4. 35%. .‘

E%

E: a

in

Pﬁﬁhwmwzu
tram

7
.

3

“he; 1

. n

i. .1. b.
x... u. .
I

. w, . ‘ x
”HEW-«II

\
3X

. Ea.
x

maﬁa

., .5}. .

w
,4
33¢ ,

V.-. era." . 3563.33;

 

, I vv|.u:‘ I.|In|a.
19114.; 04“ I
‘Illtufll‘l I Flu.-

 

THESIS

(lot) 1‘ I‘

J L anmnes

will; lllllll

”BEAR? llllliilliilciiiiiiiine 3 9
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

School-Based Decision Making: The Relationship
Between Teachers' Decision Involvement and
Their Job Satisfaction

presented by

Mary K. Biziorek

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
ofthe requirements for \

Ph.D. degnwin EducationaJ Administration

5 Major professor

 

[hue September 1998

MSU i: an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

|_'

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE I DATE DUE DATE DUE
l04 2 8 o 4

 

JUL 2 5200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo mm“

 

 

SCHOOL-BASED DECISION MAKING: THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN TEACHERS’ DECISION INVOLVEMENT AND
THEIR JOB SATISFACTION

By

Mary K. Biziorek

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1998

ABSTRACT
SCHOOL-BASED DECISION MAKING: THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN TEACHERS’ DECISION INVOLVEMENT AND
THEIR JOB SATISFACTION
By

Mary K. Biziorek

This study was designed to investigate whether there is a relationship
between teachers’ involvement in the decision-making process in Michigan
elementary schools and theirjob satisfaction. A secondary purpose was to examine
variations in this relationship according to teachers’ expertise, levels of inﬂuence,
organizational structure of the school, and desired involvement. The theoretical and
conceptual basis for the study was social systems theory, decision theory, and
literature pertaining to cooperation in organizations and job satisfaction.

To investigate these issues, sample survey methodology was used to gather
data from randomly selected public elementary school teachers in Oakland County,
Michigan. Data from self-reports of 21 7 teachers were obtained through a three-part
survey. Part I of the survey included three decision involvement questions
concerning the extent of teachers’ involvement, desired involvement, and expertise
in 20 decision issues. In Part II, respondents indicated how satisﬁed they were

regarding 27 areas. Part III consisted of personal and situational variables related

to demographics, the organizational structure of the school, and the extent to which
respondents believed their participation was inﬂuential.

A signiﬁcant, positive relationship was found between teachers’ involvement
and their job satisfaction. That is, teachers who were highly involved in decision
making in their schools were more satisﬁed with theirjobs than those who were not
as involved. A Signiﬁcant relationship also was found between respondents’ levels
of inﬂuence and their job satisfaction. Teachers who thought they had a high level
of inﬂuence in the decision-making process in their schools had a higher level of job
satisfaction than those who thought they had a lower level of inﬂuence.

Another signiﬁcant relationship was found between teachers’ school
organization and theirjob satisfaction. Survey items related to school organization
included teamwork to set goals; setting goals that are Clear, speciﬁc, measurable,
and accountability based; adequacy of materials to achieve goals; and funding,
training, and establishing timelines to achieve goals. In schools with a high level of
organization, as identiﬁed on those survey items, teachers were more satisﬁed. No
relationship was found between teachers’ levels of expertise and their job
satisfaction. Likewise, the variable of desired involvement was not related to job
satisfaction. Based on these ﬁndings, several implications for practice and

recommendations for further research were presented.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation represents an accomplishment that I never could have
achieved without the collective love, patience, inspiration, and support from all of
those who contributed both personally and professionally to my completion of this
milestone in my life and career.

Above all, I am grateful to my husband, Ray, who allowed me to borrow time
from our lives to pursue this dream. He has proven to be tireless in providing love,
support, and an undaunted belief in my ability to complete this degree. To my
children, Miya and Kim, and to Mark and Dawn, who Observed from a distance and
encouraged me in the process. I am indebted to all of my family: to my dad and to
my mom, who left this world too soon, and to my in-Iaws, especially my father-in-law,
who was there to push and prod me along.

I am indebted to my advisor, mentor, and committee Chair, Jan Alleman, for
her wisdom and persistence in guiding and supporting me through this long process.
I am appreciative of other professors and colleagues who have given freely of their
time, expertise, and collective wisdom.

Ernie Bauer helped to frame the study and provided valuable guidance in
collecting and interpreting the data. I especially thank Dave Rodwell, my intrepid

research consultant, for his unlimited patience, thoughtful perspective, and calm

encouragement when I most needed it. I thank Sue Mellen, whose creativity, wit,
and wisdom pulled me through a most difﬁcult time.
And for the countless others who believed in me, sometimes more than I

believed in myself. It is you whom I carry in my mind and whose memories I shall

always Cherish.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................... x
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ........................ 1

Introduction .......................................... 1

Background of the Problem .............................. 3

Statement of the Problem ............................... 7

Purpose of the Study ................................... 9

Research Questions .................................. 1O

Importance of the Study ............................... 11

Limitations .......................................... 13

Deﬁnition of Terms ................................... 13

Overview ........................................... 16

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................. 17

Introduction ........................................ 17

Teachers' Involvement in Decision Making ................. 17

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework for the Study ........ 23

Job Satisfaction .................................... 23

Social Systems Theory ............................... 32

The Theory of Cooperation in Organizations .............. 36

Decision Theory .................................... 42

Summary ........................................... 49

III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ......................... 52

Introduction ......................................... 52

Design of the Study ................................... 52

Research Questions .................................. 55

Hypotheses ......................................... 56

The Study Population ................................. 57

Instrumentation ...................................... 60

vi

IV. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA ......... 69
Introduction ......................................... 69
Description of the Data Used in Analyzing the

Hypotheses ....................................... 69
Part I: Actual Involvement, Desired Involvement,
and Expertise in Decision Issues ..................... 71
Part II: Job Satisfaction .............................. 73
Part III: Personal and Situational Characteristics .......... 76
Results of the Correlational Analysis ...................... 80
Results of Hypothesis Testing ........................... 81
Hypothesis 1 ...................................... 81
Hypothesis 2 ...................................... 83
Hypothesis 3 ...................................... 85
Hypothesis 4 ...................................... 87
Hypothesis 5 ...................................... 90
Summary of Hypothesis Testing ....................... 91

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 94
Introduction ......................................... 94
Overview of the Study ................................. 95
Conclusions Related to the Hypotheses ................... 97
Implications for Practice .............................. 108
Recommendations for Future Research .................. 113
Concluding Remarks ................................. 116

APPENDICES
A. Principals’ Telephone Interview ......................... 120
B. Cover Letter and Follow-Up Postcard .................... 122
C. Approval Letter From UCRIHS ......................... 126
D. Survey Instrument ................................... 128
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................... 136

vii

3.1

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

LIST OF TABLES

Reliability (Internal Consistency) Coefﬁcients Regarding
Decision Involvement Scales ................................. 63

Distribution of Respondents by Gender, as Compared to the
Michigan Elementary Teacher Population ....................... 70

Distribution of Respondents by Level of Education, as
Compared to the Michigan Elementary Teacher Population ......... 70

Decision Issues in the Instructional/Technical and
Managerial/Schoolwide Domains .............................. 72

Mean Scores for Actual and Desired Involvement and Expertise
in the Two Decision Domains ................................ 73

Comparison of Cronbach Alpha Coefﬁcients for the Job
Satisfaction Survey in the Thierbach and Rice Studies

and the Present Study ...................................... 73
Means and Standard Deviations for Job Satisfaction .............. 74
Job Satisfaction Items Ranked According to Means ............... 75
Distribution of Respondents by Grade Level Taught ............... 77

Distribution of Respondents by Years of Teaching in Present
School and Total Years of Teaching, as Compared to the
General Michigan Elementary Teacher Population ................ 78

Spearman Correlations for the Independent Variables and
Job Satisfaction ........................................... 81

Means and Standard Deviations for Levels of Actual Involvement . . . . 82

Results of one-way ANOVA: Actual Involvement x Job
Satisfaction .............................................. 82

viii

4.13

4.14

4.15

4.16

4.17

4.18

4.19

4.20

4.21

4.22

4.23

4.24

4.25

4.26

4.27

Results of the Scheffé Post-Hoc Comparison for Actual

Involvement and Job Satisfaction ............................. 83
Means and Standard Deviations for Levels of Expertise in

Decision Issues ........................................... 84
Results of One-way ANOVA: Expertise x Job Satisfaction .......... 84
Results of two-way ANOVA: Actual Involvement x Level of

Expertise x Job Satisfaction .................................. 85
Means and Standard Deviations for Levels of Inﬂuence ............ 86
Results of One-Way ANOVA: Inﬂuence x Job Satisfaction .......... 86
Results of Two-Way ANOVA: Actual Involvement x Level of

Inﬂuence x Job Satisfaction .................................. 87
Means and Standard Deviations for Organizational Structure

of the School ............................................. 88
Results of One-Way ANOVA: School Organization and Job

Satisfaction .............................................. 88
Results of the Scheffé Post~Hoc Comparison for School

Organization and Job Satisfaction ............................. 89
Results of Two-Way ANOVA: Actual Involvement x School

Organization x Job Satisfaction ............................... 89
Means and Standard Deviations for Desired Involvement ........... 90
Results of One-Way ANOVA: Desired Involvement x Job

Satisfaction .............................................. 91
Results of Two-Way ANOVA: Actual Involvement x Desired

Involvement x Job Satisfaction ............................... 91
Summary of Results of Hypothesis Testing ...................... 92

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Model of the Major Dimensions of Behavior in a Social System ...... 35
2.2 The Theory of Cooperation in Organizations ..................... 38
2.3 Model for Shared Decision Making: The Zone of Acceptance ....... 45

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

lntmdustign

Teachers’ involvement in school decision making has been a topic of
discussion since the turn of the century and a persistent theme in the American
educational reform movement during the past several decades. Beginning in the
early 19603, researchers reported that teachers wished to have a greater share in
the decision-making process in public school systems (Robinson, 1991 ). In 1986,
the Carnegie Commission called for "giving teachers a greater voice in decisions
that affect the school” (p. 57). This theme was repeated in the National Governors’
Association (1986) statement that teachers Should become "involved integrally in
making [school] decisions" (p. 6). In the 1991 publication AmeriganQQ, Lamar
Alexander stated:

The surest way to reform education is to give schools and their leaders the

freedom and authority to make important decisions about what happens,

while being held accountable for making well—conceived efforts at

improvement and for achieving desired results. (p. 37)

Many reform initiatives have since surfaced under a variety of names, such

as restructuring, participatory management, site-based management, school

improvement planning, systemic reform, and decentralized management. One

common theme that all of these initiatives share is collaboration at the building level
around the central goal of improving education for students. Collaboration by
teachers has been referred to in the literature by a variety of terms, including
participative decision making, collaborative decision making, and building-level
decision making. Involving teachers in the decision-making process means
creating ownership of the outcomes among those responsible for carrying out
decisions by having them take part in the decision-making process. Speciﬁcally,
involvement is aimed at granting teachers greater power or authority in the areas
affecting their professional lives, such as curriculum selection, budget decisions,
hiring, and so on.

In a comprehensive review of literature, Wood (1984) found a signiﬁcant
body of research from business and industry conﬁrming the contribution of site-
based decision making to improved organizational effectiveness and employee job
satisfaction. Job satisfaction was deﬁned as the sum of 27 selected facets of a
teacher’s job. Research on decision making and job satisfaction in education,
however, has been limited (Malen, Ogawa, & Krantz, 1989). Some researchers
have found that when teachers participate in making decisions that affect their
work, their job satisfaction increases (Rice, 1993; Thierbach, 1980; Weiss, 1993).
Yet, although there appears to be general agreement about the importance of
involvement, there is less consensus about the nature of that involvement and its
relationship to job satisfaction. The question is whether there is a relationship
between teachers’ involvement in the decision-making process and their job

satisfaction.

Backgmunioﬂheﬁmblem

During the past several decades, there has been much interest in the ways
schools are run (Carnegie Forum, 1986; Holmes Group, 1986). Yet, reform
movements of the 1980s and 1990s have produced disappointing results (Clark &
Astuto, 1994). The education community is discovering that traditional educational
paradigms must be revised dramatically to meet the unique and Challenging needs
of the immediate and longer-term future. A signiﬁcant number of national
education reports have called for a fundamental reorganization to enable individual
schools to deﬁne themselves to a much greater extent than they currently do. Calls
for school reform and for restructuring education have been widespread. Such
demands suggest that the current educational system is so fundamentally ﬂawed
that monumental changes are necessary (National Education Goals Report, 1994;
Newman, 1994).

Over the past 30 years, educators have responded to the call for
restructuring with a barrage of reforms and innovations. However, few of these
reforms have succeeded in substantially changing the way education is managed.
Cuban (1988) stated that ”despite the rhetoric of reform, basic ways of schooling
children have been remarkably durable over the last hundred years" (p. 341).
Although many reforms have not proven successful and few have managed to
produce lasting positive results, educators have continued to introduce a wide
variety of educational innovations. AS Goodlad (1994) noted, ”Throughout the
century now drawing to a close, school reform has been driven by a theorythat has

produced models whose appeal has been little diminished by failure” (p. 637).

Timar (1989) stated, "Although school reform has been ubiquitous for the past
century, little of importance has changed. Since the advent of mass compulsory
schooling, neither the technology nor the core ideology of schooling has changed
substantively" (p. 267). Thus, although reforms have abounded, the issue of
school governance has not changed Signiﬁcantly.

Raywid (1990) asserted that "nothing short of fundamental change affecting
the practices of everyone within a school will sufﬁce. . . . What must change is the
way schools are governed" (p. 152). This notion of site-based or school-site
management has continued to capture the attention of researchers, policy makers,
and practitioners (Guthrie, 1986). The movement calls for restructuring schools
through implementation of participatory or site-based management/decision
making. Raywid cited the advantages of site-based management as (a)
decentralization and debureaucratization and (b) teacher empowerment.

