerns, (c) interpersonal concerns among staff and between staff and parents, (d) discipline of staff, (e) a mistake made by the governance committee, (0 a crisis, (9) a situation calling for immediacy, (h) problems with individual youngsters or parents, (i) staffing, and (j) final discipline such as suspension. 223 The two Group I principals who did not name any decisions to either category offered the following insights: (a) decision making should be based on natural consequences and on what is needed at that particular time, (b) decision making depends on the situation, (0) decision making depends on the importance of the decision to the total school, and (d) decision making should have no general guidelines. The principal who did not name any decision areas that would fall under the auspices of the governance committee said that, ideally, all decisions could fall in that realm if the committee had enough training and experience and as long as the decisions fell in a "range of acceptability," and that the principal could step in if the committee "went astray." WW SshQQLtlnPrincipal H stated that decisions that are best made by the principal are those relating to the power to hire, fire, evaluate, and do staffing. Helshe believed that staffing takes a lot of experience. Principal H said that helshe had strong feelings about the possible site-based infringement on staffing and concerns about how that could backfire. Helshe added, Now, it won’t backfire if we’ll work together on it; if we can work together on it we won’t have a problem. They have to respect me enough through my experience to lead them in staffing. l have to lead in staffing. I cannot let them lead in staffing because we'll be in trouble if we do. This principal did not name any decision areas that he thought should be under the governance committee. However, by this focus on personnel issues and staffing, helshe implied that all other areas might fall suitably within the realm of the governance committee. 224 SohoolJ—Principal I responded that the kinds of decisions that are best made by a governance committee are those related to (a) school environment, (b) positive parenting, (c) discipline, (d) scheduling, (9) programming activities, (0 school beautification, and (9) budget. This principal said that the kinds of decisions that are best made by a principal are those that relate to (a) salary, (b) employee discipline, (c) employee evaluation, (d) conferences, and (e) affecting individuals. SohooLJ—Principal J asserted that the kinds of decisions that are best made by a principal are those relating to (a) selection of teachers and (b) placement or change of placement of teachers in terms of grade-level assignment and classroom assignment. Principal J stated that helshe thought that certainly teachers should be imLolvoo in making all other decisions because they are the "backbone" of the school. Sohool_K-Principal K claimed that the kinds of decisions that are best made by a principal are those that relate to (a) discipline, (b) parents, (c) schedules, (d) programs, (9) screening and use of videos, and (0 staff disagreements. Principal K implied that other kinds of decisions would best be made by the governance committee. SohooLL—Principal L stated that the kinds of decisions that would best be made by the principal are those related to (a) implementation, (b) issues of procedures, and (0) Issues of policy. Helshe indicated that the kinds of decisions that would best be made by the governance committee are those that are 225 mechanical ortask oriented. Helshe gave examples of committee involvement and schedufing. SohooLM—Principal M claimed that the kinds of decisions that would best be made by the principal are those relating to (a) building renovations, (b) whether or not a committee decision conforms to current laws or board policy, (c) emergencies, (d) personnel issues (hiring, firing, and evaluation), and (e) the best interest of the total organization (examples given: pink-slipping, budget, and fiscal responsibility). Principal M stated that the kinds of decisions that would best be made by the governance committee are those relating to (a) budgeting areas of site-based management grant and fund raising, (b) some staffing (example given: whether to add one teacher or three paraprofessionals), (c) strategic planning (mission statement, goals and objectives), (d) types of techniques to be used by the committee (consensus, problem solving, and so on), (e) analysis ofthe stakeholders (paper survey, telephone), and (0 school communications (intercom, home visits, community teas). SohooLN—Principal N declared that all decisions could be made by the governance committee as long as they understood the ramifications involved. Helshe believed that even terminations could be handled by the governance committee in time and with the principal’s help. Principal N added that committee members must be able to separate personal feelings from professional duties and that, in time, even the most difficult decisions could be handled by the governance committee. Helshe stated that it is essential to go slowly in implementing site-based 226 management and not to "backtrack." This principal said that this is a long-term change, which should not be viewed or treated with short-term strategies. Summary—The principals in Group II schools named a total of 15 specific kinds of decisions that would best be made by a governance committee; unduplicated, a total of 14 were given. These were (a) school environment, (b) scheduling, (0) positive parenting, (d) discipline, (e) programming activities, (f) school beautification, (9) school budget, (h) mechanical workings of the school, (i) task- oriented issues, (j) general staffing plans, (k) strategic planning for the school, (I) techniques to be used by the governance committee in order to operate effectively, (m) analysis of the stakeholders, and (n) school communications. Of the seven Group II principals responding, three indicated that all decisions could be made by the governance committee with the following exceptions: (a) selection of workers, (b) placement and assignment of teachers, (0) staff terminations, (d) discipline, (e) programs, (f) parents, (9) schedules, (h) staff disagreements, and (i) the screening and use of videos. The last five of those listed were given by one of the three principals. The two other principals had duplicate exceptions of decisions relating to the hiring and firing of staff. The principals in the Group II schools named a total of 30 kinds of decisions that would best be made by the principal. Without duplications, this group named 22 kinds of decisions. There were four responses for decisions relating to the hiring of staff. There were three responses each for the following kinds of decisions: (a) firing, (b) evaluation of staff, and (c) staffing issues. Other kinds of decisions named 227 were (a) salary, (b) conferences, (c) employee discipline, (d) having an effect on individuals, (e) programs, (f) parents, (9) discipline (student), (h) scheduling, (i) staff disagreements, (j) screening and use of videos, (k) implementation, (l) procedural, (m) policy, (n) building renovations, (o) emergencies, (p) accountability of committee decisions per laws and board policy, and (q) budgeting and fiscal responsibility. BesuflsoLAnalxsesfoLflxoothesisJfl Hypothaaiufl: There is no difference in perceptions of site-based management of principals in schools that elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and in schools that did not. W The benefits of site-based management that were named by the principals in this study fell into five categories: (a) benefits given in terms of teachers, (b) benefits listed In terms of students, (c) benefits named in terms of parents, (d) benefits given in terms of the total school, and (e) benefits listed in terms of the principal. For each group of schools, percentages were calculated for the number of responses in each category in relation to the total number of responses named by the group. The spread between the percentages for the two groups was determined for each category. Results are shown in Table 4.14. Group II principals named benefits of site-based management in terms of teachers more than did Group I principals. The percentage spread was 14.3. Group II principals also identified site-based management benefits in terms of parents more than did Group I principals; the percentage spread was 11.2. Group I principals 228 named site—based management benefits in terms of the total school more than did Group II principals; the percentage spread was 26.9. Both groups of principals listed the benefits of site-based management in terms of students and principal about the same. Both groups also named approximately the same number of site-based management benefits (39 and 43). Table 4.14: Percentage spread between Group I principals and Group II principals on site-based-management benefits by response categories. Site-Based Group I Group 11 Management Principals Principals o B fit /0 Spread ene . No. of % of No. of % of Categories Responses Total Responses Total Teachers 18 46.2 26 60.5 14.3 Students 4 10.3 4 9.3 1.0 Parents 2 5.1 7 16.3 11.2 Total school 15 38.5 5 1 1.6 26.9 Principal 0 0.0 1 2.3 2.3 Total 39 43 55.7 Went The problems caused by site-based management that were named by the principals participating in this study fell into eight categories: (a) problems named in terms of negative attitudes or behaviors on the part of the staff, (b) problems identified in terms of school conditions, (c) problems listed in terms of power, (d) problems given in terms of parents, (e) problems offered in terms of the central office 229 or administration, (f) problems submitted in terms of needs, (9) problems named in terms of the principal, and (h) problems given in other terms. Some problems named were divided for the purpose of analysis. For instance, the problem of "principals unwilling to relinquish power" was considered as two responses; it was counted once as a problem in terms of power and again as a problem in terms of the principal. Five problems were "divided" in this way in the Group II responses, and four problems were treated the same way in the Group I responses. The total number of responses for each group was adjusted for the purpose of calculating percentages. Results are shown in Table 4.15. Table 4.15: Percentage spread between Group I principals and Group II principals on site-based management problems by response categories. Group I Group II Site-Based Management Principals Principals % Problem Categories No. of % of No. of 0/0 of Spread Responses Total Responses Total Staff negative behaviors & 17 28.8 19 27.9 .9 attitudes School conditions 15 25.4 8 11.8 13.6 Power 9 15.3 6 8.8 6.5 Parents 6 10.2 0 0.0 10.2 Central office 5 8.5 14 20.6 12.1 Needs 1 1.7 12 17.7 16.0 Principal 0 0.0 5 7.4 7.4 Other 6 4 Total 59 68 66.7 230 Group II principals named problems caused by site-based management in terms of needs more than did Group I principals; the percentage spread was 16. Group II principals also identified problems caused by site-based management in terms of the central office more than did the Group I principals. The percentage spread was 12.1. Group | principals named site-based management problems in terms of school conditions more than did Group II principals; the percentage spread was 13.6. Group I principals also named site-based management problems in terms of parents more than did Group II principals; the percentage spread was 10.2. Negative behaviors and attitudes of staff was the category that received the most responses in both groups, and both groups were about the same, having a percentage spread of only .9. Responses given in site-based management categories of principal and power were approximately the same, having small percentage spreads (7.4 and 6.5, respectively). B . . l , l l I I l The tasks that principals in this study viewed as important to them at the present time fell into 14 areas: (a) staff improvement, (b) parent and community, (0) student behavior, (d) academic achievement, (e) adjusting to or lack of resources and staff, (f) academic environment, (9) district policies and objectives, (h) equal treatment of students, (i) magnet success, (j) social problems, (k) lunch program, (I) student attendance, (l) evaluation of program, and (m) providing information. For each group of schools, percentages were calculated for the number of responses In each category in relation to the total number of responses named by the group. 