Several seminal reports of researchers have underscored the importance
of teacher empowerment in the school improvement process (Darling-Hammond,
1988). In 1986, the Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession challenged
school district administrators to design ways of "giving teachers a greater voice in
[school] decisions” (Carnegie Forum, 1986, p.57). The following year, in Iimejor
Results, the National Governors’ Association called for the establishment of
“school-site management" that would rely on the professional judgment of
teachers. The rationale for greater teacher involvement in the decision-making

process Is grounded in the work of noted human-resources theorists such as

Maslow (1943), Miles (1965), Argyris (1962), McGregor (1960), Likert (1961), and
Herzberg (1966).

Early human-relations researchers were interested in factors such as the
morale, leadership, and productivity of individuals. Maslow (1 943) shifted the focus
of early research and looked at humans as resources within the organization. He
thereby developed a theory that was more expansive and inclusive than those of
earlier human-relations researchers. Maslow found that when employees worked
in an organizational climate that allowed members to participate fully, those
employees were more productive. ln Maslow’s expanded view of employee
involvement, the level of decision making shifted down to where those closest to
the issue should be involved in making the decisions, be able to use their
experience, be able to search for novel solutions to problems, and be accountable
for outcomes. During the past several decades, researchers within the educational
community have continued to expand on Maslow’s principles and applythose ideas
to schools.

Many recent reform reports (Carnegie Forum, 1986; Holmes Group, 1986;
National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1993; US. Department of
Education, 1991) have noted the need to restructure schools to enable teachers
to act collaboratively with others to build collegial relationships with peers and to
share in decisions that directly affect theirteaching. The most common mechanism
for accomplishing this reform effort has involved decision making at the local site
(Glickman, 1991). This has contributed to reduced reliance on the traditional, top-

down approaches and has led to a more participatory management style

5

(Natemeyer, 1978). Writers on the subject of improving schools have suggested
that many educators and noneducators support the shift toward a decentralization
of public school management and a concomitant movement toward teacher
involvement in the decision-making process at the building level (David, 1989).
Across the nation, school districts are beginning to place a greater onus of
responsibility on individual schools to make essential decisions regarding
curriculum, budgets, and stafﬁng. An essential feature is that school faculties
develop a framework of collegial and participative decision making designed to
create a professional environment in which teachers’ expertise and autonomy are
recognized (Carnegie Forum, 1986; Holmes Group, 1986).

Fundamental to this process Is the appropriate involvement of school staffs
in the decision-making process. Appropriate involvement is inﬂuenced by the
following key factors: what the decision concerns, who participates, in what
capacity and for what reasons they participate, and the extent of their involvement
(Miles, 1981). Appropriate involvement must be accompanied by real authority,
which is deﬁned as control over school budgets, access to knowledge and
information, and responsibility for outcomes (David, 1994). AS David (1989) found
in a synthesis of research on school-based management, "When extra time and
energy demanded by planning and decision making are balanced by ’real
authority,’ teachers report increased satisfaction, even exuberance (p. 51). David
deﬁned real authority as giving schools responsibility for stafﬁng and budgeting and
by providing incentives for principals to involve teachers in school-site decisions.

These changes in school organization and the appropriate involvement of teachers

in the process have resulted in a shift in the organization and structure of the
school.

However, the issue of involvement Is both complex and problematic, and
educators still do not have a clear view of what constitutes shared decision making
(Bacharach, Bamberger, Conley, & Bauer, 1990; Conley, 1991). Whereas some
advocates support involvement of teachers within the school, others propose
increasing the power and inﬂuence of parents and other community members in
school decision making (Elmore, 1990). It also should be noted that greater
involvement is not necessarily desirable (Bloom, 1995), nor is it a predictor of
employee performance. Miles (1981) noted that involvement might not bring
beneﬁts; that depends on what the decision concerns and who participates, in what
capacity, for what reason, and at what stage. Current research on teachers’
involvement in decision making has lacked coherent theory, and conclusions have
been descriptively, conceptually, and operationally weak (Bacharach et al., 1990;
Conley, 1991). According to Bacharach et al., only by addressing these
descriptive, conceptual, and methodological weaknesses will researchers and
practitioners be able to move forward in transforming schools into organizations run

by participative management methods, as recommended by reform reports.

StatementcttbeEthLem
Teachers’ involvement in decision making has emerged as an area of
signiﬁcant concern in education nationwide. The dominant trend Since the late

19703 has been a sharp increase in the role of individual states in education.

Raywid (1988) noted that involvement at the state level began to occur with
competency testing and has escalated in recent years to include curricular
mandates and increased state testing. In Michigan, involvement of teachers in the
decision-making process in schools has been mandated by recent legislation. The
result of the focus on involvement of teachers in the decision-making process is a
growing recognition of the need for a basic redeﬁnition of the roles and
responsibilities of all in the school community. As David (1991) noted, ”a sincere
invitation of change, authority and ﬂexibility, access to knowledge, and time to plan
are the crucial requirements for restructuring. . . . Granting authority requires a new
conception of leadership, hierarchy, and power relationships" (p. 15).

To meet this need, a national trend during the past decade has been to
increase the role of states in improving education. In Michigan, the legislature
enacted Public Act 25 in 1990, which was strengthened and supplemented by
Public Act 335 in 1993. The purpose of this legislation was to provide a framework
for major changes in curriculum and instruction, with the goal of demonstrating
measurable educational improvement for all Michigan students. During the 1995-
96 legislative session, Michigan lawmakers revised this school code with Public Act
289. This legislation became effective July 1, 1996. Both Public Act 25 and Public
Act 289, the revised school code, mandate that each Michigan school must (a)
produce an annual educational report, (b) develop a school improvement plan,
(0) deﬁne a core curriculum, and (d) apply for accreditation.

The school improvement initiative described in Section 1277 of these acts

states that school districts ”shall adopt and implement a 3- to 5-year school

improvement plan and a continuing school improvement process for each school
within the school district." Among other elements, school improvement plans must
include decision making by people at the building or site level. The rationale
underlying this mandate is that teachers’ involvement in decision making will result
in improved student achievement.

In this study, the researcher focused on one aspect of this legislation, that
of requiring building-level decision making. Although the issue of teacher
involvement in decision making has been given increased attention because of this
state requirement, little research has been conducted on teachers’ involvement in
the decision-making process and the relationship of that involvement to job
satisfaction. The problem is that little is known about what is actually occurring in
schools. In the present study, the researcher addressed this problem by providing
current information on teachers’ involvement in the decision-making process in light
of recent state mandates regarding the establishment of building-level decision

making.

Eumosmﬂbeﬁtudy

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to investigate whether there is
a relationship between teachers’ involvement in the decision-making process in
Michigan public elementary schools and their job satisfaction. The researcher also
examined variations in this relationship according to teachers’ expertise in decision
issues, level of inﬂuence, organizational structure of the school, and desired

involvement.

The researcher extended Thierbach’s original research on middle school
teachers in Wisconsin in 1980. In her study, Thierbach examined the relationship
among teachers’ decision condition (levels of actual and desired involvement), their
zone of acceptance (desired involvement and expertise) regarding 20 decision
issues, and theirjob satisfaction. She also examined the relationship of site-based
management to teachers’ decision involvement and job satisfaction and sought to
determine the relationship among teachers’ decision condition, the organizational
structure of the school, and their job satisfaction.

Adecade later, Rice (1993) replicated Thierbach’s study. Both studies were
based on the assumption that appropriate involvement of teachers in the decision-
making process is related to increased job satisfaction. These investigators found
a signiﬁcant relationship between teachers’ involvement in the decision-making
process and their job satisfaction. Furthermore, it was found that teachers desired
more involvement than they were offered. These ﬁndings indicate that teachers
desire to be involved not only in increased decision making but also in a wide range
of decision-making issues. The research design used in Thierbach’s and Rice’s
studies of middle school teachers in Wisconsin was used as a basis in this study

with a different population—public elementary school teachers in Michigan.
Beseambﬁuesﬂons
The researcher’s primary purpose in this study was to investigate whether

there is a relationship between teachers’ involvement in the decision-making

process in Michigan public elementary schools and their job satisfaction. A

10

secondary purpose was to examine variations in this relationship according to
teachers’ expertise in decision issues, level of inﬂuence, organizational structure
of the school, and desired involvement.

The following questions were posed to guide the collection of data for this
study:

1. What is the relationship, if any, between teachers’ involvement in
decision making and their job satisfaction?

2. Does the relationship between teachers’ involvement and job
satisfaction vary according to their level of expertise in decision issues?

3. Does the relationship between teachers’ involvement and job
satisfaction vary according to their level of inﬂuence?

4. Does the relationship between teachers’ involvement and job
satisfaction vary according to the organizational structure of the school?

5. Does the relationship between teachers’ involvement and job

satisfaction vary according to their desired involvement?

ImportancmﬁbeStudv

A review of the literature revealed that although implementation of teacher
involvement is a critical component in the decision-making process, it is often
hastily conceived and is considered threatening by some teachers. In some cases,
the process is merely tolerated by teachers or even actively resisted by those who
view it as producing more work and/or having little or no inﬂuence on their personal

or professional roles. The importance of this research lies in its potential to help

11

in understanding teachers’ involvement in the decision-making process and its
relationship to job satisfaction.

As stated earlier, school district administrators nationally are expecting
faculty members in individual schools to assume greater responsibility in
establishing teams and participating in developing plans for improving schools. In
Michigan, the process of building-level decision making is now mandated by law.
This Shift toward decentralization has led to a growing recognition of the need for
a redeﬁnition of the roles and responsibilities of all members of the educational
community.

Researchers on decision making and job satisfaction have stressed the
importance of identifying goals that are meaningfully related to the work itself. An
awareness of the nature of teachers’ involvement and an understanding of where
teachers might be more effectively involved is important, in order to meet both their
own individual goals and those of the organization. In this regard, the study will be
useful in providing data that school ofﬁcials can use as they plan school
improvement and school reform.

Further, the study ﬁndings might have important implications for
administrators and union ofﬁcials as they work to help teachers communicate their
interests and as they use the collective-bargaining process to increase planning
time. The ﬁndings from this study may indicate key areas in which teachers derive
a sense of empowerment from increased opportunities for decision making.
Conversely, the ﬁndings may indicate school activities in which decision making

might be perceived as a burden of responsibility. Results of the study might also

12

lead to be a better understanding of how teachers’ time and efforts can best be
used in establishing and managing the decision-making process as local school

improvement efforts continue.

The study was limited to the 20 speciﬁc decisional issues and areas
addressed in the survey. Although the reliability and validity of these items were
conﬁrmed, this limitation Should be recognized. It also should be noted that the
questions on the instrument called for teachers’ self-reports. Because the survey
involved teachers’ self-reports of their actual and desired involvement, their
expertise, and theirjob satisfaction, the results are inﬂuenced by the accuracy and
reliability of those reports. Also, the survey items were subject to individual
interpretation. Respondents might have been biased by situational and personal
factors that could have distorted the results and hence the interpretation of the
data. Afurther limitation wasthat the target population comprised a relatively small
number of public elementary school teachers in Michigan. The viewpoints of only

those teachers in the sample were represented in the study.

D I] 'l' n [I
Deﬁnitions of the terms used in this study are requisite to understanding the

research. The following terms were used in the Thierbach (1980) and Rice (1993)

studies and are deﬁned in the context in which they are used in this study.
AmuaIJnleyement. The degree to which teachers actually are involved in

making decisions regarding 20 speciﬁc issues.

13

William. One of three general types, determined by the

discrepancy between teachers’ actual and desired involvement in making decisions
regarding 20 speciﬁc issues. In this study, teachers’ decision condition was
classiﬁed as follows:

Decision deprivation-decision involvement less than desired.

Decision equilibrium-Decision involvement as much as desired.

Decision saturation—decision involvement more than desired.

Declsiondiscmnancv. The difference between teachers’ actual and desired
levels of involvement in the decision-making process.

Decisionjomam. The area in which particular types of decisions are made,
as follows:

Managerial-decisions regarding such issues as the procurement and

disposal of resources, e.g., schoolwide issues. Examples include

establishing schoolwide goals and disciplinary policies, evaluating teachers,

hiring teachers, and so on.

Technical-—decisions directly related to the core, or productive, operation

of the organization, e.g., issues related to teaching and instruction.

Examples include student record keeping, grading and assessment

procedures, textbook selection, and so on.

Demsjgnjnmbtemem. The degree to which teachers report that they are
involved in decision making with regard to a particular issue. In this study, degree
of decision involvement was measured using a four-point Likert-type scale ranging

from great involvement to no involvement.

14

W. The degree to which teachers would like to be
involved in making decisions regarding 20 Speciﬁc issues.

W. An individual’s knowledge or competence

regarding a particular decision issue.

Wing. An individual’s ability to produce change in
schools through participation in the decision-making process.

Jonsatisfaction. Satisfaction derived from teaching, as reﬂected by teachers’
responses to 27 questions using a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from very
satisﬁed to very dissatisﬁed. The questions were divided into nine subscales
according to Speed’s adaptation of the Mendenhall (1977) Job Satisfaction Survey.
The subscales were administration/supervision, co-workers, career future, school
identiﬁcation, ﬁnancial aspects, work conditions, amount of work, pupil-teacher
relations, and community relations.

W. The organizational framework by
which the school staff works collaboratively to identify goals according to the
following criteria: Goals are speciﬁc, measurable, accountability based, resource
oriented, and time bound.

Wee. The range of behavior within which
subordinates are willing to accept the decisions made for them by others. The
zone of acceptance or indifference is determined using a combined measure of an
individual’s desired level of involvement in a particular issue and his or her
expertise regarding that issue. Decision involvement within this zone is considered

less effective than that outside the zone.

15

mm

Chapter I contained an introduction to the study, the background of the
problem, a statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, research questions,
importance of the study, limitations, and deﬁnitions of key terms.

Chapter II contains a review of literature and research on topics related to
this study. The theoretical framework of the study also is discussed.

The study design and methodology are described in Chapter II I. The
population is described, and the research questions and hypotheses are set forth.
The instrumentation and data-collection procedures are discussed, and data-
analysis techniques are explained.

The results of the data analyses are presented in Chapter IV. A summary
of the study, conclusions drawn from the ﬁndings, recommendations for practice

and further research, and the researcher’s reﬂections are presented in Chapter V.

16

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

lﬂlLQdLISZIlQﬂ

The researcher’s primary purpose in this study was to investigate whether
there is a relationship between teachers’ involvement in the decision-making process
in Michigan public elementary schools and their job satisfaction. A secondary
purpose was to examine variations in this relationship according to teachers’
expertise in decision issues, level of inﬂuence, organizational structure of the school,
and desired involvement.

This chapter commences with a selective review of the literature on teachers’
involvement in decision making. Next, topics related to the theoretical and
conceptual framework for the study are discussed. These include job satisfaction,
decision involvement and job satisfaction, social systems theory, the theory of
cooperation in organizations, and decision theory. The Chapter concludes with a
summary and a rationale for applying the ﬁndings from the literature review to the

purposes of this study.

II’II I'D"III'

In recent years, teachers’ participation in organizational decision making has

become an increasingly prevalent theme in educational literature and actual on-site

17

practice. A signiﬁcant number of national reports have recommended that teachers
and administrators within schools expand their roles and increase their levels of
involvement over what is currently the case (Carnegie Forum, 1986; Committee for
Economic Development, 1985; National Governors’ Association, 1986). As Wirth
(1993) noted, the most promising efforts of the 19903 to Invigorate the educational
system have been undertaken through adopting participative styles of management
that support local creativity, autonomy, and problem solving. However, Involvement
is not a recent phenomenon, nor has it always been politically undenrvritten. It has
been a topic of discussion since the turn of the century, when John Dewey (1903)
wrote:
Until the public school system is organized in such a way that every teacher
has some regular and representative way . . . [to] register judgment upon
matters of educational importance--with the assurance that this judgment will
somehow affect the school system—the assertion that the present system is
not . . . democratic seems to be justiﬁed. Either we [ﬁnd] some ﬁxed and
inherent limitation of the democratic principle, or else we ﬁnd in this fact an
obvious discrepancy between the conduct of the school and the conduct of
social life—a discrepancy so great as to demand immediate and persistent
effort at reform. (p. 195
A Signiﬁcant body of research from business and industry has generally
conﬁrmed the importance of individual decision making in contributing to
organizational effectiveness and high morale among employees (Wood, 1984).
Much of the current understanding of organizational behavior, as it relates to the
decision-making process, can be traced to the seminal work of Barnard (1938) and
Simon (1945). It was Simon’s later work with March (March & Simon, 1958) that

underscored the importance of the decision-making process to organizational

effectiveness. In an early study of blue-collar workers, Coch and French (1948)

18

concluded that when workers have an opportunity to be a part of the process, they
tend to be more productive and more satisﬁed with their jobs.

The above-mentioned theorists did not study workers in the ﬁeld of education.
However, recent national education committee reports have presented
recommendations for major changes in the ways schools are organized and in the
ways they are operated (Carnegie Forum, 1986; Holmes Group, 1986; National
Governors’ Association, 1986; US. Department of Education, 1991). A key element
in these reports is the emphasis on teachers’ involvement in the decision-making
process. In a review of literature on decision making, Lipham, Dunstan, and Rankin
(1981) and Wallace (1990) claimed that teachers who are affected by a decision
should have a part in developing and formulating that decision.

Much has been written about teachers’ desire to have a greater share in the
decision-making process in the public school system (Boyan, 1966; Robinson,
1971), and this has become a theme in the literature on involvement (Lipham et al.,
1981). However, research on teachers’ involvement in decision making is Sparse
(Malen et al., 1989).

The premise underlying the beneﬁts of teachers’ involvement in the decision-
making process is that when individuals exercise more control over decisions that
affect their professional work environment, they become more productive as
teachers, stimulate changes in educational programming, and increase students’
achievement (Wallace, 1990). They gain ownership of their environment. This

notion was supported by Hersey and Blanchard (1982), who asserted that when

19

teachers are involved in school decisions, their commitment to the goals and
objectives of the school is increased.

In recent years, participation in organizational decision making has become
a popular theme in education. In the Hamexdﬁducatlonietter; Miller (1995) cited
the common assumptions that shared decision making will:

- produce better decisions on curricular and pedagogical matters,

- promote reform and innovation by unleashing teachers’ creativity,

- ﬁll a need for teachers to have some control over their work lives, and

- lead to improved student achievement. (p. 1)

Research on involvement has indicated that teachers want involvement in
areas most closely connected to their day-to-day work lives. They prefer to exert
inﬂuence over operational Classroom decisions in such areas as course content,
methods, and textbook selection (Bacharach, Bauer, & Conley, 1986; Conley &
Bacharach, 1990; Mohrman, Cooke, 8 Mohrman, 1978; Shedd, 1988). Lortie (1969)
found that teachers prefer decision autonomy within their own classrooms over
participation in personnel decisions about otherteachers. Johnston and Germinario
(1985) found that the desire to participate is strongest in areas related to teachers’
work and the learning process. One often-Cited conclusion is that the personal
autonomy that results from teachers’ involvement in decision making can be an
important factor in their professionalization (Lortie, 1969; Marjoribanks, 1977;
Schwille, Porter, & Gant, 1980).

However, teachers are not homogeneous in their desire for participation

(Alutto & Belasco, 1972; Bartunek & Keys, 1979; Conway, 1976). A reason

commonly cited is that teachers dislike interruption and interference in their primary

20

instructional role (Alutto & Belasco, 1972; Bridges, 1964; Johnson & Germinario,
1985). Teachers are least desirous of having inﬂuence on strategic organizational
decisions that deal with matters that lie outside the realm of the classroom; such
decisions include hiring and budget decisions (Conley & Bacharach, 1990). Shedd
(1988) found that the decisions about which teachers feel most deprived, as
measured by the discrepancy between their actual and desired inﬂuence, are those
that concern the strategic/operational interface orthe interaction between the school
and the classroom. Duke, Showers, and lmber (19803) cited the following four
reasons that, despite the proven beneﬁts of teacher involvement and the existence
of opportunities to become involved in school decision making, many teachers
choose not to participate. They might (a) lack self-conﬁdence and a sense of
efﬁcacy to share in decision making, (b) lack interest in the problem, (0) trust their
principal to arrive at a satisfactory decision without them, and (d) perceive the costs
of participation as high relative to the beneﬁts.

Decision involvement, then, is not always a viable strategy for all segments
of the teacher population (Alutto & Belasco, 1972a). Some researchers have found
that not all teachers share an equal desire for involvement. There is evidence of a
wide divergence in the desire for involvement, based on demographics. For
example, teachers who are younger, married, male, employed in secondary schools,
and from higher social Class backgrounds tend to be more "professional in

orientation” (Belasco & Alutto, 1972, p. 46) and thus desire greater involvement.

21

Other researchers have found that some teachers think that the costs of
involvement exceed the beneﬁts. In their research on teachers’ involvement in
decision making, Duke et al. (1980a) wrote:

Shared decision making was viewed as a formality or an attempt to create the

illusion of teacher inﬂuence. . . . Since the teachers were less than

enthusiastic about participating in shared decision making, . . . they believed
that the probability of actually realizing the potential beneﬁts of participation
was very low. . . . Shared decision making does not mean Shared inﬂuence.

. . . When teachers are invited to share in school decision making, it usually

means attending meetings, expressing an opinion and perhaps giving advice

to administrators. Rather, however, can a real Shift in power be detected?
(9- 104)

Issues such as these underscore the importance of studying the cost to
teachers of involvement. Costs of involvement have been reported as increased
time demands, loss of autonomy, risk of collegial disfavor, subversion of collective-
bargaining gains, and threat to career advancement (Duke et al., 1980b; ERIC
Clearinghouse, 1977; Hajnik, 1988). David (1989b) noted that teachers are ﬁnding
much more time added to an already time-consuming job. Paradoxically, however,
through the process of involvement, teachers actually become more enthusiastic and
feel more control.

The beneﬁts of involvement Cited by researchers include feelings of self-
efﬁcacy, a sense of decisional ownership, and the advancement of workplace
democracy (Hajnik, 1988). Of interest to school planners and administrators is how
to increase teachers’ positive feelings about their involvement. Administrators can
encourage teachers to perceive beneﬁts as outweighing costs through empowering
their staffs by providing authority, ﬂexibility, and resources to solve the educational

problems particular to their schools (Elmore & Associates, 1990; Raywid, 1990).

22

IbegtetlcaLandCaneptuaLEtamemckjoLtbeﬂudy

Several major areas of research are germane to establishing the context and
explaining the content of this study. They include job satisfaction theory, social
systems theory, cooperation theory, and decision theory. Although these theories
were not derived from educational environments, if a general model of formal
organizations is extrapolated to encompass all formal organizations, including
schools, their general operative behavior and that of the individuals therein must be
sufﬁciently similar to be evaluated in light of these general theories.

The complexity of educational organizations and the rapidly changing world
indicate that understanding job satisfaction and work motivation may be key to
increasing the effectiveness and efﬁciency of the educational delivery system. Job
satisfaction and its importance to decision involvement in the context of educational
institutions are addressed in the next section. That discussion forms the foundation

and framework of this study.

I l S I' I I'
This section contains a discussion of job satisfaction and its theoretical basis
and concludes with an examination of the relationship between job satisfaction and
involvement in decision making. A review of the literature revealed that many
researchers have identiﬁed involvement in decision making as important to the
organizational outcome of job satisfaction (Schneider, 1985).
Although the terms motivation and job satisfaction often are used

interchangeably, there is an important distinction between the two. Luthans (1977)

23

deﬁned motivation as a process that can affect job satisfaction, whereas job
satisfaction is essentially an attitude or an internal cognitive state. Luthans
contended that motivation consists of complex forces that sustain individuals’
activities that are conducted to achieve personal goals and has direct implications
for the consequences of performance and satisfaction. In this review, the research
on motivation as it applies to job satisfaction is examined.

One of the most inﬂuential theorists in the ﬁeld of motivation was Abraham
Maslow (1943), who published a Classic article outlining the elements of motivation.
Drawing primarily from his clinical experience, Maslow formulated a theory that
describes motivation as occurring in an ascending hierarchy of needs that includes
(a) physiological needs, (b) safety needs, (C) love needs, ((1) esteem needs, and (e)
self-actualization needs.

Maslow contended that once an individual has satisﬁed his or her need at one
level, that need no longer serves to motivate. So, for that person to be motivated,
he or she must address the next higher level of need. The ultimate need category,
that of self-actualization, involves continued self-development and the desire to
become more of what one is and what one is capable of becoming. Hammer and
Organ (1978) found that conditions of modern industrial life afford only limited
opportunity for the self-actualizing need to ﬁnd expression. Maslow’s notion of self-
actualization served as the basis for McGregor’s (1960) Theory Y, which assumed
that motivation was based on self-direction, self-control, and maturity.

Argyris (1964) based his work on Maslow’s theory but discounted the

importance of lower levels of physiological needs; he argued that managers do meet

24

these basic needs. Rather, Argyris underscored the importance of making work
worthwhile. He noted that often when people are dissatisﬁed with their jobs,
managers tend to increase salaries or beneﬁts and to alter work conditions;
however, these adjustments fail to provide job fulﬁllment. Argyris argued that when
workers experience little or no self-esteem from their work, they are neither satisﬁed
nor motivated.

Porter (1963) conceived a hierarchy based on Maslow’s needs, with the
inclusion of autonomy between the levels of self-esteem and self—actualization.
Porter distinguished between the needs for authority, independent thought, and
participation and the need for for self-esteem and prestige. He was interested in the
individual’s needs to (a) be involved in decisions in the workplace, (b) exert inﬂuence
in controlling the work situation, (C) have a voice in setting goals, and (d) possess
both the authority to make decisions and the latitude to work independently. Porter
found that self-esteem is generally the need that is least satisﬁed. Similarly, in a
1966 study, Trusty and Sergiovanni found that the largest deﬁciencies for
professionals were in satisfying needs in the areas of esteem, autonomy, and self-
actualization.

Herzberg (1966) extended the work of Maslow and developed a two-factor
theory of work motivation. In his study of industrial workers, he found that
satisfaction, as reported in terms of positive events, was associated with
achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, and advancement.
Conversely, negative events were dominated by references to interpersonal relations

with superiors and peers, technical supervision, company policy and administration,

25

working conditions, and personal life. The basic premise of Herzberg’s theory is that
one set of rewards will contribute to job satisfaction, whereas another set will lead
to job dissatisfaction. Herzberg’s theory is signiﬁcant because it brought into
question the traditional practice of supervisors who sought to increase motivation by
concentrating on extrinsic factors to solve problems. The practices traditionally
undertaken to improve workers’ morale included increasing pay, adding fringe
beneﬁts, and improving physical working conditions. Herzberg Claimed that extrinsic
or hygiene factors cannot motivate, and when used to achieve that goal can actually
produce negative effects.

Herzberg (1966, 1987) contended that job satisﬁers, which he labeled
motivators, were related to the job content, whereas job dissatisﬁers, which he
termed hygiene factors, were allied to the job context. Herzberg cited motivators as
either extrinsic or intrinsic. Extrinsic motivators (which he initially referred to as
hygiene factors) are factors originating outside individuals; they include pay,
beneﬁts, working conditions, and supervision. Intrinsic motivators originate within
individuals and include the following:

1. Information, so that people understand what it is they are being asked
to do, and how it ﬁts into a series of larger units, such as a school.

2. Control over work, particularly as this relates to information about
goals and measurements, and the individuals’ direct delivery toward those goals.

3. Respect for workers as individuals, for who they are and what they do.

26

4. Chances to grow as human beings. Herzberg related this to a
chance to grow according to one’s spirit, at one’s own pace, and as a human being
in a work setting.

These intrinsic motivators are related to work motivation, effort, and caring.
Herzberg contended that the key to maintaining individuals’ motivation over the long
term lay in the intrinsic motivators. Responding to this, Dolan (1994) noted:

Thetragedy of [Herzberg's] description of motivators and demotivators isthat,

by deﬁnition, the orthodoxy of our Western model denies those persons at the

bottom of the pyramid any Chance at the intrinsic motivators. They exist in a

state of no information, no power, very little respect, and a feeling of being

trapped forever in this impotency and disenfranchisement. (p. 23)

Herzberg (1967) stated one caveat in generalizing about his ﬁndings: ”A
deprivation in hygiene factors can lead to job dissatisfaction, but their amelioration
does not lead to job satisfaction” (p. 61). Hersey and Blanchard (1982) supported
this assertion and elaborated on it by stating, "Hygiene factors, when satisﬁed, tend
to eliminate dissatisfaction and work restriction, but they do little to motivate an
individual to superior performance or increased capacity” (p. 59). However, intrinsic
motivators are complex, subjective, and difﬁcult to measure. But to the extent that
management concentrates on the extrinsic factors, while at the same time neglecting
the intrinsic motivators, workers are probably going to seek more of the hygiene
factors (Hammer & Organ, 1978).