231 The spread between the percentages for the two groups was figured for each category. Results are shown in Table 4.16. Table 4.16: Percentage spread between Group I principals and Group II principals on important tasks by response categories. Group I Group II Important Task Principals Principals 0/0 Categories No. of % of No. of % of Spread Responses Total Responses Total Staff improvement 6 18.8 10 29.4 10.6 Parents 8. community 5 15.6 6 17.7 2.1 Student behavior 9 28.1 8 23.5 4.6 Academic achievement 3 9.4 5 14.7 5.3 Lack of resources & staff 3 9.4 2 5.9 3.5 Academic environment 1 3.1 O 0.0 3.1 District policies & objectives 1 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 Equal treatment of students 1 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 Magnet success 1 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 Social problems 1 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 Lunch program 1 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 Student attendance 0 0.0 1 2.9 2.9 Evaluation of program 0 0.0 1 2.9 2.9 “ Providing information 0 0.0 1 2.9 2.9 Group II principals named staff improvement as an important task in their schools at the present time; the percentage spread was 10.6. According to the 232 percentage spreads, all of the other categories were approximately the same between the two groups. However, 100% of the principals in Group I named student behavior, compared to 57% of the Group II principals. Altogether, the principals of Group I schools offered 31% more reasons for their staffs' decisions than did the principals of Group II schools. Forty-three percent of the Group II principals gave reasons that related directly to themselves, compared to none in the other group. Seventy—one percent of the Group II principals listed reasons in terms of the good qualities of their staffs, compared to 43% of the Group I principals. Forty-three percent of the Group II principals named reasons that had to do with teacher empowerment and/or the need to be free from obstacles, compared to none of the Group I principals. Forty-three percent of the Group II principals gave reasons that had to do with the previous experience of staff in matters relating to site-based management, compared to none in the other group. Fifty-seven percent of the Group II principals suggested reasons that related to the improvement or the benefit of teachers and staff, compared to none in the other group. Eighty-six percent of the Group I principals named the time factor as a reason for their staffs’ decisions not to become a site-based school, compared to none in the other group. "Time" was referred to in some negative way by the respondents in this group. Although 43% of the Group II principals mentioned time, it was as a secondary idea within a more major reason. 233 Seventy-one percent of the Group I principals gave reasons that indicated they were "already doing it" for why their staffs had made the decision not to become a site-based school. Only one of the Group II principals gave this as a reason; this principal said his/her school was already formally involved in a very similar program. This principal thought it was a natural step for his/her staff to become site based, especially so waivers could now be attained. One of the Group I principals gave concepts related to "already doing it" as his/her only response category. Twenty-nine percent of the Group I principals gave lack of answers or lack of clarity about site-based management as a reason for their staffs’ decisions, compared to none in the other group. Forty-three percent of the Group | principals named reasons in terms of less desirable staff qualities, such as "fear of the unknown," compared to none of the Group II principals. Twenty-nine percent of the Group II principals listed reasons relating to staff enjoying challenges and competition, compared to none in the other group. One Group I principal did indicate that his/her staff did not like the competitive aspect of getting into site-based management and saw writing a proposal as a waste of time. A theme that ran throughout the Group II principals’ responses was the general overall welfare of or benefit to teachers; this came from 57% of these principals, compared to none In the other group. Group II principals' responses alluded to the overall improvement of the teachers’ situation, whereas the Group II principals’ 234 responses suggested that the teachers’ situation was just fine as they were "already doing it" and had nothing to gain by going into site-based management. In addition, 29% of the Group II principals gave a reason having to do with the teachers’ desire to do a better job of teaching, compared to none of the Group I principals. Of the four Group II principals giving reasons having to do with the improved benefit to or welfare of teachers, three gave one idea each, where the principal of the school that had already been involved in a very similar program to site-based management (minus only the waivers) gave nine responses along this theme. E Hill I [D .. lll' When asked to indicate their current philosophy about campus decision making, principals were given the following choices: A. The principal makes the decisions, generally, and informs the staff of all decisions affecting them. B. Generally the principal makes the plans and decisions and keeps the staff informed of them. C. The principal keeps the staff informed of any pending plans and decisions so they may make comments and suggestions, generally, ' before helshe makes the decisions. D. The principal generally has the staff participate in decision making, with the understanding that the principal will make the final decision. E. The principal has the staff participate in decision making, generally, and when helshe feels that it is appropriate, gives the staff latitude to make certain decisions. F. The principal generally has the staff participate in decision making, with the latitude to make decisions which affect them directly. 235 Only one of the 13 principals responding to this question gave one clear, concise answer. This principal chose style "F" and was the principal of the school that had been involved in a program very close to site-based management. The others usually selected two or three styles, making a "range” of decision-making styles their answer, or used qualifiers such as "when" or "it depends on." Using techniques already described, the researcher designated principals as having one style or a split of two styles such as "C/D." Thirteen principals responded to this question; six were from Group I and seven were from Group II. Forty-six percent of the total number of principals named or were designated as having a decision-making philosophy of "D" (see Table 4.17). Fifteen percent of the total number of principals selected choice "E," and 15% selected choice "F." Philosophies "D/E," "C," and "B" were each selected by 8% (1) of the principals in the total group. Table 4.17: Present principal decision-making philosophies. Group I Principals Group II Principals ABCDEFGHIJKLMN Philosophy A B X C X CID DIE X 236 Fifty percent of the principals in Group I selected or were designated as having a philosophy of decision making "D." The other 50% of this group chose or were designated as having a philosophy of decision making that was more liberal than "D"; these were "D/E," "E," or "."F Forty-three percent of the principals in Group II chose or were designated as having a philosophy of decision making "D." Twenty-nine percent of the remainder gave more conservative selections that "D": "B" or "C." Twenty-nine percent of the Group II respondents gave choices more liberal than "D": "E" or"F." Although there was no significant difference between the two groups, a tendency for Group I principals to be more liberal in their decision-making choices than Group II principals exists at the present time. [ D . . I l I . Eight (62%) of the 13 principals responding to this question gave a very clear, concise choice of the decision-making philosophies. compared to only one (8%) on the last question. Five (39%) of all the principals used a qualifier with their choice, such as "under ideal conditions." One of the Group II principals did not make a choice of philosophies for this question, although helshe did give a response of some kind. Five (39%) of all the principals selected "E" as their decision-making philosophy for after the implementation of site-based management. Four (31%) indicated choice "F.' Response choices "DID," "DIE," "BF," and "no choice" each were selected by one (8%) of these principals (see Table 4.18). 237 Table 4.18: Post-site-based-management principal decision-making philosophies. Group I Principals Group II Principals Philosophy A B C D E F G H l J K L M N B C/D X D D/E X E X X X X X E/F X F X X X X Note: See page 202 for the decision-making philosophy options. Group I principals had the following breakdown of choices: (a) 33.3%, choice "E"; (b) 33.3%, choice "F"; (c) 17%, choice "D/E"; and (d) 17%, choice 'ElF.‘ If a move from one letter to the next constitutes one move, and a move from one letter to the next letter/letter constitutes one-half of a move, Group I principals together made five moves to more liberal philosophies of decision making. They made one- half of a move toward a more conservative philosophy. In comparison, Group II principals’ choices were arranged as follows: (a) 50%, choice "E"; (b) 33.3%, choice "F"; (c) 17%, choice "C/D”; and (d) 17%, no choice. Group II principals had six and one-half moves to a more liberal philosophy of decision making. This group of principals made more movement toward a more liberal decision-making philosophy than did Group I principals. Group II principals 238 had greater variance to their responses than did Group I principals for both Question 5 and 6. I I , D . I ll 1 I l Thirteen principals responded to Question 7. Six (46%) of them stated "yes" and in the affirmative that their staffs wanted to be more involved in school-wide decision making. Four (31%) stated "no" and in the negative with regard to their staffs wanting to be involved. Three (23%) gave an ambiguous or "on the fence" kind of response that could not be counted as a "yes" or "no" answer. Of the six Group I principals who responded, four (67%) answered "no" and in the negative, one (17%) answered "yes" and in the affirmative, and one (17%) gave an answer that was neither a "yes" nor a "no." Of the seven Group II principals who responded, five (71%) responded "yes" and in the affirmative that their staffs wanted to be more involved in school-wide decision making. None of these principals replied "no" or in the negative. Two (19%) gave answers that were neither "yes" nor "no." In general, the Group II principals stated that their staffs did want to become more involved in school-wide decision making. This was in contrast to the Group I principals, who stated, in general, that their staffs did not want to become more involved. From principals who responded "yes," the following ways of involvement were mentioned: (a) budgeting, (b) unofficially, (c) setting their own deadlines, (d) curriculum changes, (e) delivery changes, (f) sharing of ideas and materials, (g)no1 239 in peer evaluation, (h) with equal participation of all staff, (i) with monitoring system in place, (i) policy, (k) staffing, (l) in all aspects, (m) solving problems of student achievement, (n) receiving recognition for their accomplishments, (0) opportunities to meet and share with staffs from other schools, (p) taking risks without fear of being penalized, and (q) sharing authority with the principal. D . . II I I E . . I Gomnancefinmmittee Group I principals named 13 kinds of decisions that are best made by the governance committee and 13 kinds that are best made by the principal. Not including duplicate responses, they gave eight for the governance committee and ten for the principal. Group II principals named 15 kinds of decisions that are best made by the governance committee and 30 kinds that are best made by the principal. Not including duplicate responses, they gave 14 for the governance committee and 17 for the principal. Group II principals gave 13% more kinds of decisions to be made by the governance committee than did Group I principals. Without counting duplicate responses, it would have been 18% more. Group II principals responded with 57% more kinds of decisions best made by the principal than did Group I principals. Without counting duplicate responses, it would have been 41%. Group II principals offered 50% more kinds of decisions best made by the principal than they did for those decisions best made by a governance committee. Without counting duplicate responses, it would have been 18% more. Group I 240 principals gave the same number of kinds of decisions best made by the governance committee and the principal. Without using duplicate answers, they gave 20% more kinds of decisions to be made by the principal than by the governance committee. Group II principals offered a significant number more of the kinds of decisions best made by the principal than did Group I principals. The Group II principals named a significant number more kinds of decisions best made by the principal than they did those best made by a governance committee. This gap of 50% difference between the two decision-making categories did not exist for the Group I principals’ responses; actually, there was no gap at all (0%). When duplicate responses were not counted, the gap between the governance committee and the principal was not significantly different for the two groups (Group I = 20%; Group II = 18%). The significant gap, then, was in the sheer number of responses rather than in the number of different responses. Group II principals' responses indicated that this group was more focused on the kinds of decisions best made by principals than they were on those best made by a governance committee. They were also more focused on the kinds of decisions best made by a principal than the Group I principals were. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary This study sought to examine the differences in factors of school organizational climate and the decisional status of staff members between schools that had chosen to implement a site-based shared decision-making structure and those that had not. The researcher attempted to determine what factors were conducive to implementing such a structure. Furthermore, an attempt was made to determine whether principals’ perceptions of site-based management differed between schools that had chosen site-based management and those that had not. The researcher also sought to examine the components, merits, and drawbacks of site-based management in an attempt to determine what kind of effect it could have on education. In addition, an attempt was made to determine what conditions could facilitate successful implementation of site-based management, as well as what obstacles might need to be overcome for successful implementation. H I B . I The literature that was reviewed addressed the major areas of (a) participative management; (b) site-based management, including its relationship to 241 242 leadership theory; (c) decentralization, (d) decision making, and (e) organizational climate. In the literature on participative management, emphasis was placed on the work of Dumaine (1990), Roscow (1989), Naisbitt (1985), Witherspoon (1987), and Garfield (1992). The research of Hill and Bonan (1991), David (1989), Griffiths (1979), Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958), Mitchell and Tucker (1992), Sergiovanni (1992), and Schaef (1981) was highlighted in the section on site-based management. In the literature reviewed on decentralization, the focus was on the work of Wissler (1984), Timar (1989), and Massie and Douglas (1977). Featured in the section on decision making were the following scholars: Griffiths (1979), Conley et al. (1988), Duke et al. (1980), Bridges (1967), Conway (1984), Wood (1984), and Belasco and Alutto (1972-73). In the literature on organizational climate, studies by Morse and Lorsch (1970), Garfield (1992), Otto and Veldman (1967), Halpin (1966), and Folger and Poole (1984) were emphasized. The literature review demonstrated that the focus of school administration today must be on the individual; each individual must be brought to his/her fullest potential. It further demonstrated that decentralization and site-based shared decision making provide educators with the necessary framework for community. Community is needed by the individual. Educational leaders who have a thorough understanding of the concepts of participatory management, site-based management, decentralization, group decision making, and organizational climate are more likely to be successful in attaining educational goals. They will be able to 243 build community and establish a collaborative culture. Site-based management can either help or hinder, depending on how skillfully it is implemented. D . [ll SI I B . I The researcher attempted to determine whether any differences existed in organizational climate, decisional status of school staff members, and principals’ perceptions of site-based management between schools that had chosen to implement a site-based shared decision-making structure and those that had not. Components, merits, drawbacks, facilitating conditions, and obstacles to site-based management were examined. The population for the statistical portion of the study comprised 153 staff members in seven schools that had decided to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and 163 staff members in a comparison group of seven schools randomly selected from a full group of 26 schools that had decided not to adopt a site-based shared decision-making structure. The population forthe ethnographic portion ofthe study comprised the 14 principals of the above-mentioned schools and a few key figures in this large urban school district. Data on school organizational climate were obtained through use of the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) designed by Halpin. Data on the decisional status of school staff members were acquired through the use of questions adapted from an instrument designed by Belasco and Alutto. Information about principals’ perceptions of site-based management was collected through the use of structured interview questions developed from the review of 244 literature and the specific situation in this school district. In addition, demographic data were obtained about respondents through the use of eight questions answered bythe categorical-choice method. Background information on the school district was obtained through the field-study techniques of interviewing and observing. The statistical treatment employed in the study involved coding the information for the survey questionnaires into the IBM computer at Michigan State University. The SPSS computer program was used in analyzing the data. Means and standard deviations were determined for the responses in each of the variables being studied. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for each item on the survey questionnaire. Mean responses were calculated on each item and all of the variables for each individual school and both of the groups of schools being compared. To determine whether the means of the responses from the seven non-site- based schools (Group I) differed from the means of the responses from the seven site-based schools (Group II), a two-tailed test of significance was used. An independent group t-test was employed. To be considered significant, the probability of the t-values had to be less than .05. A p-value was calculated to test the equality of the variance for the site-based and non-site-based groups. If the probability level of the F-value was less than .05, the pooled estimate was eliminated from consideration because the two groups did not have the same variance. In these instances, the separate variance estimate had to be used instead. 245 Results of the statistical tests and results from the ethnographic techniques or field research described in Chapter IV led to the following findings: 1. There were no significant differences in teacher disengagement behaviors between Group I and Group II schools. 2. There were no significant differences in teacher hindrance behaviors between Group I and Group II schools. 3. There were no significant differences in teacher esprit behaviors between Group I and Group II schools. 4. There were no significant differences in teacher intimacy behaviors between Group I and Group II schools. 5. There were significant differences in principal aloofness behaviors between Group land Group II schools. Based on staff reports, principals in schools that had chosen to adopt a site-based shared decision-making structure had a significantly higher level of aloofness behaviors than did principals in the other group. 6. There were no significant differences in principal production emphasis behaviors between Group I and Group II schools. 7. There were significant differences in principal thrust behaviors between Group land Group II schools. Based on staff reports, principals in schools that had chosen not to adopt a site-based shared decision-making structure had a significantly higher level of thrust behaviors than did principals in the other group. 246 8. There were significant differences in principal consideration behaviors between Group land Group II schools. Based on staff reports, principals in schools that had chosen not to adopt a site-based shared decision-making structure had a significantly higher level of consideration behaviors than did principals in the site- based group. 9. There were significant differences in decisional-status levels between Group I and Group II schools. Staff in schools that had elected not to adopt a site- based shared decision-making structure had significantly higher levels of current participation in school decision making than did staff in the other group of schools. Staff in schools that had elected to adopt a site-based shared decision-making structure had significantly higher levels of decisional deprivation or discrepancy than did the staff in the other group of schools. Staff in schools that had chosen to adopt the site-based shared decision-making structure also had significantly higher levels of desired participation in school decision making than did staff in the other group of schools. 10. The principals of Group I schools strongly tended to see the benefits of site-based management in terms of the "school" more than did the Group II principals. Three of them inferred benefits in relationship to the central administration, such as (a) more support, (b) increased funding, and (0) freedom from mandates given. However, Group II principals tended to see the benefits of site-based management more in terms of parents and teachers than did the Group I principals. Both groups viewed the benefits in terms of students and principals to 247 about the same degree. Both groups of principals perceived the most benefits of site-based management in terms of the teacher. Group I principals, however, saw the benefits almost equally as much in terms of the total school. Group II principals distinctly saw the benefits in terms of teachers, with benefits seen in terms of parents a distant second. 11. There was a strong tendency for principals of Group II schools to perceive the problems of site-based management in terms of "needs" more than did the principals of Group I schools. Group II principals also tended to see the problems of site-based management in terms of the central office or administration more than did the Group | principals. On the other hand, Group I principals tended to view the problems of site-based management in terms of school conditions or parents more than did the Group II principals. They also viewed the problems in terms of power more than did the Group II principals. There was a tendency also for Group II principals to perceive the problems more in terms of the principal than did the Group I principals. Both groups of principals perceived the problems of site- based management to the greatest extent in terms of negative attitudes or negative behaviors of the staff. Their perceptions were much the same in this regard. 12. There was little difference in the way the two groups of principals viewed the most important tasks of the principal at the present time. Both groups saw that the tasks associated with their jobs primarily fell into five main problem areas: (a) staff improvement, (b) parent and community, (0) student behavior, (d) academic achievement, and (e) lack of resources and staff. Student behavior was 248 mentioned the most by the Group | principals, and staff improvement was mentioned the most by the Group II principals. There was a tendency for the principals in Group II schools to perceive their tasks in terms of staff development more than the Group I principals did. 13. Group I principals gave the reasons that they thought their staffs had decided not to adopt a site-based shared decision-making structure in five categories: (a) negative time issues (86%), (b) "already doing it" (71%), (c) negative state of staff (43%), (d) good qualities of their staffs (43%), and (e) lack of answers or clarity about site-based management (29%). 14. Group II principals gave the reasons that they thought their staffs had decided to adopt a site-based shared decision-making structure in eight categories: (a) good qualities of their staffs (71%), (b) improvement of or benefit to the staff (57%), (c) their own qualities or actions (43%), (d) teacher empowerment and freedom from obstacles (43%), (e) prior experience with some information or aspect of site-based management (43%), (f) time (more as a secondary issue, embedded in other reasons) (43%), (9) staff enjoys competition and challenges (29%), and (h) teachers’ desire to do a better job teaching (29%). 