It should be noted that although Herzberg’s theory has been inﬂuential and
widely cited, it has not been universally accepted. One of the early theorists to

question Herzberg’s theory was Victor Vroom (1964), who proposed an expectancy

theory of work motivation as an alternative to the content-based theories of Maslow

27

and Herzberg. Vroom reviewed 20 studies concerned with job satisfaction and
concluded that the issue of job content and job context in relationship to satisfaction
is dependent on the nature of the content and work roles of the individuals involved.
He found a low but consistent relationship between job satisfaction and
performance. Vroom’s basic assumption can be summarized as follows: ”The
choices made by a person among alternative courses of action are lawfully related
to psychological events occurring contemporaneously with the behavior" (pp. 14-
15). Luthans (1977) Claimed that both Herzberg and Maslow oversimpliﬁed the
issue of motivation and that Vroom’s model has achieved recognition because it
avoids simplistic explanations.

Whereas Herzberg’s and Vroom’s theories are fundamental to an
understanding of job satisfaction, their models do not address the relationship
between satisfaction and performance. Porter and Lawler (1968) identiﬁed this
relationship as a necessary one and addressed it through an expectancy-based
model of performance and job satisfaction. In that model, the three variables of
motivation, satisfaction, and performance are viewed as essentially different and
separate. Porter and Lawler claimed that motivation does not lead to performance,
and that what is important is what happens following the performance. They were
more concerned with the rewards that follow the performance. Porter and Lawler
asserted that it is the performance that leads to satisfaction, rather than the reverse.
This assertion constituted a signiﬁcant reversal from traditional thinking.

Theorists such as McGregor (1960), Herzberg (1966), and McClelland (1984)

have agreed on the importance of motivation and job satisfaction; however, practical

28

application of theory has not led to clear answers (Hoy 8. Miskel, 1982). Although
the psychology of motivation and the structure of educational institutions are
complex issues, a recurring theme, one originally proposed by Herzberg, is that the
only way to motivate employees is to give them challenging work in which they
assume responsibility.

This theme is consistent with the ﬁndings of researchers on job satisfaction
and motivation, who have called for organizational restructuring to increase workers’
abilities to achieve goals that are meaningfully related to the work itself. It
underscores the importance of recent emphasis on the value of job enrichment and
quality of work life. Miskel’s (1975) synthesis of research on motivation theory
revealed a direct, positive relationship between teachers’ job satisfaction levels and
the congruence between their preferences for ideal conditions of work and what they
perceived as actually existing in their jobs. This ﬁnding underscores the Signiﬁcance
of teachers’ involvement in the decision-making process. The relationship between
decision involvement and job satisfaction is discussed in the next section.

Wanna. Many theorists have suggested
that job satisfaction is related to individuals’ perceptions of their needs’ being fulﬁlled
through work (Coates, 1992). Early studies of job satisfaction focused on the work
environment but were conducted primarily in industrial settings. In one study of job
satisfaction and productivity, Morse and Reimer (1956) found that job satisfaction
Increased signiﬁcantly for rank-and-ﬁle employees who were involved in the

decision-making process.

29

In a comprehensive review of the literature, Katzell and Yankelovich (1975)
cited a number of studies that conﬁrmed the signiﬁcant relationship between
decision involvement and job satisfaction. The ﬁndings of these studies indicated
that:

1. Work groups whose members have more say over the group’s
production goals, work, and working conditions usually have higher average job

satisfaction than those having less control.

2. Members of participative groups have stronger work motivation.

3. Productivity is usually, but not always, higher in groups having more
control.

4. Productivity through changed control patterns occurs when groups are

given a greater say in goal setting and when groups are involved in determining
modes of pay for performance.

The literature underscores the complexity of decision involvement and job
satisfaction and reﬂects the interdependence of organizational, personal, and
Situational variables in the process. Alutto and Belasco (1972a, 1972b) sought to
clarify this issue by investigating the relationship between the extent of decision
involvement and job satisfaction. They developed a discrepancy measure to
indicate the difference between teachers’ actual and desired levels of decision
involvement. They represented the discrepancy in teachers’ desires for decisional
involvement on a continuum exempliﬁed by the following three conditions:

1. Decisional deprivation. Teachers in this category are involved less

than they desire. They want less administrative control and more direct say in

30

running the school; these teachers tend to be more professionally oriented, to
experience more role conﬂict, and to be more dissatisﬁed than their less militant
colleagues. Conway (1976) believed that the largest proportion of teachers fall into
this category.

2. Decisional equilibrium. This category includes teachers who are
satisﬁed with the status quo. They experience less tension on thejob, display more
trust, and are the most satisﬁed group of teachers.

3. Decisional saturation. Teachers in this category are involved more
than they want to be. Decisional saturation most often occurs among older female
teachers who think they are being asked to participate in more decisions than they
can handle.

Alutto and Belasco (1972) regarded job satisfaction as a willingness to remain
within a school organization despite inducements to leave. In their study, they found
thatteachers who desired greaterinvolvement reﬂected lowlevels ofjob satisfaction.
The teachers in the decision condition of saturation scored higher in their
perceptions of the system than did those in the condition of deprivation, but not as
high as those in equilibrium. These ﬁndings suggested the possibility of a curvilinear
relationship between decision involvement and job satisfaction.

Researchers have determined that there is a signiﬁcant relationship between
teachers’ decision condition and their level ofjob satisfaction (Rice, 1993; Schneider,
1985). Some researchers have found that it is possible to overinvolve individuals in
decision making and that decisional saturation often results in decreased job

satisfaction (Alutto & Belasco, 19723, 1972b; Conway, 1976; Mohrman et al., 1978).

31

Other researchers, however, have found that the point of saturation has not been
reached (Flannery, 1980; Schneider, 1984; Warner, 1981). Schneider (1985)
concluded that administrators have considerable latitude in which to increase
teachers’ involvement in decision making before diminishing their job satisfaction.

Thierbach (1980) drew upon the Alutto and Belasco study by investigating the
relationship between decision condition and job satisfaction. She found a signiﬁcant
relationship between decision condition, determined through the use of a measure
of discrepancy between actual and desired involvement, and job satisfaction. Her
ﬁndings also indicated that teachers’ perceived levels of inﬂuence in the decision-
making process were positively related to their level of job satisfaction; this
relationship was statistically signiﬁcant. As staffs become more involved in
collaborative decision making, the organizational structure evolves from one with a
hierarchical, stratiﬁed structure to one that recognizes input of human interaction and
operates systemically as a social system. The following section contains a review

of the literature related to social systems theory.

SmiaLsttemslhegty

Half a century ago, Max Weber (1947) described the ideal organization as a
bureaucracy, which he deﬁned as comprising four characteristics. According to
Weber, people and their positions are (a) specialized, with labors divided by function;
(b) arranged in a hierarchy; (c) governed by a system of abstract rules; and (d)

related impersonally.

32

Weber contended that organizations modeled on these principles would
function as completely rational organizations. However, as bureaucracies evolved
during the mid-twentieth century, organizations became characterized by
hierarchical structures that served to inhibit employees’ participation and
communication. Behavioral theorists and researchers, including renowned scholars
Robert Merton and Philip Selznick, have pointed to behavioral dysfunctions that
result from bureaucratic structures (Luthans, 1977). Selznick (1947) was concerned
with the dysfunctions of traditional bureaucracy and was convinced that
organizational systems would function better if collaborative working relationships
were promoted and authority and responsibility were delegated deep into the
organization.

Many other modern organizational theorists have agreed with Selznick’s
viewpoint. Bennis (cited by Natemeyer, 1978) madethe following prediction: "lnthe
next 25 to 50 years, we will participate in the end of bureaucracy as we know it and
the rise of new social systems better suited to 20th century demands of
industrialization“ (p. 281). According to Natemeyer,

This forecast was based on the evolutionary principle that every age

develops an organizational form appropriate to its genius and that the

prevailing form of pyramidal-hierarchical organization known by sociologists
as "bureaucracy” and most businessmen as "that damn bureaucracy,” was

out of joint with contemporary realities. (p. 281)

The traditional bureaucratic organizational structure is still prevalent today.
However, organizations generally exhibit the Characteristics of social systems, and

as such, are dependent on the needs of both the organization and the individual

(Hoy, 1982). The school represents a unique form of social system. Although the

33

school functions as a formal organization that operates with an established system
of rules and regulations that guide organizational behavior, it also functions as a
system with a complex network of professional and social relationships supported
by a unique culture. Hoy and Miskel (1982) referred to the school as a social system
characterized by an interdependence of parts, a clearly deﬁned population,
differentiation from its environment, a complex network of social relationships, and
its own unique culture.

Social systems theory provides a conceptual framework within which to study
the interdependence and working relationships between the formal organization and
its members. As such, social systems theory has important implications for the ﬁeld
of education. Because the school is a social system, it must reﬂect the alignment
of the formal, bureaucratic structure with characteristics of human behavior.
Understanding human behavior within the school organization is fundamental to the
success of the organization. Getzels and Guba (1957) studied human behavior in
organizations and explained social behavior as a function of the interactions
between the institution and the individuals within it. Getzels, Lipham, and Campbell
(1968) applied the earlier Getzels and Guba model to the ﬁeld of education.

The social systems approach to management and administration takes into
consideration the interrelationship and interdependence among the members of an
organization. Yet the organization is represented as a whole. Getzels et al. (1968)
depicted the school as an organization that could be illustrated in terms of two
conceptually independent yet essentially interactive dimensions: the normative

(institutional) and the personal (ideographic). Organizational effectiveness is

34

predicated on achieving and maintaining a balance between these two dimensions

(see Figure 2.1).

NORMATIVE DIMENSION
(Nomothetic)

Culture ——-—> Ethics ———> Values
I
Y Y

Institution -———> Role -—> Expectations
A
Social Social
System Behavior

\

Individual ._... Personality... Need-Dispositions

T . I I
Y -
Culture —--> Ethics ——> Values

PERSONAL DIMENSION
(idiographic)

Figure 2.1: Model of the major dimensions of behavior in a social system.

Source: Getzels, J. W., Lipham, J. M. ,8,Campbell R. F. (1968). Educational
administtatlonjsasoclatotocess. New York: Harper8Row, p. 286.

Rooted in the literature on social systems is the importance of a bottom-up
input strategy that generates a shared vision among the organization’s members of
what the school might be, thereby creating a team spirit, cultivating mutual trust, and
building emotional bonds through collaboration and the development of common
assumptions regarding school issues (Cuban, 1984; Holt, 1993; Prager, 1992;
Raywid, 1990). Dolan (1994) noted that the system too often does not include input

from teachers:

The information that is accessible to the teacher is too often not helpful, not
timely, and has very little to do with what is actually going on in his or her
Classroom. . . . If you are going to redesign an educational system so that it
places responsibility for quality where it belongs-~with those who do the work

35

--then they have to help create the vision, the goals, the measures that are
relevant to them. (p. 72)

The relationship of social systems theory to the present study lies in the
assumption that involving teachers in the decision-making process will help to
establish an important balance between the personal needs of the individuals and
the organizational needs of the school. This assumption is supported by Bamard’s

theory of cooperation in organizations, which is discussed in the following section.

II II [C l' 'D . l'

The theory of cooperation in organizations is based on the importance of
collaborative, systemic, on-site decision making in order to set and achieve
organizational goals. Researchers on organizations and organizational
effectiveness have identiﬁed a basic need for individuals in organizations to establish
and maintain a central guiding purpose toward which efforts of all people within the
organization are directed. Raywid (1990) studied educational organizations and
found that research has revealed strong agreement with the assumption that shared
values and a stated, mutually-agreed-upon mission contribute signiﬁcantly to a
school’s effectiveness.

Much of the understanding of school organizational behavior, as it relates to
the complexities of decision making, can be traced to the seminal work of Barnard
(1938) and Simon (1945). In EunotjonsoﬂnoExocutjvo, Barnard proposed a theory
of cooperation in organizations, in which he posited that all organizations must
identify a central, unifying purpose in order to be effective and efﬁcient. Barnard

differentiated between these two terms by deﬁning effectiveness as the ability to

36

achieve organizational goals and efﬁciency as the ability to achieve personal,
individual goals. As members of a complex, formal organization, school personnel
must establish a purpose that will then become the unifying element of the
organization--a cohesive, conceptual theme that is accepted by all. Organizational
goals that derive from the central purpose ultimately will determine the direction and
effectiveness ofthe organization, and as goals are continually deﬁned and redeﬁned,
the organization renews itself. As the purpose or mission is accomplished through
an on-going alignment process, the success of the organization will be achieved, but
once objectives are achieved, new goals need to be set. The goal-setting process
thus becomes a continuous one.

The theory of cooperation in organizations highlights the importance of
involving individuals within the organization in establishing an organizational purpose
that serves as a map to achieving organizational and individual goals. Barnard
(1938) claimed that although individuals in the formal organization must continually
set new organizational goals, they also must and generally will align their personal
goals with those of the organization, in order to achieve efﬁciency. According to
Barnard’s theory of cooperation in organizations, when organizational and individual
goals are aligned, the result is organizational effectiveness, efﬁciency, stability, and
equilibrium. In subsequent research, March and Simon (1958) elaborated further on
the central role of the collaborative decision-making process in organizational
behavior and its potential for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the

organization. This relationship is depicted in Figure 2.2.

37

PURPOSE/MISSION

Organizatio iﬂiﬂuﬂl Goals

(Sit ascd) (l’crso l)

      
  

Effective ess

Collaborative Decision Making
to Align

I

Organizational 8: Personal
Goals

 
   
       
 

SUCCESS OF ORGANIZATION

Figure 2.2: The theory of cooperation in organizations.

Source: Based on Barnard, C. (1938). W. Boston:
Cambridge University Press.

Barnard’s theory of cooperation in organizations and Getzels and Guba’s
(1957) theory of social systems, which was discussed earlier in this chapter, are
compatible. Getzels and Cuba claimed that role conﬂicts occur when individuals are
required to conform to organizational expectations that are inconsistent and
dissonant with their own goals. The dilemma this poses is solved only if
organizational and individual needs, expectations, and goals can be made to
coincide. However, organizational goals often are not aligned with goals of
individuals; further, formal organizational goals often do not conform to the operative,
daily goals of the organization (Hoy 8 Miskel, 1982; Weatherly 8 Lipsky, 1977). In
such cases, the organization will ﬁnd it difﬁcult to be efﬁcient in achieving the goals
of individuals. Dolan ( 1994) warned of this by noting that:

Remedies [to organizational dysfunctions] look dangerously like the

dysfunctions that they are meant to heal. They are almost always imposed
from above, driven in isolated and unintegrated fashion, focused on short-

38

term quantitative results, and seldom if ever involve the people who do the

work. The net result is often further dysfunction and deeper anger and

frustration. (p. 50)

For these reasons, it is important to note that both Barnard’s and Getzels and
Guba’s theories recognize and stress the importance of aligning organizational and
individual goals.

The organizational theories described above may be applied to schools. It
would seem likely that if schools, as both social systems and complex formal
organizations, establish purposes through a process of collaborative decision
making, the effectiveness and efﬁciency of the school organization should be
enhanced. Covey (1992) emphasized the importance of alignment in organizations,
where ”everything serves to help the individual be productive and effective. . . . If
there is misalignment of structure and systems, you will not have empowerment or
trust” (p. 65).

To achieve collaborative purpose setting, some educators favor individual and
group empowerment by providing teachers with more control over more of the
decisions they make (Grifﬁths, 1979; Lipham 8 Hoeh, 1974; Mitchell, 1978; Pipho,
1986). Harrison, Killion, and Mitchell (1989) agreed but added that this process
must entail deﬁning how school staffs can work collaboratively to make decisions.
They found that persons responsible for carrying out decisions must create
ownership for those decisions by being directly involved in the decision process and
by trusting their own abilities and judgments in implementation.

Various writers have addressed the issue of control as a result of involvement

in decision making. Tannenbaum (1962) studied the dynamics of control in

39

organizations and found that promoting a high level of total control by employees at
all levels in an organization may encourage increased participation and mutual
inﬂuence throughout the system. Raywid (1990) cited the importance of setting
parameters (equity and standards) while allowing individual schools to have
extensive autonomy in terms of setting goals, priorities, curricular organization, and
learning activities. To achieve balance between empowerment and accountability,
goals must be crafted school by school, from the bottom up.

The importance of collegiality within a supportive Climate must not be
overlooked. As Deming (1986) noted, the climate of an organization inﬂuences an
individual’s contribution far more than does the individual himself or herself. Deming
emphasized that excellence derives from the ways in which people work together;
the key is not the practices of routine assessment and grading of students, but rather
the achievement of a collegiality that comes about when those in the school share
common beliefs about its practice.

The premise is that when organizational restructuring includes decision
making by those at the site, the result will be improved schools, as reﬂected by
enhanced student performance. However, not all researchers agree on this
premise. lmber and Duke (1984) found ”no strong empirical conﬁrmation for
theoretical Claims that high levels of teacher involvement in school decision making
would improve schools” (p. 24). This is an important distinction. Newman (1994)
contended that merely granting teachers greater responsibility for decisions that
affect their jobs does not guarantee that instruction will improve. In his study of

schools where teachers did exert responsibility in making decisions, Newman found

40

that the new responsibilities, by themselves, did not always result in improved
instruction. He concluded that it does not necessarily follow that involvement leads
to improvement.

In a comprehensive synthesis of research on school management, David
(1989) noted that a genuine shift in management responsibility to individual schools
necessitates a change in roles, routines, and relationships for all who are involved.
David further stressed that successful teacher empowerment must be guided by
strong leadership and must be accompanied by authority, ﬂexibility, and resources
to address issues at the local Site. Further, as noted earlier in this review, some
researchers have found the possibility that "over-involvement in decision making
may result in a decrease in job satisfaction” (Schneider, 1985, p. 3).

AS stated before, Barnard (1938) theorized that people will focus their energy
to achieve individual and organizational purposes. Working collaboratively to
establish organizational goals is critical. Goodlad (1994) underscored the
importance of faculty’s working together to deﬁne a mission because it is "mission
that fuels passions, engenders hope, and motivates effort” (p. 636). Because
collaborative decision making requires much individual time and energy, there must
be a balance between organizational and individual goals.

Extending Barnard’s theory, the assumption is that school improvement
teams and the plans they generate will have a greater Chance for success if all those
involved exhibit similar patterns of agreement, priorities, and levels of individual
commitment (Robinson, 1971). Fundamental to Barnard’s theory is the importance

of collaboration to continually redeﬁne the organizational mission and/or purposes.

41

Goodlad (1984) echoed this idea by calling for on-going organizational renewal as
a requisite to motivate and energize staffs. Goodlad further stated, "In the absence
of an agenda that continues to motivate and satisfy, the mission fades, and renewal
comes to a halt” (p. 633).

In addition to understanding the theories of social systems and cooperation
in organizations, an understanding of decision theory is a fundamental element in
formulating a coherent thesis regarding teachers’ involvement in the decision-making

process. Decision theory is discussed in the following section.

D . . II
A review of the literature revealed that it is difﬁcult to identify a singular
decision-making variable as key to organizational effectiveness. However,
researchers have identiﬁed the process of decision making as one important factor
contributing to that effectiveness. Involvement in shared decision making is a
complex, multidimensional issue. Research on organizational decision making has
reﬂected this complexity, which results from the interaction of numerous factors,
including organizational, situational, and personal variables (Cuban, 1984).
Decision theory can be helpful in understanding the d ecision-making process.
Lipham and Hoeh (1974) designed a model based on the notion that decision
making is a process, inﬂuenced by information and values, in which a problem is
identiﬁed, alternative solutions are formulated and weighed, and a choice is made
that subsequently is implemented and evaluated. Lipham and Hoeh noted that the

decision-making process has three dimensions: content, stages, and involvement.

42

They identiﬁed content as the nature of the decision as it relates to Six content areas
in education: curriculum and instruction, staff personnel, student personnel, ﬁnance
and business management, school plant services, and home-school-community
relations. The six stages of decision making, according to these authors, include
identifying the problem, deﬁning the problem, determining alternatives, making the
decision choice, implementing the decision, and evaluating the effectiveness of the
decision.

In the present study, the writer did not address the six stages of involvement
identiﬁed by Lipham. Rather, she focused on the six content areas and the extent
of teacher involvement within those areas. The study involved the type and the
extent of teachers’ involvement and was built on decision theory, social systems
theory, and Barnard’s theory of cooperation in organizations.

Types of decisions and the extent of teacher involvement in making those
decisions are examples of conﬂicts that lie at the heart of the tension between
bureaucratic values and a professional ethos (Conley 8 Bacharach, 1990). As Hoy
and Miskel (1982) noted:

If any issue is highly relevant to participants, who are also highly expert, then

it clearly falls outside the zone of acceptance; teachers frequently should be

involved in the decision making when it is outside of their zone of acceptance.

The involvement should be as early as possible in the process in order to

maximize participation. If, however, an issue is of low relevance and

participant expertise is also low, then the issue clearly falls inside the zone of
acceptance, [and] teachers will accept the decision more readily. In this
case, the model suggests teacher involvement in the decision-making

process is neither desirable nor effective. (pp. 285-286)

In 1972, Alutto and Belasco extended Hoy and Miskel’s model to include the

relationship of decision involvement to job satisfaction. They used a discrepancy

43

model that differentiated between actual and desired involvement in the decision-
making process. Alutto and Belasco found a positive correlation between decision
involvement and job satisfaction. Later studies also have supported the notion of a
positive correlation between decision involvement and job satisfaction (Duke et al.,
19803; Rice, 1993; Thierbach, 1980; Warner, 1981).

The implication of such research is that effective decision making is based in
part on the nature of the decision, the expertise of the teachers in the decision issue,
and the relevance of the decision to the teachers. When these factors are
considered, decisions can be more effective.

One theory suggests that teachers are basically satisﬁed with the traditional
system, which is based on the hierarchical structure of schools, as well as on
administrative decision making. This concept was supported by the work of Kunz
and Hay (1976), who found that teachers were content to leave decisions that lay
within their zone of acceptance to administrators. The issue rests on a deﬁnition of
the speciﬁc types of decisions that lie within teachers’ zones of acceptance. Barnard
(1938) theorized that there are certain decision areas in which subordinates have
little or no interest. He also conceptualized a zone of indifference within which
individuals will accept decisions without question. Bridges (1967) expanded on
Bamard’s conceptualization of the zone of indifference in a model for shared
decision making, proposing a method of determining teachers’ zone of indifference
by applying two tests: a test of relevance (interest) and a test of expertise
(knowledge). Combined, the results of these tests indicate whether decisions lie

within the teachers’ zone of indifference. Bridges contended that decisions made

44

within this zone will result in less effective involvement in decisions, whereas
decisions made outside the zone of indifference will result in more effective
involvement.

Clear and Seager (1971) coined a more positive term than zone of
indifference, referring instead to a zone of acceptance. Hoy and Miskel (1982)
elaborated on the concept of a zone of acceptance and developed a model of tests
of relevance and expertise to generalize about which decisions teachers should be
involved in making. (Hoy and Miskel’s model of decision involvement based on the

zone of acceptance is depicted in Figure 2.3.)

 

ZONE
OF
ACCEPTANCE

 

OUTSIDE

 

MARGINAL
V T ' l

TEST OF RELEVANCE '5 YES YES N0 NO

(PERSONAL STAKE)

TEST OF EXPERTISE YES NI) YIES N0

(CAPABLE or i i j
CONTRIBUTING) y I

Y ES FREQUENT FREQUENT NEVER

 

 

 

 

 

 

iNVOLVEMENT 4 ‘
EXTENT OF i

INVOLVEMENT ~ MAXIMUM LIMITED LIMITED NONE

DECISION PROCESS

I. PROBLEM *4.____ : :
2. ALTERNATIVES 4 ------------------------------ :
3. CONSEQUENCES 4——-—— :
4.

SELECTION 4 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Figure 2.3: Model for shared decision making: The zone of acceptance.

Source: HOV. W.. & Miskel. 0- (1982). EducationaLadministtationlethv.
W (Rev. ed.). New York: Random House.

45

A problem with relying on the theory of zones of acceptance is that many
school-based decisions do not lie within the traditional zones of acceptance for
teachers. Also, teachers who accept traditional administrative decision making often
are not satisﬁed with their lack of involvement (Duke et al., 1980b). A predication to
explain teachers’ attitudes toward shared decision making is that although teachers
are not actually content with administrative decision making, they may not have had
the opportunity to become involved. However, there appears to be little support for
this notion (Duke et al., 1980b).

AS noted in the review of social systems literature, individuals in organizations
bring their interests, expertise, experience, and needs to the decision-making
process (Hoy 8 Miskel, 1982). Researchers have identiﬁed employees’ acceptance
of decision making as an important factor contributing to organizational effectiveness
(David, 1989b). And, as stated earlier-in this chapter, writers have emphasized the
importance of involving those affected by a decision in making that decision (Lipham
8 Hoeh, 1974). For decision making to be effective, those who live the situation
must be given overall authority to make Changes. David (1989b) and Corcoran,
Walker, and White (1988) underscored the need to grant Signiﬁcant authority if
decision making Is to be effective. If that is not done, those who are involved
perceive that top-down demands impede their ability to make decisions. Then, the
question is whether participation is merely an expression of personal opinion or an

exercise of genuine authority (Belasco 8 Alutto, 1972).

46

Researchers have suggested that the scope of shared decision-making
involvement must entail a fundamental change in the roles, rules, and
responsibilities of all within the system. As Dolan (1994) noted, this must rest in a
process of safe, straight, and honest dialogue. Without this, Dolan asserted,
meaningful change will not occur. It follows, then, that the effectiveness of shared
decision making depends on the degree of innovation, acceptance of risk taking,
ﬂexibility, and trust that exists within the organizational system (Argyris, 1962).

The organizational system is affected by interactions between teachers and
administrators. One theme in decision-making theory is the recurring issue of power
and control within the organization. Some administrators are concerned that
increased shared decision making will result in a reduction of their own control and
authority. Bidwell (1965) was among the ﬁrst to examine administrative inﬂuence as
it affects teachers. He described the Situation as one of a shift in the principal’s
authority from that of a formal ofﬁce holder to that of a senior professional.

Another theme in decision theory is the anticipated effect of decision making
on organizational effectiveness. AS noted earlier in this review, teachers today are
expecting a broadened, more central involvement in decision making (Boyan, 1967).
This entails shared decision making between teachers and administrators. Boyan
cited Tannenbaum’s (1962) work concerning the dynamics of control in
organizations in pointing out that the "power pie" in an organization is variable, not
ﬁxed. In his research, Tannenbaum found that a high level of total control at all

levels in an organization may, in turn, reﬂect increased participation and mutual

47

inﬂuence throughout the system. As a result, members experience a greater degree
of integration and ego involvement with the work of the organization.

In their classic early work, Coch and French (1948) found that employees’
participation in organizational decision making increased the probability both that
change would be accepted and that overall effectiveness would be generated by that
change. Some researchers even have found that superiors gain inﬂuence over the
actions of individuals in organizations when decision making is delegated (Gouldner,
1960; Tannenbaum, 1962).

A principal’s effectiveness depends on the degree to which he or she can
maintain mutually supportive and collegial relations with teachers, yet be geared to
furthering the commitment of all within the organization (Bidwell, 1965). lannaccone
and Jamgochian (1985) and Grifﬁths (1979) reported a growing trend toward more
democratic and informal involvement of staff in decision making.

Not all researchers agree on this issue. Tannenbaum (1962), however, found
that increased participative decision making would actually result in more
administrative control and change. He theorized that the amount of control or
inﬂuence in a group is not constant, and that an increase in one group’s inﬂuence
does not necessarily result in a decrease in another’s inﬂuence.