15. Principals from Group I schools had a tendency to give more reasons for their staffs’ decisions than did the Group II principals (31% more reasons). 16. Group II principals had a tendency to have more variety or give more diverse reasons for their staffs’ decisions than did Group I principals. 249 17. Although there was no significant difference between the two groups of principals in terms of their decision-making philosophies or styles at the present time, there was a tendency for the Group I principals to report a more democratic or liberal philosophy of decision making than the Group II principals. 18. Whereas only one (8%) of the principals from both groups gave a clear, concise choice of their present decision-making philosophy, eight (62%) gave a clear, concise choice of what their philosophy should be in decision making once site-based management was implemented. 19. Both groups of principals reported that their decision-making philosophies should be more democratic once site-based management was implemented. 20. Although there was no significant difference between the two groups of principals in terms of movement from their present decision-making philosophies to what their philosophies should be under site-based management, there was a slight tendency for Group II principals to mm more toward a more democratic style of decision making than the Group I principals. 21. Group I principals still, however, had a slight tendency to report a more democratic or liberal decision-making philosophy than the Group II principals. 22. Principals of Group II schools thought that the teachers in their buildings wanted to be more involved in school-wide decision making more than the principals of Group I schools thought that their teachers would be. Seventy-one 250 percent of Group II principals responded "yes," whereas only 17% of the Group I principals responded likewise. 23. The Group II principals named more kinds of decisions to be made by the governance committee than did the Group I principals. They also gave more kinds of decisions to be made by the principal than did the principals of Group I schools. 24. The Group II principals offered 50% more kinds of decisions best made by the principal than they did for those decisions best made by the governance committee. 25. The principals of the Group I schools gave the same number of kinds of decisions best made by the governance committee and the principal. 26. The principals of the Group II schools appeared to be more focused on the kinds of decisions best made by principals than they were on those best made by a governance committee, whereas the Group I school principals appeared to be evenly focused between the two. 27. The Group II school principals appeared to be more focused on the kinds of decisions best made by a principal than the Group I school principals were. 0' . [E' I. The findings of this study indicated that there were some significant differences between the Group | (NSB) and Group II (SB) schools. In this discussion, the perceptions of this researcher in regard to the findings are included. Currently, all ofthe Flint Community Schools have implemented a site-based shared 251 decision-making structure. However, much can be learned by considering these differences that existed between a group of schools that initially elected to adopt a site-based decision-making structure and a group that did not. Although the researcher did not attempt to pinpoint the exact type of climate that these schools had, some tendencies or clues were uncovered. Both groups of schools tended to be similar in terms of teachers' behaviors, which are factors of climate. Group I (NSB) schools, however, had significantly more principal behaviors of thrust and consideration. Group II (SB) schools had significantly more principal behaviors of aloofness. The researcher did not determine whether any particular school or group of schools had an cpen or closed climate, but did establish that the Group I (NSB) schools had a tendency to be more open than Group II (SB) schools, and that the Group II (SB) schools had a tendency to be more closed than the Group I (NSB) schools. Halpin (1966) stated that an open climate is more desirable than a closed one. In an ideal open climate, he said, the behavior of the principal reflects an "appropriate integration" between his/her own personality and the role of principal. In this regard, his/her behavior will be perceived as genuine. Higher levels of thrust reported of Group I principals may indicate that they were perceived more than Group II principals as setting a good example by working hard themselves. The higher levels of consideration reported of Group I principals may indicate that they were perceived more than Group II principals to be willing to (a) go out of their way 252 to help teachers and (b) show compassion in meeting the social needs of teachers and still be able to criticize, control, and direct as needed. The closed climate, Halpin (1966) said, is less desirable and is less genuine than the open climate. Higher levels of aloofness reported of Group II principals may indicate that they might have been perceived as being aloof and impersonal in their administrative style more than Group I principals. It may also indicate that the Group II principals might have had more rules and procedures that were impersonal and inflexible than the Group I principals, as perceived by their staffs. The Group I school principals, then, had a tendency to treat subordinates more humanely and simultaneously to show much effort in the attainment of organizational goals than did the Group II principals. On the other hand, Group II principals may have had a tendency to be more formal, to "go by the book," and remain at an emotional distance from their staffs more than did the Group I principals. Whereas all Group I principals stated that they were in favor of "going site- based," they did not have sufficient staff support. It may be that these staffs were more satisfied due to the more favorable relationships with their principals and therefore were happy with the status-quo. Group I principals reported that their staffs were fearful of the unknown, were unsure of what an official site-based program would bring, and believed that they were "already doing" what they perceived to be site-based management (shared decision making). 253 The staffs at Group II schools tended not to indicate such favorable relationships with their principals and also indicated that their principals tended to be more impersonal, uncaring, formal, distant, and fixated on rules and regulations. Group II staffs, then, may have chosen to adopt a site-based shared decision- making structure because they were somewhat dissatisfied with their relationships to their principals or with the more closed nature of their school climates. Therefore, they may have desired some, possibly any, change. The higher level of dissatisfac- tion with their principals’ behaviors may have led to the desire to improve things by getting more input into the decisions being made. The findings may imply that, if teachers are satisfied with the status-quo, they do not desire to make any significant changes. They may think, "If it’s working, don’t fix it." They may believe that they are highly effective as is. Teachers who may be more dissatisfied with their leadership (as evidenced by their perceptions of principal aloofness) may desire to empower themselves so as to counteract what they may perceive as an "uncaring" or "uninvolved" leader. Their desire to improve their situation may cause them to overcome the "fear of the unknown," take a risk, and invest more personal time. Perhaps, if staffs do not perceive that they already have sufficient input into or involvement in school-wide decision making, they will welcome any form of empowerment at any reasonable cost. The finding that there were no differences between the two groups of schools in teachers’ perceptions of teacher behavior whereas there were differences in 254 teachers’ perceptions of principal behavior may imply that teachers’ willingness to change may be related to principal behavior, in this researcher’s opinion. The findings on decisional status indicated that the Group I staffs were significantly more likely to believe that they had higher levels of participation in school-wide decision making at the current time than did the staffs of Group II schools. This belief that they were already involved may have caused them to decide against ad0pting a site-based shared decision-making structure; in fact, that is what the Group I principals reported. On the other hand, this belief, along with their feelings of satisfaction with their leadership, may have caused them not to sufficiently investigate or study the real possibilities of the full gamut of site-based shared decision making (including waivers from rules and regulations), as they believed they already had it. The Group I principals who reported that their staffs thought they were "already doing it," however, never indicated that they had tried to correct this misperception. Perhaps they believed that the teacher report of "we’re already doing It" would shed favorable light on themselves as being ahead of the times. Group II school staffs, however, reported significantly higher levels of decisional deprivation and desire. They not only desired more decision-making involvement than the Groupl school staffs, they also reported a larger gap between where they were and where they wanted to be in terms of decision-making involvement. The decision to "go site-based" clearly should evolve from this deprivation and desire. It is interesting that the Group I school staffs also reported 255 the desire for more decision-making involvement and the deprivation of such involvement; it was just not to the same degree as the other group. Also, it is interesting that, in spite of this desire and deprivation, they did not decide to adopt a site-based shared decision—making structure as a method of addressing those conditions. It appears, then, that higher levels of desire and deprivation, coupled with certain teacher perceptions of principal behaviors, may have a significant effect on how a staff perceives their need for adopting site-based management or perhaps other innovations. Because characteristics of climate dealing with teacher behaviors were not significantly different, it may indicate that the principals themselves were the key factor for the decision of whether or not to go site-based in their schools. It could be argued that even the decisional-status levels of the teachers are most influenced by the principals themselves as they are in a position to grant decision- making involvement when they deem it to be desirable. Group II principals perceived the benefits of site-based shared decision making in terms of the teachers to a greater extent than did the Group I school principals, as they also did in terms of parents. Group I school principals were less focused on benefits in terms of teachers or parents. Within Group I there was an almost equal focus on benefits in terms of teachers and in terms of the whole school. Group II principals were almost exclusively focused on benefits in terms of teachers, with a distant secondary focus on benefits in terms of parents. With their higher focus on staff and their reported number-one "task at hand" being staff improvement, 256 Group II principals may have had a tendency to have a more critical view of their staffs. This is supported by the earlier-mentioned, possibly less desirable relationships with their staffs. The lower focus on benefits associated with parents by Group I principals, coupled with their higher focus on the problems of site-based management being associated with parents, may indicate that they had a higher tendency not to want to involve parents, or a tendency to keep parent involvement at a minimum, compared to the Group II principals. This could have influenced the decisions in their buildings not to go site-based. It is possible that they were more apprehensive about empowering parents. Group I principals also tended to see problems of site-based management as issues of power more than did the other principals. They could have been more uncomfortable with the idea of empowering teachers to any greater degree, as well. Mostly, they saw their general school condition as possibly deteriorating due to site- based management. It is possible, then, that they might have inadvertently influenced their staffs negatively. This is