Bridges’s (1970) theory of social exchange and reciprocity parallels
Tannenbaum’s studies. Bridges added a dimension by stressing that each
decisional situation can be viewed as a transaction, in which the most successful

administrators will adroitly choose to behave as pawns of subordinates rather than

48

as originators of decisions. Blau (1964) agreed. Hanson (1976—77) termed this the
process of principal-teacher collaboration, and he called the result the ”negotiated

order."

Summaty

The literature review included a discussion of the conceptual and theoretical
bases for this study. The conceptual framework for the study was based on the
nature of job motivation and job satisfaction as they relate to decision involvement.
Thetheoretical framework comprises an understanding of social systems theory, the
theory of cooperation in organizations, and decision theory. Together, these
frameworks formed the basis for the study of teachers’ involvement in the decision-
making process.

An important component ofthe literature review was a discussion of research
and writings on job satisfaction. Herzberg (1966) contended that the only way to
motivate employees is to give them challenging work in which they can assume
responsibility. Although it is not apparent that many teachers aspire to run their
schools (Tannenbaum, 1962), it does seem important to grant teachers the authority
to make some important decisions (Elmore 8 Associates, 1990). According to
Herzberg’s (1987) theory, individuals are motivated when they are given information,
control over work, respect, and Chances to grow. Decision involvement has the

potential to increase motivation by addressing these four areas.

49

Bernard’s (1938) theory of cooperation in organizations can be applied along
with decision theory to schools as follows. Schools are complex, formal
organizations and, as such, must establish and maintain a central, guiding purpose
toward which the efforts of all within the organization are directed. In deﬁning
organizational purposes, decision theory outlines a process wherein goals are
identiﬁed, choices made, and actions identiﬁed, implemented, and evaluated
(Lipham 8 Hoeh, 1974). For this process to be effective, schools as social systems
must account for the complexities and interactions between the goals of the
organization and the goals of the individual (Barnard, 1938; Getzels et al., 1968;
Lipham 8 Hoeh, 1974). When organizational goals are aligned with individual goals,
the result is organizational effectiveness and efﬁciency.

Although educators agree that schools today are in a period of transition
(Conley, 1991), there has been little quantitative research on decision involvement
in schools. The research results that do exist are considered inconclusive (Vroom
8 Jago, 1988). The review of literature for this study revealed the importance of
decision making; however, few researchers have Clearly deﬁned decision
involvement. Although it is Clear that decision making is occurring with greater
frequency in schools, the degree to which individual teacher participation is actually
occurring in school settings is questionable (Bacharach et al., 1990; Conley, 1991).

Based on the assumption that participation in school decision making can
enhance teachers’ commitment, expertise in making decisions, and effectiveness

(Rowan, 1990), this researcher investigated whether there is a relationship between

50

teachers’ involvement in the decision-making process and their job satisfaction. A
secondary purpose was to examine variations in this relationship according to
teachers’ expertise in decision issues, level of inﬂuence, organizational structure of

the school, and desired Involvement.

51

CHAPTER III

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

lntmductign
In this chapter, the design and methodology used in this study of teachers’
involvement in the decision-making process are presented. Speciﬁcally, this chapter
contains the design of the study, the population and sample selection, and the
research questions and hypotheses. The instrumentation and data-collection

procedures are discussed, and the data-analysis techniques are explained.

Designgﬂhisjudy

As noted in the review of literature, much attention has been given to the
involvement of teachers in the decision-making process. However, little empirical
information is available on the relationship between teachers’ involvement and their
job satisfaction.

Thierbach (1980) studied the relationship between the decision involvement
and job satisfaction of middle and/or junior high school teachers in Wisconsin. A
decade later, Rice (1993) replicated and expanded Thierbach’s study to test
whether, with increasing emphasis on involvement, teachers’ perceptions of
involvement and job satisfaction had changed. Both studies were based on the

assumption that appropriate involvement of teachers in the decision-making process

52

was related to job satisfaction. Rice expanded Thierbach’s research to include a
correlation between teachers’ involvement and job satisfaction and the
organizational structure of schools. That is, using factorial and correlational
analyses, she investigated the relationship among teachers’ involvement, site-based
management, and job satisfaction.

Major ﬁndings from Thierbach’s and Rice’s studies of middle school teachers
were as follows:

1. Teachers reported a general condition of decision deprivation.

2. Teachers’ level of job satisfaction was signiﬁcantly related to their
decision involvement.

3. Signiﬁcant relationships were found between teachers’ job satisfaction
and their level of inﬂuence regarding schoolwide decisions, their level of decision
involvement, and their interest in decision issues.

4. Signiﬁcant relationships were found between job satisfaction and the
level of implementation of site-based management, teacher participation, and
inﬂuence regarding schoolwide decisions.

5. Discrepancy between actual and desired involvement, inﬂuence
regarding schoolwide decisions, and level of implementation of site-based
management were statistically signiﬁcant predictors of variations in job satisfaction.

6. In the 1993 study as compared to the 1980 study, respondents
reported increased involvement in decision making, increased desire for
involvement, reduced deprivation, and increased interest and expertise in decision

issues.

53

The researcher based the present study on Thierbach’s and Rice’s studies
of middle school teachers, using a population of elementary school teachers in
Michigan. The survey instruments that Thierbach and Rice used were employed in
this study. Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (1990) noted that research to conﬁrm and
extend other studies frequently is needed with regard to educational issues. Also,
Gay (1987) claimed that generalizability is promoted when replication is done on a
number of other subjects, matched as closely as possible on relevant variables, who
share the same problem. Best and Kahn (1989) said that replication is important for
the development and veriﬁcation of new generalizations and theories.

The researcher investigated whether there is a relationship between teachers’
involvement in the decision-making process and theirjob satisfaction. The literature
review in Chapter II suggested that decision involvement be expanded; however,
what must be considered are the needs of the individuals involved, such as their
expertise in decision issues and desire for participation, as well as the organizational
structure of the school. In this study, the organizational structure of the school was
deﬁned as an organizational framework within which school staffs work
collaboratively to identify goals according to the following criteria: Goals are speciﬁc,
measurable, accountability based, resource oriented (providing time, funding, and
materials), and time bound.

Sample survey methodology was used to gather data from the teachers
regarding their involvement in the decision-making process in their schools and their
job satisfaction. A sample survey, as deﬁned by Babbie (1973), is used to make

descriptive assertions concerning a deﬁned population and to determine the

54

distribution of certain traits or attributes. Survey methodology traditionally has been
used in empirical studies of shared decision making (Alutto 8 Belasco, 1972;
Bacharach, Bamberger, Conley, 8 Bauer, 1990; Mohrman et al., 1978). Although
the survey method does not allow the researcher to penetrate deeply into a
phenomenon or phenomena (Kerlinger, 1973), it is the most efﬁcient method
available to address the objectives of this study and is suited to collecting original
data for describing a population that is too large to observe directly (Babble, 1973).

Fowler (1 984) cited the following advantages of the mailed questionnaire: the
relatively inexpensive cost, the need for minimal staff and facilities, the access to
widely dispersed samples, and the provision of time for participants to give
thoughtful responses. According to Ary et al. (1990), some of the advantages of the
self-administered questionnaire are its generally having a high cooperation rate, the
efﬁciency of respondents’ completing the form themselves, the guaranteed
conﬁdentiality of the respondents, and the relatively low cost. Ary et al. also noted
that disadvantages of the self-administered questionnaire include dependence on
the reading and writing skills of the respondents and the possibility of respondents’

misinterpreting the questions.

Besearchﬂuesllons
This study was undertaken to discover whether there is a relationship
between teachers’ decision involvement and their job satisfaction. The study was
guided by the theoretical considerations and conceptual framework set forth in

Chapter II, taking into account the recent state mandate for teacher involvement in

55

the decision-making process. These theoretical constructs provided the basis forthe
following research questions, which were designed to guide the collection of data
regarding the nature of teachers’ involvement in the decision-making process.

1. What is the relationship, if any, between teachers’ involvement in
decision making and their job satisfaction?

2. Does the relationship between teachers’ involvement and job
satisfaction vary according to their level of expertise in decision issues?

3. Does the relationship between teachers’ involvement and job
satisfaction vary according to their level of inﬂuence?

4. Does the relationship between teachers’ involvement and job
satisfaction vary according to the organizational structure of the school?

5. Does the relationship between teachers’ involvement and job

satisfaction vary according to their desired involvement?

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses, stated in the null form, were formulated to analyze
the data collected for this study:

ijpcthosi5_1: There is no relationship between teachers’ involvement in the
decision-making process and their job satisfaction.

ﬁypothosis_2: The relationship between teachers’ involvement and job
satisfaction does not vary according to their expertise in decision issues.

ljymthoslsj: The relationship between teachers’ involvement and job
satisfaction does not vary according to their level of inﬂuence.

Hypotnosiﬂ: The relationship between teachers’ involvement and job
satisfaction does not vary according to the organizational structure of the
schooL

56

ljyootnosisj: The relationship between teachers’ involvement and job
satisfaction does not vary according to their desired involvement.

W

The target population for this study comprised elementary teachers in public
schools in Oakland County, Michigan. Oakland County, located in southeastern
Michigan, was selected as the site for this study for two reasons: similar
demographics among schools and proximity to the researcher’s base for initial
telephone contact. The researcher identiﬁed 30 schools in this target area that met
the following selection criteria: (a) public elementary school (b) school housing
kindergarten through grade 5 or 6, and (c) enrollment exceeding 350 to ensure a
building staff of at least 12 teachers.

The school sample was drawn from the total of 202 elementary schools in
Oakland County. To ensure that the schools included in the study represented a
broad diversity of pupils, they were rank ordered by percentage of fourth graders
who scored in the satisfactory range on the mathematics portion of the 1996
Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) test. From this ranking, 30
schools were selected randomly, 10 from the highest achieving one-third, 10 from
the middle one-third, and 10 from the lowest one-third.

The researcher contacted the principals from the 30 randomly selected
schools to inform them about this research and to solicit their agreement to have
their teachers participate in the study. This was done by means of a direct

telephone Interview (see Appendix A).

57

Of the 30 principals whom the researcher attempted to contact by telephone,
only 21 principals actually were contacted, interviewed, and amenable to
participating. The remaining nine principals failed to return the researcher’s initial
or two follow—up telephone calls. In those instances in which contact was not made,
a replacement school was randomly selected from the same high-, medium-, or low-
ranking group as the school with which contact had not been achieved. In all, 31
principals agreed to participate. Of these, 11 were in the high-ranking group, 10 in
the moderate-ranking group, and 10 in the low-ranking group. The high group
included 11 principals because one of the principals in that group indicated she had
only ﬁve teachers who met the criteria for participating in the study. Because of this
low number of potential respondents, the researcher randomly selected an additional
school from that high-ranking group. None of the principals whom the researcher
contacted by telephone refused to participate.

The principals who agreed to participate were given the following criteria for
teacher selection:

1. A minimum of one year of teaching experience in the present school.
This increased the likelihood that the respondent understood the school decision-
making process sufﬁciently to provide valid input.

2. Not having held formal administrative responsibilities. This reduced
the number of variables that could affect the results.

The researcher asked each principal for the number of teachers in that
building who were eligible to participate in the study. She then sent a letter of

introduction describing the study and a sample of the survey instrument to the

58

principal, along with a sufficient number of teacher surveys. Each principal was
asked to distribute the surveys to teachers who met the selection criteria. Each
eligible teacher received a cover letter explaining the survey and ensuring the
conﬁdentiality of responses, a copy of the survey, and a separate envelope that was
stamped and return-addressed to the researcher (see Appendix B).

A total of 415 teachers were sent a survey to complete. Of these, 136
teachers were from the high-ranking schools, and 139 and 140 were from the
moderate- and low-ranking schools, respectively. Permission to use human subjects
in this research was obtained from the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCRIHS) at Michigan State University (see Appendix C).

Surveys were mailed to the 415 teachers in the 30 participating schools. Two
follow-up telephone calls were made, and two reminder post cards were sent two
and three weeks after the surveys were mailed. The reminder calls were made and
post cards addressed to the principal of each participating school.

In all, 217 surveys were returned after the reminder calls were made and the
follow-up post cards were sent. The procedure for compiling data and reporting
missing data involved computing means for only those questions with responses.
Two respondents omitted the ﬁrst 60 questions, and one of those respondents
omitted 50% of the remaining items. Those two surveys were considered invalid and
were discarded. The remaining 215 surveys were used in this research, resulting
in a response rate of 51.8%. That response rate was considered sufﬁcient for

analysis purposes. According to Babble (1973), a response rate of at least 50% is

59

considered adequate when self-administered surveys are the medium for data

collection.

tr t t'

A survey instrument was used in this study to investigate whether there is a
relationship between teachers’ involvement in the decision-making process and their
job satisfaction. The instrument consisted of three parts. Parts I and II were
duplicates of the instrument Thierbach (1980) used in her research, with one
exception. The exception is that in Part I, Thierbach included a question about
teachers’ intents! In each of the 20 decision areas. This researcher omitted that
question to shorten the survey and because it seemed to be similar to the doleed
inmlxemenl question. Also, because Thierbach’s survey was designed for use with
middle school teachers, the working of some items was Changed slightly to apply to
elementary school teachers. Part III of the instrument was the Personal Data
Survey. The three parts of the survey instrument are described in the following
paragraphs. (See Appendix D for a copy of the survey instrument.)

Part l—Decision Involvement Analysis Survey-pertains to the independent
variables for the research. This part includes three decision-involvement questions
from 20 decision areas, to which teachers responded in a Likert-style format ranging
from Greatto No Extent. The questions are:

1. What is your ACTUAL EXTENT of participation in making this
decision?

2. What is your DESIRED EXTENT of participation in making this

decision?

60

3.

To what degree to you possess EXPERTISE regarding this decision?