in contrast to the Group II principals, who mostly saw the problems of site-based management in terms of school needs and difficulties associated with the central school administration. Site-based management with its "waiver" system may have appealed more to these principals as a way of circumventing their perceived difficulties (obstacles) with the central administration. The Group II principals were 257 also somewhat more focused on problems in terms of the principal than were the Group I principals. Group II principals saw site-based management problems in terms of the principal more than did the other group. This, taken into consideration with the finding that 43% of them believed that their staffs' decisions had to do with "themselves" or something that they had done, might indicate that the Group II principals were more focused on themselves than the other group in terms of problems. Related to this is the finding that these principals had a stronger sense of needing to improve their staffs; this might mean that they were more critical of their staffs and may have tended to over-emphasize themselves when evaluating programs. If, in turn, their staffs sensed that they were not receiving enough credit for their efforts, poorer staff-principal relationships might result. Both groups of principals were in quite close agreement on what the major tasks were in their present jobs. However, as mentioned before, Group II principals tended to be more focused on staff improvement than the other group. This finding may indicate that, although both groups had a similar view of what their present jobs entailed, they might have had differing views of how their tasks orjobs might change under implementation of site-based management. Their responses to the other interview questions would substantiate this theory. The finding that Group I school principals tended to give more reasons why when explaining their staffs’ decisions may reflect a defensive stance. They might have felt obligated to explain or, if you will, give excuses for their staffs’ negative 258 decision—the decision not to write a proposal for a site-based shared decision- making model of an innovative program. The Group II principals, who gave fewer reasons, might not have felt the need to expound; higher diversity in their answers might indicate that theirthinking was less restricted on this issue because their staffs had made the positive choice or more politically correct choice. The major reason that was given by Group I school principals was issues of "time." In contrast to this was the other group's descriptions of how their staffs were willing to give more of their personal time. The findings indicated that Group II principals gave significantly more reasons in terms of the good qualities of their staffs. This may seem to refute possible interpretations of the findings given earlier, but the very nature of the interview question would naturally elicit this kind of response. That is to say, comparing the two groups on this question is problematic because one group was giving reasons for a "yes" decision, whereas the other was giving reasons for a "no" decision. It is logical that, if the "yes" decision was viewed as politically correct or a kind of victory, it would be natural to compliment the staff or give credit to the staff. This may explain the difference between the two groups in terms of the "good qualities" of their staffs as reasons for the decisions. The Group I principals gave negative states of their staffs such as "fear of the unknown" as frequently as they gave "good qualities" of their staffs as reasons for their decisions. Another reason given by this group was the lack of clarity or answers about site-based management. Although this group of schools had the same opportunities as the other group to become informed, they apparently believed 259 the information they had was insufficient. The other group may have thought that the information was sufficient to make a decision, or even if it was not, they were willing to take a risk and make a time commitment for some reason. Group II principals did report that their staffs had some experience and prior knowledge. Although the findings indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups in regard to decision-making philosophies, they did indicate a slight tendency for Group I principals to report a more democratic philosophy than the other group. This may give some support to the idea that better principal-staff relationships might have existed in Group I schools. The two groups of principals did not differ in having extremely low (8% and 0%) levels of giving clear, concise answers regarding their decision-making philosophies. Sixty-two percent of all the principals, however, did give clear, concise choices of decision-making philos0phies when referring to how their philosophies of decision making "should" be under site-based management, as opposed to what their philosophies of decision making were at the present time. This finding may indicate that the principals were apprehensive about giving a label to what guided their present job performance. It seemed much easier to discuss the "should be" than the "is" for the principals in this study in terms of their decision-making philos0phies. The tendency for Group II principals to make more movement from their present decision-making philosophies to their future decision-making philosophies under site-based management might simply have been a result of their present 260 tendency to be more conservative and the perceived expectation that they would have to have a more democratic style under site-based management. Group I still had a tendency to be more democratic in the future scenario of site-based shared decision making. These findings seem to give credence to the idea that the Group I schools might have had a more open climate. The finding that Group II school principals thought that their staffs wanted to be more involved in school-wide decision making to a greater extent than the other group of principals was not surprising. Seventy-one percent of Group II principals believed their teachers wanted more involvement, compared to only 17% of the Group I principals. This finding could logically be attributed to the results of the vote in their buildings. It would be a reasonable assumption that if the staffs voted to adopt a site-based shared decision-making structure, they probably wanted to be more involved in school-wide decision making. The reverse assumption would also be reasonable. The interesting thing to note about this finding is that the Group I principals’ responses, which indicated they thought their staffs did not want to become more involved with school-wide decision making, did not synchronize with the responses of their staffs. The Group I staffs’ responses did indicate that they wanted to be more involved in decision making and that they were in a state of decisional deprivation. Hoy et al. (1990) stated that a principal’s perceptions of the climate of the school are often at variance with teachers’ perceptions and that this situation comprises a symptom. They added that it is important to find out what is causing the 261 discrepancy. Climate, they said, is a predictor of authenticity, motivation, communicative openness, and participation. Although there was a tendency for Group I schools to be more open than Group II schools, this finding would indicate that there is still room for improvement in the area of shared decision making in Group I schools. The school climate is an important variable in efforts of school restructuring. Hoy et al. concluded: If a secure atmosphere can be created in which teachers feel free to be candid in their appraisals ofthe work environment and their recommendations for change, then teacher programs for effective organizational development can become a reality. The finding that Group II principals cited more kinds of decisions to be made both bythe principal and by the governance committee might indicate that they were either better informed or that they had put more thought into this question because they were'to implement site-based management the following school year. In comparing the Group II principals' responses for decisions best made by the principal to those best made by the governance committee, the findings revealed that they were more focused on decisions to be made by the principals (50% more kinds of decisions named). This finding lends support to the idea that this group of principals tended to be more "principal centered." It might also indicate that they were concerned about empowering the teachers to the extent that they themselves might have to relinquish some decision-making power. Their lower focus on the decisions to be made by the governance committee might indicate a lower commitment to empowering the staff than their words and actions denoted. 262 The Group I principals’ responses revealed that, as a group, they were equally focused on decisions to be made by the principal and decisions to be made by the governance committee. They were less focused on the kinds of decisions to be made by principals than were Group II principals. This might indicate that they were more "staff centered" than were the Group II principals. These findings tend to agree with earlier interpretations that the Group I schools tended to be more open and might have had better principal-staff relationships, as well as teachers who were more satisfied with their present decision-making involvement. The findings indicated that both groups of principals were concerned about empowering teachers. They both saw the problems of site-based management to the greatest extent in terms of negative staff behaviors and attitudes. This might indicate that the Group I principals who might have had more open climates and better principal-staff relationships were less willing to risk their more positive situations to an innovation that could disturb their possibly better climates. Again, they might have inadvertently sent messages to their staffs that site-based management was not really needed. The findings seemed to indicate that the principals themselves were a key variable in their schools’ decisions on whether or not to adopt a site-based shared decision-making philosophy. The other key variable seems to have been the staffs' perceptions of their involvement in school-wide decision making or their decisional- status levels. The findings seem to suggest that the school climate, or degree of openness, might also have influenced the school decisions. 263 Becommendationsionfiracflce The following recommendations are proposed to elementary school administrators. based on the findings from this study and the literature and research reviewed: 1. Strive to attain a more open climate and to be perceived as genuine. If you do not follow through on what you say, "walk your talk" or practice what you preach, you will not be seen as authentic. Aspects of climate have predicted such important things as discipline, principal and school effectiveness, alienation, innovation, classroom management, and managerial systems (Hoy et al., 1990). 2. Strive to involve your staff members in school-wide decision making in meaningful and significant ways. If the staff does not perceive that they are sufficiently involved in school-wide decision making, they may feel dissatisfied or untrusting, and hence may be less productive and effective. 3. When implementing site-based management, be well informed; this will be critical for your staff's performance under site-based management. If the training you and/or your staff have received is scant or limited, try to keep abreast through research papers and journals; learn from what other schools have already experienced. Without a thorough knowledge of site-based shared decision making, it will be difficult to guide your staff in a productive and effective way. According to Guskey and Peterson (1996), the lack of expertise can at best turn shared decision making into "shared naiveté." 264 4. When site-based decision making is mandated from the district’s central administration or from the state, strive to implement it in meaningful ways. Incorrect implementation of or a bogus site-based shared decision-making program may do more harm than good. Trust will be lessened, and the principal-staff relationship will suffer when there is little meaning to the activities in which a staff is forced to participate. Frustration will result if the staff perceive that the costs of the program far outweigh the benefits. 