Teachers were asked to respond to the preceding three questions for each

of the 20 decision issues. Eight of the 20 decision issues related to the instructional]

technical area, and the remaining 12 pertained to the schoolwide/managerial level

of decision making. The issues included:

13
14

16

1O
11
12

Instructional/Tedrnrba/ Domain Issues
Specifying the learning objectives for each unit of instruction
Developing procedures for reporting student progress to parents
Developing procedures for assessing student achievement

Assigning students to instructional groups within your grade level or
subject area

Preparing the building budget instructional team
Planning student record-keeping procedures and practices
Selecting textbooks and other instructional materials

Determining grading procedures for evaluating the progress of your
students

Schoo/wide/Manageria/ Domain Issues

Determining the administrative and organizational structure of your
school

Establishing disciplinary policies in your school

Developing inservice programs for teachers in your school
Planning the counseling program in your school

Resolving problems or issues in school-community relations
Setting and revising the goals of your school

Determining the procedures to be used for the evaluation of teachers

61

15 Allocating materials and equipment
17 Selecting grade-level representatives or team leaders

18 Developing procedures for involving parents in planning the students'
learning program

19 Evaluating how well your school is operating

20 Hiring new teachers

The three decision-involvement questions (actual involvement, desired
involvement, and expertise) for each of the 20 decision-related issues had a forced-
Choice response format, using a four-point Likert-type scale (Great, Some, Little,
None). Teachers were asked to rate the actual and desired extent of their
involvement in making decisions pertaining to the 20 selected issues, as well as the
degree to which they possessed expertise in making decisions regarding those 20
issues. The means of items with responses were computed and categorized into
quartiles. For analysis purposes, the highest quartile was considered the high
group, the second and third quartiles constituted the moderate group, and the lowest
quartile was considered the low group.

Content validity of the Decision Involvement Analysis questionnaire was
established by Thierbach (1980). She consulted researchers, graduate students in
the ﬁeld of educational administration, professors of educational administration, and
teachers to assess whether or not the issues represented the domain of decision
involvement. Content validity was reestablished for the study completed by Rice in
1983.

Reliability, or internal consistency, also was established by Thierbach (1980).

Using the Cronbach alpha formula, Thierbach determined that the coefﬁcients were

62

moderate (> .80). This indicated that the items within each scale were internally

consistent (see Table 3.1).

Table 3.1: Reliability (internal consistency) coefficients regarding decision
involvement scales (N = 205).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scales (20 items per scale) Cronbach Alpha Coefﬁcient
1. Actual Extent .82
2. Desired Extent .85
3. Expertise .89
4. Discrepancy (Actual—Desired) .82

 

Source: Thierbach, G. L. (1980).QecIsIQn_ln1Ql1emenLand_.Lob_SatIsIactIon
WW. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Wisconsin- Madison.

Part lI—Job Satisfaction Survey--contains 27 items concerning teachers’
satisfaction with various aspects of their teaching position. Job satisfaction was the
dependent variable in this study.

The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) is a well-known measure of job satisfaction,
normed on blue-collar workers. Dunham, Smith, and Blackburn (1977) later
extended the JDI to develop the Index of Organizational Reactions (IOR), which was
normed on white-collar workers. The IOR met the guidelines established by Smith,
Kendall, and Hulin (1969) for a good measure of job satisfaction. Those criteria
include (a) separate the various aspects of satisfaction from one another, (b) agree
with other comparable measures of job satisfaction, (0) be useful with a wide range
of persons from a wide range of jobs and a variety of situations, (d) be intuitively
understandable, (e) be short, (f) allow group administration, and (9) require low
expenditures of time and money.

63

Mendenhall (1977) adapted the lORto develop a Job Satisfaction Survey with
eight scale comprising 50 items. Job satisfaction, as measured by this scale, was
deﬁned as the satisfaction derived from teaching. Speed (1979) reﬁned
Mendenhall's Job Satisfaction Survey to include nine scales comprising 27 items
and used this revised survey in his study of middle school teachers. In her study of
the relationship between teachers’ involvement in decision making and their job
satisfaction, Thierbach (1980) used Speed's (1979) revised form of Mendenhall's
(1977) Job Satisfaction Survey. In this measure, job satisfaction is addressed by 27

items in nine scales as shown below:

 

Scale Item How satisfied are you with:

 

Administration] 05 the opportunities provided to discuss problems with your building
Supervision administrator?

06 the trust you have in your building administrator?

16 the professional competence and leadership of your building
administrator?

 

Co—workers 01 the amount of work done by other teachers in your school?
08 the quality of work of other teachers in your school?

25 the personal and social relationships you have with other
teachers?

 

Career Future 03 your opportunities for growth in your profession?
10 your future in your school district?

14 the opportunities that you have to develop your area of special

 

interest?
School 07 the general reputation of your school?
ldenﬁﬁcaﬁon
18 your awareness of what is "going on” in your school?

 

27 the goals and objectives emphasized by your school?

 

 

 

 

64

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale Item How satisfied are you with:
Financial 04 the amount of money you make?
Aspects
19 the salary schedule in your school district?
24 the fringe beneﬁts in your school district?
Work 15 the physical facilities of your school?
Conditions
20 the arrangement of space and equipment in your school?
22 the availability of appropriate instructional materials and
equipment?
Amount of 02 the number of students for whom you are responsible?
Work
17 the number of subject areas that you must prepare?
23 the amount of work you are expected to do?
Pupil-Teacher 11 the extent to which you are able to meet your students’ affective
Relations needs?
13 the quality of your interactions with your students?
21 the extent to which you are able to meet your students’ academic
needs?
Community 09 the understanding of your school’s program by parents and the
Relations community?
12 the extent to which the community recognizes and appreciates
its educators?
26 the community’s involvement in your school’s program?

 

Thierbach reafﬁrmed content validity of the Job Satisfaction Survey through

consultation with researchers, professors of educational administration, graduate

students in educational administration, and teachers. She reestablished internal

consistency of the instrument for her study by computing a Cron bach alpha reliability

measure. The resulting alpha coefﬁcient was .90, supporting the use of the scale

for further research.

teachers.

In the present study, this instrument was used to survey

65

 

Part III—Personal and Situational Data. Part III was used to assess the
contingency variables, was developed for the present study. It contains 15 items
concerning the respondents’ personal data, the organizational structure of their
schools, and the extent to which they believe their participation in decision making
is inﬂuential. This part of the survey was designed to elicit information with which to
determine possible relationships between personal and situational variables and the
dependent variable, job satisfaction. The personal and situational variables included
years taught, years in present school, grade(s) currently teaching, gender, and
highest degree achieved. Items were based on the research of Alutto and Belasco
(1972) and Speed (1979). Alutto and Belasco found that (a) teachers with long
periods of service in the same school tended to be decisionally saturated and that
(b) decisionally deprived teachers tended to be young males, whereas decisionally
saturated teachers tended to be older females.

Questions 6 through 13 were designed to explore the organizational structure
of the school in order to determine the extent to which that structure was related to
teachers’ decision involvement and job satisfaction. Responses to these items also
were categorized into quartiles for analysis purposes, as was done with the
decisional items. Speed (1979) and Thierbach (1980) suggested that the decision-
making process be investigated in relation to the organizational structure of the
school. Hence this researcher investigated the extent to which the organizational
structure provided teachers with goals that were speciﬁc, were measurable, required
accountability, were resource oriented, and were time bound. Items 14 and 15

concerned how inﬂuential teachers thought they were in the decision-making

66

process in their schools. Inﬂuence means were computed, divided into quartiles,

and categorized as high (quartiles 1 and 2) or low (quartiles 3 and 4).

The procedures used in analyzing the data collected for this study included
(a) descriptive analysis, (b) correlational analysis, and (0) analysis of variance
(ANOVA). Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package forthe Social Sciences
(SPSS, Release 4.1 for IBM OS/MVS).

Correlations were derived from the statistical data. Roscoe (1969)
recommended using correlation coefﬁcients when one or both variables are scaled
ordinally. In this study, the Spearman rho correlation coefﬁcient was used. It is
considered appropriate for this type of study, in which data such as those generated
from the survey responses are used (Gay, 1987). Correlational analysis was used
to establish signiﬁcant relationships between the dependent variable of job
satisfaction and the independent variables of actual involvement, expertise,
inﬂuence, organizational structure, and desired involvement.

Comparative methodology was used to explain signiﬁcant correlations. This
type of methodology is appropriate for describing existing conditions. There are
several important advantages to using ANOVA (Kerlinger, 1973). F irst, this method
allows one to study the separate and combined effects of the independent variables.
Further, ANOVA allows one to study the interactive effects of the independent
variables on the dependent variable--in this case, job satisfaction. ANOVA is an

attempt to account for the dependent variable (in this case, job satisfaction) by

67

examining the independent variables. In the present study, the groups of teachers
were classiﬁed as high, moderate, or low on the independent variables of actual
involvement, expertise in decision issues, organizational structure of the school, and
desired involvement. An additional variable wasteachers’ level of inﬂuence. On this
measure, teachers were categorized as either high or low. The assumption
underlying this study was that if facts regarding the independent variables are
known, those concerning the dependent variable can be predicted. For example,
are teachers with a high level of involvement more satisﬁed with theirjobs than those
with a low level of involvement? Also of interest to this researcher was the
relationship of the school organizational pattern to teachers’ job satisfaction. In
schools where teams are supported and work together to develop goals that are
speciﬁc, measurable, and require accountability, are teachers more satisﬁed?
Further, is the desired level of involvement a factor contributing to job satisfaction?
ANOVA was used to explore these relationships and explain the correlations.

Results of the data analyses are reported in Chapter IV.

68

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA

Introduction
This chapter consists of four sections. They include a description of the data

used in the analyses, results of the correlational analyses, results of hypothesis

testing, and a summary.

[1.]. [IIDIHI'II'IIIIII

The data used in testing the hypotheses are presented in this section. These
data were obtained from a three-part survey of elementary school teachers in
Michigan. Part I concerned three of the ﬁve independent variables: actual
involvement, desired involvement, and expertise in decision issues. Part II
concerned the dependent variable, job satisfaction. Part III was designed to gather
information on personal characteristics of the respondents and the situational
variables: inﬂuence and organizational structure of the school. Demographic data
generated from the sample are comparable to those of the general population of

Michigan elementary teachers, as shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

69

Table 4.1: Distribution of respondents by gender, as compared to the Michigan
elementary teacher population.

 

 

 

 

 

Gender Present Study Michigan E63393??? Teacher
Number Percent Number Percent
Female 182 88.3 73,257 87.6
Male 24 11.7 10,370 12.4
Total 206 100.0 83,637 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Michigan elementary teacher population ﬁgures were taken from: U. S.
Department of Education, Ofﬁce of Educational Research and Improvement,
National Center for Education Statistics. (1995, June). W

W (ISBN 0-164348128-7) Washington DC
U. S. Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Table 4.2: Distribution of respondents by level of education, as compared to the
Michigan elementary teacher population.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michi an Elementa Teacher

Level of Present Study 9 Population!

Education
Number Percent Number Percent

BA. 80 37.7 31.527 37.6
MA. 120 56.6 47,751 57.1
Specialist 1 1 5.2 3,596 4.3
Ph.D. 1 .5 836 1 .0

Total 212 100.0 83,710 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Michigan elementary teacher population ﬁgures were taken from: US.
Department of Education, Ofﬁce of Educational Research and Improvement,

National Center for Education Statistics. (1995, June). WW

WWWUSBN 0-16—048128—.7) Washington, DC:
U. 8. Government Printing Ofﬁce.

70

The statistical data were generated by the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS, Release 4.1 for IBM OS/MVS). The data gathered in each part of
the survey are described in the following sections.

BarthActuaLlnmlvemenLﬂesiLedlnmlvemenL
IE I"D'il

In Part | of the survey, three questions were asked for each of 20 decision
issues. These questions related to the theoretical constructs of actual involvement,
desired involvement, and expertise in the decision issues. In previous research,
Thierbach (1980) and Rice (1993) identiﬁed the decision issues as belonging to
either the instructional/technical domain (8 issues) or the managerial/schoolwide
domain (12 issues). For purposes of this study, items were analyzed collectively in
those two groupings; individual item analysis was not done. The decision issues in
each of the two domains are identiﬁed in Table 4.3.

For each item, teachers were asked to indicate their level of actual and
desired involvement and expertise using the following 4-point Likert-type scale:
1 = great extent, 2 = some extent, 3 = little extent, and 4 = no extent. Using this
scoring procedure, mean scores were obtained for actual involvement, desired
involvement, and expertise in each of the two domains. These mean scores are
shown in Table 4.4. The summary data indicate that actual and desired involvement
and level of expertise were consistently higher in every area in the instructional!

technical domain (mean = 1.91 ) than in the managerial/schoolwide domain (mean =

2.46).

71

Table 4.3: Decision issues in the instructional/technical and managerial/schoolwide
domains.

 

Item Instructional/Technical Domain

 

Specifying the learning objectives for each unit of instruction

Developing procedures for reporting student progress to parents

Developing procedures for assessing student achievement

Assigning students to instructional groups within your grade level or
subject area

9 Preparing the building budget

NbQ—t

13 Planning student record-keeping procedures and practices

14 Selecting textbooks and other instructional materials

16 Determining grading procedures for evaluating the progress of your
students

Item Managerial/Schoolwide Domain

2 Determining the administrative and organizational structure of your school
5 Establishing disciplinary policies in your school

 

6 Developing inservice programs for teachers in your school
8 Planning the counseling program in your school
10 Resolving problems or issues in school-community relations
11 Setting and revising the goals of your school

12 Determining the procedures to be used for the evaluation of teachers
15 Allocating materials and equipment

17 Selecting grade level representatives or team leaders

18 Developing procedures for involving parents in planning the students'
Ieaming program

19 Evaluating how well your school is Operating

20 Hiring new teachers

 

 

 

 

The reliability of each of the domains was established in two previous studies
(Rice, 1993; Thierbach, 1980) using the Cronbach alpha formula. The coefﬁcients,
which ranged from .78 to .87, were moderately high. Thus, the items comprising

each scale were considered internally consistent.

72

Table 4.4: Mean scores for actual and desired involvement and expertise in the two
decision domains (N = 215).