5. Plan to have a system of evaluation for your own performance and that of your school’s educational program. You need to know what your staff’s perceptions are if you are to make effective administrative decisions. Analyzing standardized tests is an effective way to gauge your school’s performance, leads to ideas for staff improvement, but does not help you to evaluate your own performance. In an atmosphere of trust, the use of an instrument that measures your school climate is one way to accurately assess teachers' perceptions and give you an estimate of your own performance. 6. Find ways to improve your staff’s perceptions of you as a hard worker forging ahead, a person who truly cares about them as individuals and someone who shows compassion and goes out of his/her way to help teachers. 7. If you have a tendency to be impersonal and formal, and stay at an emotional distance from your staff, search for ways to temper these tendencies and reduce your staff's perceptions that you may be aloof. 265 8. If you believe that you have a fairly open climate and your relationships with your staff are good, be aware that there may be a tendency in your school to maintain the status-quo and to avoid change. Use the power or asset of your strong relationship to your staff to guide them in making significant changes in instruction and learning, as needed. 9. Be alert to the possibility that your staff may feel the need to be more involved in school-wide decision making than they seem to be letting on or than you perceive them to be. 10. Sufficient time should be given for collaboration and governance committee activities. If the state and/or district restricts or shortens time in some way and yet still requires a site—based shared decision-making method of school management, you will need to guide the staff to more meaningful issues than can efficiently be addressed so they will not perceive site-based shared decision making as another exercise in futility. In not doing so, your staff could become less trusting or more alienated as a result. 11. Do not underestimate the importance and potential of your staff’s collective decision-making activities in relation to the importance of your own decision making. This could be symptomatic of a more closed environment. 12. Decide what you believe your decision-making philosophy should be and strive to have your actions reflect that philosophy as much as possible. Obtain feedback to determine whether you are succeeding. 266 BMW The following areas are proposed as possibilities for further research: 1. Analysis of the data collected using the variables of school size, school location, age of principal, gender of principal, race of principal, years of experience as a principal, and the highest level of educational attainment of the principal, as well as additional interactions among variables, may lead to important additional information. 2. A similar study with middle school and high school principals and staffs may provide different findings. 3. Now that all of the schools in this study have become site-based schools, a follow-up study should be done to determine whether any factors of climate, perceptions of principals, or decisional-status levels of staffs have been changed. 4. Another follow-up study should be undertaken to determine whether or not there are differences between these two groups of schools, or between these two sets of principals, in terms of the evaluations on the effectiveness of site-based management in those schools or under those principals’ leadership. 5. So far, research has not shown conclusively that site-based shared decision-making programs have been linked to improvements in student outcomes (Guskey & Peterson, 1996). More studies should be done now that more and more schools have become involved and have been practicing site-based shared decision making for longer periods of time. In particular, a study should be undertaken, 267 comparing student achievement levels in the Flint Community Schools as a variable of the level of successful implementation of site-based shared decision-making structures, school climate, leadership style of principal, or decisional-status level of the staffs. 6. A follow-up study should be conducted, comparing principals’ perceptions of site-based decision making at the present time to their perceptions at the time of this study. Results could show whether principals have changed in any way or have remained the same. 7. Interviews with the principals and teachers who were in the 14 schools included in this study might reveal how they account for the findings of this study. 8. A study should be conducted that would determine the effects of other innovative programs that are being implemented simultaneously with site-based shared decision making on evaluations of the site-based program and on student achievement. This study could show that when innovative programs are ordered and they are not the result or in the spirit of site-based management, the potential for improvement of the schools through site-based management may be negated. APPENDICES APPENDIX A POWER EQUALIZATION AND LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION 268 Values, Structure and Processes Necessary for Power Equalization to Occur in Participatory Groups Values support power equalization when superordinates and subordinates believe that: participants are responsible, motivated, and trustworthy and that each has something to contribute; F group members possess information, skills, and creative talents which, when shared, will increase decision quality, i.e., participation is not merely a way to win employee commitment to pre-established goals; open expression of ideas and feelings is healthy whereas suppression l of thoughts and beliefs tends to reduce not only decision quality but I- the effectiveness of decision implementation; conflict is inevitable, and it is a potential source of information rather than a threat or challenge to position status; and influence is based upon expertise rather than on position status. Structures promote power equalization when: policies legitimate participation in decisions which affect participants and provide all group members an opportunity to exercise initiative and direction; procedures de-emphasize the chain of command and hierarchical dif- ferentiation; and few rules and regulations constrain group members. Processes facilitate power equalization practices when group members be- have in ways indicating that: through training and experience subordinates have acquired a ca- pacity to participate, i.e., they understand the issues being discussed, are able to express their ideas persuasively, and are capable of op- erating effectively in groups; a free-flowing expression of information, ideas, and feelings among superordinates, subordinates, and peers exists; relationships are characterized by openness and trust; there is a de-emphasis on avoiding conflict through forcing, smooth- ing, and ignoring; and high levels of participation and influence occur regardless of status position. Source: Wood, C. J. (1984, Fall). Participatory decision making: Why doesn't it seem to work? The Educational Forum, 42, 59. 269 levels of Participation” l. Autocratic decision making: superordinate makes the decision. 1.1 No advance information is provided to subordinates regarding the de- cision to be made. 1.2 lnfonnafion is made available to subordinates, but they do not con- tribute their ideas or suggestions. 2. Consultative decision making: prior to making a decision, the super- ordinate seeks information or ideas and suggestions from subordinates. 2.1 Information is solicited from subordinates, but they are not asked to generate or evaluate altemative solutions. 2.2 Subordinates have an opportunity to give advice following an expla- nation of the problem by the superordinate. The superordinate makes the decision which may not reflect the subordinates’ influence. 2.3 Following an explanation of the problem by the superordinate, sub- ordinates give advice. Advice is taken into consideration and is reflected in the superordinate’s final decision. 3. Participatory decision making: The superordinate and subordinates , share and analyze problems together, generate and evaluate altema- tives, and attempt to reach agreement (consensus) on decisions. joint decision making occurs as influence over the final choice is, in principle, shared equally, with no distinction between superordinate and subordinates. 4. Delegated decision making: After providing relevant information, the superordinate gives subordinates complete control to make the decision. Source: Wood, C. J. (1984, Fall). Participatory decision making: Why doesn't it seem to work? The Educational - Aw -a 11-- Forum, 49, 61. APPENDIX B CORRESPONDENCE m—n- -. --‘.—‘; 270 4386 Staunton Drive Colleen G. Ford Swartz Creek. MI 48473 April 3. 1990 Permissions Department The MacMillian Company 866 3rd Avenue New York. NY 10022 Dear Sir: .I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University and I‘am doing a study on Site-Based Management. Part of my study is to describe the school climate in sixteen schools. I am.asking permission to use the "Organizational Climate Des- cription Questionnaire" found in Andrew W. Halpin's book. Theogy and Research in Administration (1966). A school district has given me permission to conduct this study and we are ready to proceed. awaiting your per- mission. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely. zero—3% .0 Colleen Ford 271 MACMILLAN PUBLISHING COMPANY A DIVISION or MACMILLAN. INC 866 Third Avenue, New York, N. Y. I0022 April 12, 1990 Collen Ford 4386 Staunton Drive Swartz Creek, MI 48473 Dear Ms. Ford: You have our permission to use the "Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire" from THEORY AND RESEARCH IN ADMINISTRATION by Andrew N. Halpin, subject to the following limitations: Permission is granted for usage of the instrument in the manner and for the purpose as specified in your letter of April 3, 1990, and in all copies to meet degree requirements including University Microfilms edition. New permission is required if the dissertaion is later accepted for commercial publication; Full credit must be given on every copy reproduced as follows: Reprinted with permission of Macmillan Publishing Company from THEORY AND RESEARCH IN ADMINISTRATION by Andrew N. Halpin. Copyright 0 1966 by Andrew N. Halpin. Permission is granted for a fee of $35.00. this fee is payable upon signing this letter of agreement. If you are in agreement, kindly sign and return one copy of this letter with your remittance; the second copy is for your records. Thank you and best wishes. Sin erely, Ian R. Gross Permissions Department AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED: 81/ o een for administration building 2T7?! meeflkcenlcyetreet'flht.michigen48502 %E-LWTY ”““5 Hey 1. 1990 Deer Reepondent: 1 en e Flint teecher on eehbeticel leeve end involved in e re- eeerch project on eite-beeed nenegenent. Pert of thin project ie to eeeeee the orgenieetionel clinete end ettitudee towerd decieion-neking in eelected elenentery echoole. Dr. Burtley end Pete Murphy heve jointly epproved thie reeeerch project. Steven Nikoloff in the Ieeeerch 5 Tooting Office in eeeieting he in the collection of dete. He ere looking forwerd to the reeulte of thie etudy. which will be incorporeted into e doctorel dieeertetion thet I en prepering. Pleeee teke tine to complete the queetionneire which in etteched. All infornetion will he held in etricteet confidence. In order to protect confidentielity. infornetion obteined fro- the eurvey will be encrypted. After you coeplete the eurvey-queetionneire. pleeee return it to your principel who. in turn, will torwerd it to me elong with othere tron your echool by Hey llth. Your cooperetion in thie etudy ie zreetly epprecieted. Ihenk you! Sincerely. Am V Steven Nikoli‘é r. Net Burtley Pete Morph 273 923 east kearsley street 0 flint, michigan 48502 T0: Principals PROM: Colleen Pord DATE: May 1. 1990 RE: Site-Based Management Survey-Questionnaires administration building Enclosed are surveys concerning organizational climate and decision-making for the teachers and professional staff in your building. Dr. Burtley, Hr. Nikoloff, and Pete Murphy have approved conducting this survey in selected Flint elementary schools. This is pert of independent research for a doctoral dissertation. would you please remind your teachers during the week to complete and re- turn the surveys end answer sheets by Friday, H3! llth. A large envelope has been provided for collecting the teacher surveys. Please return the surveys vie school nail to: "SEN SURVEY" Administration Building As a fellow educator I realize that this is a busy time of year. so the survey is straight forward and uncomplicated; it should take no longer than thirty minutes to complete. The research design is one that should provide useful information in our efforts to improve our effectiveness. so I appreciate your assistance. You can be assured of complete anonymity. Information obtained from the sur- vey will be encrypted to protect confidentiality of each school. All informa- tion will be held in strictest confidence. You will find my name and address-in the staff directory. Please do not hesi- tate to contact me if you would like to have information concerning the results of this survey. Thank you very much for your participation and assistance. 54L Since ely. Colleen Pord ‘Pete Hu p Stevan Nikoloff// Dr. at Burtley 22711 923 east kearsley street 0 flint, michigan 48502 May 14, I990 ear Colleague; I am writing to clarify the purpose of the survey questionnaire I have asked you to complete. I have spent this school year studying the "restructuring" movement in education. This included site-based decision making, participative management, teacher empowerment, small group communication and many other related concepts. For my final project (dissertation), I decided to compare a group of schools that chose to implement a site-based decision making structure with a group of schools that chose not to. I am looking for differences in l) organizational climate, 2) decision making participation, and 3) demographics. administration building The information obtained will be held in utmost confidence and will not be used to evaluate any school program. My study will be most successful (accurate) if all teachers participate and answer candidly. If you feel that answering questions about sick-days, age, etc. is too personal, you can skip those questions. However, I really did want to look at the data in terms of that demographic information. I hope you will see this as a good chance to be heard and express your opinions in a way that may help produce quality educational decisions in the future. If you would prefer, please return the surveys to me directly in one of the following ways: 1) Send to me by school sail, addressed to ~Colleen Ford - 58! Survey,» 2) Give to your union representative who will return them to me through the school mail or drop them off at the U.T.F. Office. 3) Hail directly to me by 0.8. Hail to my home: 4386 Staunton Drive Swartz Creek, HI 48473 t . . If you choose U.S. flat], I will send you a dollar to cover postage and envelope. I know this is a very busy time of the year, and I sincerely appreciate your participation. Yours truly, wgfw Colleen Ford 275 I N T E R - 0 F F I C E N E H 0 R A N D U H Flint Community Schools FROM: Colleen Ford T0: Principals RE: SBM Surveys DATE: May 14, I990 I have prepared some letters which explain the purpose of the survey and give the staff alternative methods of returning the surveys if they wish. Would you please distribute these letters to your staff and also remind them to return their questionnaires as soon as possible. The information obtained from the survey will be held in utmost confidence and will not be used to evaluate any program. Thank you for your assistance. CF/jb administration building 276 masthearsieystreetOilint,micbigan48$02 May 29, l990 Dear Colleague: I would like to take this opportunity to thank those of you who have taken time to complete the questionnaires for my study on site-based shared decision making. If you have not been able to respond yet, I would still appreciate hearing from you. Any surveys that I receive in June will be included in my research. I would like to see each school get fair representation in the study! All information will be helc in strictest confidence and will not be used in any evaluation. Please return the survey directly to me in one of the following ways: l) Via school mail — addressed "Colleen Ford - 58! Survey - Adm. Bldg.“ 2) Give to your union representative who will return thel to me by school mail or drop them off at the U.T.F office. 3) Via U.S. Hail to my home: 4386 Staunton Drive Swartz Creek, '1 48473 *If you choose U.S. Mail, I will send you a dollar to cover the postage and envelope. Thanks again for your participation in this study. Yours truly, wags/1x Colleen Ford CF/jb 277 T0: Principals FROM: Colleen Ford RE: SBM Surveys DATE: May 29. 1990 Would you please distribute the enclosed letters to your staff. This is a last reminder for teachers to return their surveys. I would like to see each school get the fairest possible representation in the study. Results from this study will be reported in my dissertation in terms of Block A schools (SBM) versus Block B schools (Non SBM). I am looking at existing conditions at the time the decision was made. Individual schools will not be studied. All information will be held in strictest confidence. Thank you for your cooperation. CF/jb 278 June 20. 1990 Dear Colleague: I hope you are enjoying a very refreshing summer! As you recall. I had asked you to complete a survey in the spring and I am writing about that research project. I understand that the timing of the study was very poor and not conducive to a hearty response! Now that you are settled in comfortably to your summer vacation. perhaps you could find the time and inclination to participate in the study. Having taught for twenty years in Flint. I certainly understand the year-end pressure that you have been under. Your participation is truly important. how- ever. and will make a difference. I have streamlined the survey procedure and enclosed an envelope for your convenience. Several teachers have requested that I share the results of this study and so I plan to do that as soon as the study is complete. If you have already returned your survey. please accept my gratitude once again and just ignore this request. Because the respondents are anonymous. I have no way of knowing which col— leagues have already participated. Your anonymity is absolutely guaranteed. Yours truly. éMQZ‘z/u’%z [é' Col leen Ford APPENDIX C SURVEY INSTRUMENT 279 INSTRUCTIONS The first part of this questionnaire deals with organiza- tional climate. These are questions about your school. Please answer them by selecting 93g of the four choices for each answer. Use a check mark to indicate your answer. Do not dwell too long on any one item. but answer it as you think the situation exists in your school. The second part of the questionnaire deals with managerial type decisions. The questions are in pairs. The first question of each pair seeks information on how involvedgyou are at the present time in participating in these kinds of decisions at your school. The second question in each pair seeks information on how involved you wish to be in parti- cipating in these kinds of decisions. Again. select one of the four choices for each answer. Mark your selection with a check mark. The third part of the questionnaire asks for background information. This demographic information will be used to determine if there are any correlations between factors such as years of experience and viewpoints held. Please return the completed questionnaire to me as soon as possible in the envelope provided. *PART I You are now ready to begin Part I on the next page e Remember. do not dwell too long on any one item and answer each question as you think the situa- tion exists in your school. *"Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire" Reprinted with permission of Macmillan Publishing Company from THEORY AND RESEARCH IN ADMINISTRATION by Andrew W. Halpin. Copy- right © 1966 by Andrew w. Halpin. 280 a 2 2 ° 9. Very Rarely Sometimes Often Frequently Occurs Occurs Occurs Occurs 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. l7. l8. 19. Teachers' closest friends are other faculty members at this school. The mannerisms of teachers at this school are annoying. Teachers spend time after school with stu- dents who have individual problems. Instructions for the Operation of teaching aids are available. Teachers invite other faculty members to visit them at home. There is a minority group of teachers who always Oppose the majority. Extra books are available for classroom use. Sufficient time is given to prepare adminis- trative reports. Teachers know the family background of other faculty members Teachers exert group pressure on nonconform- ing faculty members. In faculty meetings, there is the feeling of "let's get things done." Administrative paper work is burdensome at this school Teachers talk about their personal life to other faculty members. Teachers seek special favors from the prin- cipal. School supplies are readily available for use in classwork. Student progress reports require too much work. Teachers have fun socializing together during school time. Teachers interrupt other faculty members who are talking in staff meetings. Most of the teachers here accept the faults of their colleagues. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 281 Teachers have too many committee requirements. There is considerable laughter when teachers gather informally. Teachers ask nonsensical questions in faculty meetings. Custodial service is available when needed. Routine duties interfere with the job of teaching. Teachers prepare administrative reports by themselves. Teachers ramble when they talk in faculty meetings. Teachers at this school show much school spirit. The principal goes out of hiw way to help teachers. The principal helps teachers solve personal problems. Teachers at this school stay by themselves. The teachers accomplish their work with great vim, vigor, and pleasure. The principal sets an example by working hard himself. The principal does personal favors for teachers. Teachers eat lunch by themselves in their own classrooms. The morale of the teachers is high. The principal uses constructive criticism. The principal stays after school to help teachers finish their work. Teachers socialize together in small select groups. The principal makes all class-scheduling decisions. Teachers are contacted by the principal each day. 2 E Rarely Sometimes Occurs Occurs s .4 . Very Often Frequently Occurs Occurs A1. d2. 43. 44. 45. 66. 47. 48. 49. SO. 51. 52. 53. Sh. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 282 The principal is well prepared when he speaks at school functions. The principal helps staff members settle minor differences. The principal schedules the work for the teachers. Teachers leave the grounds during the school day. Teachers help select which courses will be taught. The principal corrects teachers' mistakes. The principal talks a great deal. The principal explains his reasons for criticism to teachers. The principal tries to get better salaries for teachers. Extra duty for teachers is posted conspicu- ously. The rules set by the principal are never questioned. The principal looks out for the personal welfare of teachers. School secretarial service is available for teachers' use. The principal runs the faculty meeting like a business conference. The principal is in the building before teachers arrive. Teachers work together preparing adminis- trative reports. Faculty meetings are organized according to a tight agenda. Faculty meetings are mainly principal-report meetings. ' The principal tells teachers of new ideas he has run across. Teachers talk about leaving the school system. .3. B Rarely SOmetimes Occurs Occurs c d “ Very Often Frequently Occurs Occurs 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 7U. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 283 Rarely Occurs The principal checks the subject-matter ability of teachers. The principal is easy to understand. Teachers are informed of the results of a supervisor's visit. The principal insures that teachers work to their full capacity. P. Sometimes Occurs .E Often Occurs 1 ‘Very‘ Frequently Occurs II Please indicate if you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with tne following statements regarding managerial-type decisions at your school. Strongly Agree When a new faculty member is to be hired in my school. I would be involved in making such a decision. I want to be involved in such a decision. When my scnool building budget is being planned I would be involved in its preparation. a *— I want to be involved in making such decisions. When a new textbook is needed for a course at my school. I would be involved in making such a de cision. I want to be involved in making such decisions. When one of my students becomes involved in aca- demic or personal problems, I would be involved in deciding how to resolve the difficulties. I want to be involved in making such decisions. When individual faculty assignments are conside I would be involved in making such decisions. I want to be involved in making these kind of decisions. When a faculty member has a grievance, I would be involved in resolving the problem. I want to be involved in making such decisions. red. Agree b Disagree C Strongly Disagree d 284 Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 3 b c d 77. When new instructional methods (e.g. team teaching) are suggested. I would be involved in making the decision whether to adopt them or not. 78. I want to be inVolved in making such decisions. 79. If new building facilities are needed, I would oe involved in making such a decision. 8d. I want to be involved in making such a decision. 81. When there are problems involving community groups (e.g. P.T.U., civil rignts groups). I would be involved in eliminating the difficulties. 82. I want to be involved in making such de- cisions. 83. Wnen tnere are problems with administrative services (clerks, typists, etc.) I would be involved in resolving such difficulties. 84. I want to be involved in making these kinds of decisions. 8). I would be involved in any decisions con- cerning faculty members' salaries. 8b. I want to be involved in making sucn decisions. 87. I would be involved in decisions concern- ing general instructional policy. 88. I want to be involved in making these kinds of decisions. PART III - Please answer the following questions about yourself. (Circle answers) 89. I have worked in tne Flint Community Schools for a P. s 9. 2 0-3 years 4-10 years li-ZU years 21-30 years More than 30 years 9U. 91. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 285 My race or national origin is: a) White b) Black c) hispanic d) Asian e) Native American I have accumulated the following amount of sick days: a) U-lU b) ll-30 c) 31-50 d) Sl—lOU e) More than 100 My present assignment is: a) Pre—K - 3 b) 4 - 6 c) Subject Area d) Administrator e) Other Teacher Teacher Teacher Professional While employed by the Flint Community Scnools, how many times (voluntarily or unvoluntarily) have you ”changed" assignments? ("Lhange" could be in grade level, school building, subject, etc.) a) 0-Z 0) 3-5 c) 6-10 d) ll-lS e) 16 or more My age falls in the following category: 3) Under 25 b) 26-35 c) 36—45 d) 40-55 e) Over 55 Years Years Years Years Years now many years of professional experience do you have (including other districts that you have worked for)? a) U-J b) 4-lU c) ll-ZO d) 2i-30 e) More than Years Years Years Years 30 Years Hy highest level of educational achievement is: 8) BJ. b) B.A. + 15 c) H.A. d) FLA. + 15 e) M.A. + 30 Eds or PhD My gender is: a) female b) male REFERENCES REFERENCES Aaronstein L. W., Marlow M. &Desilets, B. (1990, April). Detours on the road to site- based management. Educaflonalleadetshm. pp. 61 -.63 Action plan for educational excellence. (1989-90). NEAJjanthQK. 313. Aguila, F. D. (1982, November). Japanese management practices: The educational hula hoop of the 80's. W, 66, 92. Armenia, D. (1986, FalWVinter). Interview with Dr. John Goodlad. Partnerships for educational renewal. Curriculumjnfiomext (Washington State ASCD), pp. 16-17. Belasco. J. A. &Alutto, J. A. (1972, Winter). Decisional participation and teacher satisfaction. EducaflonaLAdminisiLatlormuaderly. 44- 59. Belasco, J. A., &Alutto, J. A. (1973 Winter). Patterns of teacher participation in school system decision making. WW, 9, 27- 41. Brandt, R. &Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992, February). On rethinking leadership: A conversation with Tom Sergiovanni. W32, 49, 46-49. Bridges, E. M. (1967, Winter). A model for shared decision making“ In the school principalship. EdilsallgnaLAdminjsiLaflQnfluafleflx. 3 49-61 Brown, A., &Weiner, E. (1984). W W. New York. McGraw-Hill. Cabot, S. J. (1989. November). How ready are your employees to be involved? Went. 35. 42-45. Clear. D. K. (1970, January). Decentralization: Issues and comments. Ibe QIeaLlnslelQuse. 4.4.. 259-267. 286 287 Conley, S. C., Schmidle, T., & Shedd, J. B. (1988, Winter). Teacher participation in the management of school systems. WM 99, 260- 280. Conway, J. A. (1984, Summer). The myth, mystery and mastery of participative decision making In education. EducationaLAdminjstLatlonfluafletly. 29,11- 40. Cunningham, W. G. (1976, October). Citizens’ participation: Antagonistics or allies? IbeonclntoELactice. 15. 274-283. David, J. L. (1989, May). Synthesis of research on school -based management. EducationaLLeadershlp. 45- 53. Decker. E R.. and others (1977) SilamanagenJeIJLAnanalvslsoflheconcepts (I. II- ...|I'....'..I' OIIOII‘I ._ .0...AII..‘..¢..I. I C I I‘ .I" 'I.I|.¢.... «I. 'I I. ‘ ‘ .I‘ I..' W. Report given to the California State Department of Education, Sacramento. Denton, D. K. (1991). HorizontaimanagemenLBeyondioialcustomeLsatisiaction. New York: Lexington Books. Dobyns, L.. &Crawford-Mason. S. (1991. Quafitvotelsezlherevolmmmmd huslness. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Duke, D. L., Showers, B. K. & Imber, M. (1980. Winter). Teachers and shared decision making: The costs and benefits of involvement. Educational Administrationfiuaderlx. 19, 93-106. Dumaine, B. (1990, May 7). Who needs a boss? EQnune. pp. 52-60. Dumaine, B. (1991, June 17). The bureaucracy busters. Eonuno, pp. 36-50. Dunne, T. 0., & Mauer, R.. (1982, November). Improving your school through quality circles. NASSBBulleiifl. 5.6. 87-90. Etzioni, A. (1964). Modenuimafllzatlons. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Fantini, M. D. &Gittell, M. (1973). Decentralizatiomfichlexlngieiorm. NewYork: Praeger. Fernandez. J. P. (1991). WWW—82931011194112 W. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. 288 Fiedler, F. E. (1967). Atheemefleadereheeflectmeness. New York: McGraw- Hill. Folger,J., &Poole, M. S. (1984). Climate and conflict interaction. Workingihreugh conflict (chapter 3). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Fullan, M. G. (1992, February). Visions that blind. EducationaLLeadoLsnio, 19, 19. Garfield. C. (1992). WWW Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin. Gates, P. E., Blanchard, K. H, 8. Hersey, P. (1976). Diagnosing educational leadership problems. EdheahenaLLeadetsllin. 33(5).1976. Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1957). Social behavior and the administrative process. Seneelfieflefl. 6.5. 429. Getzels, J. W., 8. Thelen, H. A. (1960). The classroom group as a unique social system. In N. 8. Henry (Ed). WWW SeeieesxeneleeleaLaseeeteeiieachineaneleaming (F Ifth Ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part II). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Glickman, C. D. (1990, September). Pushing school reform to a new edge: The seven ironies of school empowerment. Ween, 12, 68-75. Goodlad, J. L. (1971 , October). What educational decisions by whom? Education Digest. 3L 5. Griffiths, D. (1964). AdmInIstratIve theory and change’ In organizations. In M. B. Miles (Ed.). lnnexatiemnedueaflen. New York: Teachers College Press. GriffithS. 0- (1979)- AdministraiixetheeminjdueatieanLanLLeadings. Midland, MI: Francis Pendell Publishing. Halpin, A. w. (1966). When. New York: Macmillan. Harris, P. R., & Moran, R. T. (1991). ManagingJultuLaLdlflQLence (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Harrison, C. R., Killion, J. P., 8. Mitchell, J. E. (1989, May). Site-based management: The realities of implementation. EdheatlenaLLeadershle. p. 57. 289 Helgesen, S. (1990). W. New York: Doubleday. Hill, P. T., 8. Bonan. J. (19918). WWW education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Hill, P. T., & Bonan, J. (1991b, September). Site-based management: Decentralization and accountability. InoEducatlonjligect, 23-25. Holzman, M. (1992, February). Do we really need leadership? Educational Leadership. 4.9. 3640. Hoy,W. K., &Clover, S. l. R. (1986, Winter). Elementary school clImate Arevision of the OCDQ. EducatlenaLAdminjstratienQuaneny. 22, 93-110. Hoy,W., Tarter, J. C., &Bliss, J. R. (1990, August). Organizational climate, school health, and effectiveness: A comparative analysis. Educational Administratienfiuanedx. 29. 260- 279. Hughes, L. W. (1968, October). Organizational cIImatenAnother dImenSIon to the process of Innovation? EdueahenaIAdministratienQuanenx 4.16-27. Leavitt, H. J. (1962). Unhuman organizations. W. Leithwood, K. A. (1992, February). The move toward transformatIonaI leadership. EducatienaLLeadershle. 49 8-12. L°P°Zv J- A- (1983). BamersieeumeulaLdecemrallzahenmLarLureaeseheel '“-‘-°' ‘ IIN‘ 0 I‘IIO‘II‘IqOIO --o._ -oII.,I._o-II‘I. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University. Malen, B., Ogawa, R. T., 8. Kranz, J. (1990, February). Unfulfilled promises: Evidence says site-based management hindered by many factors. Inc SchceLAdmlnlsttater. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Mcillaiienjndeemnalfix. New York: Harper&Bros. Massie, J. L., 8. Douglas, J. (1977). WWW. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. McGrath, S. T. (1992, February). Here come the women. EducationaLLoadoLsnio, 49, 62-65. McGregor, D. (1960). W. New York: McGraw-Hill. 290 Metz, E. J. (1981, August). Caution: Quality circles ahead. 1131011]ng Developmenuoumal. :15. 71-76. Michigan Education Association. (1989). Siteoaseddecisionmalonglneoroccse theootentialeonsiderationstoLMEAJocaLleaders. Lansing. Author. Mitchell, D. E, &Tucker, S. (1992, February). Leadership as away of thinking. EducationaLLeaderebip. 49. 30- 35. Mohrman, A. M, Jr., Cooke, R. A. &Mohrman, S. A. (1978, Winter). Participation in decision making. A multidimensional perspective. Educational Admimstratmnfluanedxfl. 13-.29 Monahan, W., &Johnson, H. (1973). Dggemmlized decision I' | edueafleneLgeale. Eugene, OR: ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 078 580). Morse, J. J., & Lorsch, J. W. (1970, May-June). Beyond Theory Y. Hamard B . B . . Naisbitt, J., 8. Aburdene, P. (1985). Reinventingjhecorooiation. New York: Warner Books. National Education Association. (1989-90). Action plan for educational excellence. NEAHendonk, p. 313. National School Public Relations Association. (1984). Sehoetbaeedmenagemem (Communication kit training manual). Washington, DC: Author. Nichols, D. (1989, December). Bottom-up strategies: Asking the employees for advice. ManagemenLBeview. 38. 44-49. Osborne, J. E. (1989, November). Combatting an "us vs. them" mindset. SymbomManagement 3.4. 39-41. Otto, H. J., &Veldman, D. J. (1967, Spring). Control structure in public schools and the decision and influence roles of elementary school principals and teachers. EducationaLAdministLationfluanerlv. 3,149-161. Ouchi.W. G- (1981). WW Challenge. New York: Avon Books. Peterson,, D. E.,&Hillkirk, J. (1991). WWW mark. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. 291 Phillips, 6., & McColIy, B. (1982, November). The Japanese model of management: will it work for high schools? NASSEBuIJetin, 66, 82. Pierce, L. C. (1976, October). Emerging policy issues in public education. Ehi QelteKaooan. 5.8. 173-176. Poplin, M. S. (1992, February). The leaders new role LookIng to the growth of teachers. EducationaLLeademhie. 49. 10— 11. Roscow, J. M. (1989, October 24-27) Nemroleetommnagerslhejmstoflon nmagementjufltical. Speech delivered at the Productivity Forum Fall Roundtable. Scottsdale, AZ. Sagar, R. D. (1992, February). The principals who make a difference. Educational Leadership. 49. 13—18. Sahtouris, E. (1989). QaIaJhenumemoumeflmmehaostososmos. NewYork: Simon 8 Schuster. Schaef.A.W- (1981). WWW malesocietx. San Francisco: Harper&Row. School-site management. (1989, December). IheELamltieneLAneMleetteLfoLtbe onzlineadmjnistratoL 16, 4- 5. Scott, W. G. (1967). Organization theory: An overview and appraisal. In P. P. Schoderbek (Ed.), W. New York: John Wiley 8. Sons. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992, February). Why we should seek substitutes for leadership. EducationaLLeadership. 49. 4145. Simon, H. A. (1944, Winter). Decision making and administrative organization. BublieAdministLatheview. 4. Tannenbaum, R. 8. Schmidt, W. H. (1958, March-April). How to choose a leadership Pattern HamaLdjusineseBeview. Timar, T. (1989, December). The politics of school restructuring. EhLDolta Kannan. 11. 265-275. Watkins, J. F. (1978. Spring). The OCDQ—An application and some implications. EducationaLAdministraflonfluaflertx. 4, 47-60. 292 Wissler, D. F. (1984). Decentahzatmnfldeosionmamgjnflmdflmfled Wm. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Riverside. Wissler, D. F., & Ortiz, F. I. (1986). The decentralization process of school systems: A review of the literature. Urbanjducation, 21, 280-294. Witherspoon, E. A. (.1987) EuncIoaLandteacheLanItudeeandoeLcemIonsjowaLd O O .IIO‘III1H0I00.0IQ'0-. ‘0 Iq‘OI‘ ..I|".k....'.' .0-.I I0. setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University. Wood, C. J. (1984, Fall). Participatory decision making: Why doesntIt seem to work? IheEducationaLEoLum. 49, 55- 64. Zahra, 8., Beebe, R J., &Wiebe, F. (1985, Spring). Quality circles for school districts. IbeEducationalJEoLum. 49. 323- 330. "‘IllilllllllIllllllllllll“