 

No. of Actual Desired

Expertise Total
Items Involvement Involvement

Decision Domain

 

 

 

Technical/instructional 9 2.25 1.70 1.78 1.91
Managerial/schoolwide 1 1 2.91 2.16 2.22 2.46
Total 20 2.58 1.93 2.00 2.18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key: 1 = Great extent
2 = Some extent
3 = Little extent
4 = No extent

Part II of the instrument was the Job Satisfaction Survey, which also was
used in Thierbach’s (1980) and Rice’s (1993) studies. Reliability for the Job
Satisfaction Survey was determined by Thierbach (1980) and conﬁrmed by Rice
(1993) in their studies of middle school teachers. The test of reliability, using the
Cronbach alpha coefﬁcient formula, was performed to ensure internal consistency.
That test was also performed in this study. As shown in Table 4.5, the reliability
coefﬁcient of .90 in the present study of elementary teachers compared to those in

the Thierbach and Rice studies of middle school teachers.

Table 4.5: Comparison of Cronbach alpha coefﬁcients for the Job Satisfaction
Survey in the Thierbach and Rice studies and the present study.

 

ll Thierbach (1980) Rice (1993) Present Study ||
|| Cronbach alpha .87 .88 .90 ll

 

 

 

 

 

73

In the Job Satisfaction Survey, respondents were asked to indicate how
satisﬁed they were with 27 conditions in their schools. They responded to those job
satisfaction items using a 4-point Likert-type scale in which 1 = very satisﬁed,
2 = satisﬁed, 3 = dissatisﬁed, and 4 = very dissatisﬁed. For purposes of this study,
the responses to the Job Satisfaction Survey were analyzed collectively; individual-
item analyses were not performed. The overall mean and standard deviation forjob
satisfaction are shown in Table 4.6. The mean was 2.035, indicating that the

teachers in this study were satisﬁed, overall, with their jobs.

Table 4.6: Means and standard deviations for job satisfaction (N = 214).

 

ll Mean Standard Deviation ll
|| Job satisfaction 2.035 .4581 ll

 

 

 

 

Key: 1 = Very satisﬁed

2 = Satisﬁed

3 = Dissatisﬁed

4 = Very dissatisﬁed

Although job satisfaction questions were scored collectively forthe purposes
of responding to the research questions, they also were ranked by means to show
individual items on a continuum from those that contributed to higherjob satisfaction
(mean = 1.4953) to those that contributed to dissatisfaction (mean = 2.6215) (see
Table 4.7). Issues relating to a high level of satisfaction were those centering on the

quality of interactions with students and other teachers and on the individual’s own

school, its goals and quality. Items least associated with job satisfaction centered

74

 

 

on recognition by the community, working conditions, amount of work expected, and

ﬁnancial aspects.

Table 4.7: Job satisfaction items ranked according to means.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Survey Item: How satisﬁed are you with . . . Mean

No.

13 the quality of your interactions with your students? 1.4953
8 the quality of work of other teachers in your school? 1.5421
1 the amount of work done by other teachers in your school? 1.5140

25 the personal and social relationships you have with other teachers? 1.5654
7 the general reputation of your school? 1.6402

10 your future in your school district? 1.8224

16 the professional competence and leadership of your building 1.8271

administrator?

27 the goals and objectives emphasized by your school? 1.8505

18 your awareness of what is ”going on” in your school? 1.8738
5 the opportunities provided to discuss problems with building 1.9346

administrators?

14 the opportunities that you have to develop your areas of special interest? 1.9860
6 the trust you have in your building administrator? 1.9953

26 the community’s involvement in your school’s program? 1.9953
9 the understanding of your school’s program by parents and the 1.9953

community?

24 the fringe beneﬁts in your school district? 2.0000
3 your opportunities for growth in your profession? 2.0047
2 the number of students for whom you are responsible? 2.1028

11 the extent to which you are able to meet your students’ affective needs? 2.1262

21 the extent to which you are able to meet your students’ academic 2.1449

needs?
4 the amount of money you make? 2.2453

22 the availability of appropriate instructional materials and equipment? 2.2897

 

75

 

Table 4.7: Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Survey Item: How satisﬁed are you with . . . Mean
No.

17 the number of courses for which you must prepare? 2.3364
19 the salary schedule in your school district? 2.3692
15 the physical facilities of your school? 2.3925
20 the arrangement of space and equipment in your school? 2.5514
23 the amount of work you are expected to do? 2.5935
12 the extent to which the community recognizes and appreciates its 2.6215

educators?
Key: 1 = Very satisﬁed

2 = Somewhat satisﬁed
3 = Somewhat dissatisﬁed
4 = Very dissatisﬁed

E IIII'E I IS! I' IS! l'l'

respondents’ personal and situational characteristics. Five of the 15 questions in
this part of the survey sought the following personal and professional information:

(a) gender, (b) highest degree attained, (c) grade level taught, (d) length of teaching

Part III of the instrument was designed to elicit information regarding

experience, and (e) length of experience in present school.

(approximately 88%), were female; nearly 12% were male. These percentages are
comparable to those of males and females in the general population of elementary

school teachers in Michigan, as reported by the US. Department of Education

(1995).

76

Gender. As shown in Table 4.1, the highest percentage of respondents

 

LeveLqLeducatiQn. The level-of-education data shown in Table 4.2 indicate
that the highest percentage of respondents, 56.6%, held master’s degrees, and
37.7% held bachelor’s degrees. Collapsing the categories revealed that those
teachers with a bachelor’s or master’s degree equaled 94.3% of the total
respondents. These percentages are comparable to those of the general population
of elementary teachers in Michigan, as reported by the US. Department of
Education (1995).

W. The grade levels currently being taught by the
respondents are shown in Table 4.8. Respondents in the study population were
relatively evenly distributed among the various grade levels. Fewer were teaching

kindergarten or sixth grade than were teaching grades one through ﬁve.

Table 4.8: Distribution of respondents by grade level taught.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade Level Number Percent I]
Kindergarten 25 11.6 II
Grade 1 48 22.3 ll
Grade 2 60 27.9
Grade 3 52 24.2
Grade 4 56 26.0
Grade 5 50 23.3
Grade 6 31 14.4

Total 215

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Some respondents taught more than one grade level, so percentages total
more than 100%.

77

W. Respondents’ length of teaching experience in their

present schools and their total years of experience are shown in Table 4.9. The
majority of teachers in this study (60.5%) had taught fewer than 10 years in their
present schools. Further, almost 23% of the teachers in this study had taught fewer
than three years in their present schools, as compared to 7.6% of the general
Michigan elementary teacher population. Whereas 66.5% of the teachers in this
study had taught 10 years or more, 72.5% of the general Michigan elementary

teacher population had taught that long.

Table 4.9: Distribution of respondents by years of teaching in present school and
total years of teaching, as compared to the general Michigan elementary
teacher population.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.23.35.12.35:
Total Years Of Years in Present
Experience School Total Years Taught Total Years Taught
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Less than 3 49 22.8 24 11.2 6,356 7.6
3-9 81 37.7 48 22.3 6,642 19.9
10-20 52 24.2 56 26.0 28,935 34.6
More than 20 33 15.3 87 40.5 31,695 37.9
Total 215 100.0 215 100.0 83,628 100.0

 

 

“Michigan elementary teacher population ﬁgures were taken from: U. S.
Department of Education, Ofﬁce of Educational Research and Improvement,
National Center for Education Statistics. (1995, June). W

WWUSBN 0-16-048128-.7) Washington, DC:
US. Government Printing Ofﬁce.

78

Situationauaﬂables. The situational variables were addressed with eight
items concerning the goal-setting measures within the respondents’ schools and two
items concerning the extent of the respondents' inﬂuence within their schools.
Responses to the goal-setting items were analyzed to determine the dimension of
school organization and were used in answering Research Question 4: Does the
relationship between teachers’ actual involvement and job satisfaction vary

according to the organizational structure of the school? The items were:

1. In my school, we work as a team to develop goals.

2. In my school, goals are clear and speciﬁc.

3. In my school, goals are measurable.

4. In my school, goals require accountability.

5. In my school, we are provided with adequate materials to achieve our
goals.

6. In my school, we are provided with adequate funding to achieve our
goals.

7. In my school, we are provided with enough training to achieve our
goals.

8. In my school, goals have a speciﬁc timeline.

In responding to these items, teachers used a 4-point Likert-type scale with
1 = always, 2 = sometimes, 3 = seldom, and 4 = never. Again, the responses to
these items were analyzed collectively; individual-item analyses were not performed.

Mean scores for school organization were used in subsequent hypothesis testing.

79

Two of the 15 questions in Part II were designed to determine the
respondents’ levels of inﬂuence in making school decisions. Responses to these
two questions were used in answering Research Question 3: Does the relationship
between teachers’ actual involvement and job satisfaction vary according to their
level of inﬂuence? The two questions were:

When you participate in making decisions that affect the entireschool. to
what extent do you feel your participation is inﬂuential?

When you participate in making decisions that affect mam
mstmctlonaﬂeam. to what extent do you feel your participation Is inﬂuential?

Teachers responded to these questions using a 4-point Likert-type scale on which
1 = great extent, 2 = some extent, 3 = little extent, and 4 = no extent. The mean
scores for these two items were combined to arrive at overall means for levels of

inﬂuence.

BesuﬂmﬁheﬂmelaﬂgnaLAnalysis

This study was based on the assumption thatjob satisfaction, the dependent
variable, could be predicted when the independent variables of actual involvement,
expertise in decision issues, inﬂuence, organizational structure of the school, and
desired involvement were known. In preparation for testing the hypotheses, a
correlational analysis was conducted to ascertain the relationship between variables.
The Spearman correlation was used to determine the relationship between pairs of
independent variables and between each independent variable and job satisfaction.

Results of the correlational analysis are shown in Table 4.10.

80

Table 4.10: Spearman correlations for the independent variables and job

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

satisfaction.
Actual , School Desired
ExpertIse Inﬂuence , ,
Involvement OrganIzatIon Involvement
Expertise .2105
Inﬂuence .2491" .0422
School organization .2982' -.01 04 .2497’
5398"“ 2230* .6738" .0760 .0168
Involvement
Job satisfaction .3277" -.0558 .3008’ .5548" .0305
*p < .05.

E II [II II 'I l'
The results of testing the hypotheses are presented in this section. Each

hypothesis is restated, followed by the results for that hypothesis.

tlvoothesisJ
There is no relationship between teachers’ actual involvement in the decision-
making process and their job satisfaction.

The Spearman correlation for the main effect (teachers’ actual involvement
x job satisfaction) (Table 4.10) indicated that a signiﬁcant relationship existed
between respondents’ actual involvement and their job satisfaction. The means and
standard deviations for the various levels of involvement are shown in Table 4.11.
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to ascertain whether the mean scores for job
satisfaction differed among teachers in the three categories of actual involvement
(see Table 4.12). A signiﬁcant relationship was found between the level of actual

involvement and job satisfaction.

81

Table 4.11: Means and standard deviations for levels of actual involvement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(N = 214).
Mean Score:

Level of Involvement Frequency Job Satisfaction Std. Dev.
High involvement 46 1.8709 .4181
Moderate involvement 1 14 1.9724 .4317
Low involvement 54 2.3060 .4345

Range of levels of involvement: High 1.00—2.25

Moderate 2.26-2.99
Low 3.00-4.00

Table 4.12: Results of one-way ANOVA: actual involvement x job satisfaction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value
Between groups 2 5.6527 2.8263
15.3158*
Within groups 211 38.9373 .1845
Total 213 44.5900
*p < .05.

The Scheffé post-hoc procedure was employed to determine the signiﬁcance
of all pairwise comparisons of means.
difference was found between the high- and low-involvement groups and the
moderate- and low-involvement groups in terms of job satisfaction. Speciﬁcally,
respondents who had higher degrees of actual involvement in the decision-making

process In their schools had higher levels of job satisfaction than those who were

82

As shown in Table 4.13, a signiﬁcant

 

 

less involved. The relationship was signiﬁcant; hence, the null hypothesis was

rejected.

Table 4.13: Results of the Scheffé post-hoc comparison for actual involvement
and job satisfaction (N = 214).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Mean Score: High Moderate Low
Involvement Job Satisfaction Involvement Involvement Involvement
2:51“ 46) 1.8709
3.037182? 1.9724
:3: 54) 2.3060 * *

 

*p < .05 for pairs of groups.

6190102812

The relationship between teachers’ actual involvement and job satisfaction
does not vary according to their expertise in decision issues.

The Spearman correlation for the main effect (level of expertise x job
satisfaction) (Table 4.10) revealed that no signiﬁcant relationship existed between
respondents’ level of expertise and their job satisfaction. Table 4.14 shows the

means and standard deviations for respondents’ levels of expertise.

83

Table 4.14: Means and standard deviations for levels of expertise in decision
issues (N = 214).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Expertise Frequency Mean Score: Std. Dev.
Job Satisfaction

High expertise 51 2.1124 .4498

Moderate expertise 110 1.9849 .4369

Low expertise 53 2.0636 .5008
Range of levels of expertise: High 1.00-1.64
Moderate 1.65-2.29
Low 2.30-4.00

Results of the one- and two-way ANOVAs for expertise and job satisfaction
and for actual involvement, expertise, and job satisfaction are shown in Tables 4.15

and 4.16, respectively. None of the analyses showed a signiﬁcant relationship;

therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected.

Table 4.15: Results of one-way ANOVA: expertise x job satisfaction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value
Between groups 2 .6251 .3126
1.5000
Within groups 211 43.9649 .2084
Total 213 44.5900

 

 

84

 

 

Table 4.16: Results of two-way ANOVA: actual involvement x level of expertise x
job satisfaction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Variation 88:“:sz df Mean Square F-Value
Main effects: 6.790 4 1.697 9.458"
Range of actual involvement 6.165 2 3.082 17.174'
Range of inﬂuence 1.137 2 .569 .044
4
Explained 7.796 8 .975 5.438‘
Residual 36.794 205 .179
Total 44.590 213 .209
*p < .05.
Hypothesisj

The relationship between teachers’ actual involvement and job satisfaction
does not vary according to their level of inﬂuence.

The Spearman correlation for the main effect (level of inﬂuence x job
satisfaction) (Table 4.10) revealed that a signiﬁcant relationship existed between
respondents’ levels of inﬂuence and theirjob satisfaction. The means and standard
deviations for respondents’ levels of inﬂuence are shown in Table 4.17. A one-way
ANOVA was conducted to ascertain whether the mean job satisfaction scores
differed for respondents in the two categories of inﬂuence. As shown in Table 4.18,
a signiﬁcant difference was found between the high- and low-inﬂuence groups in

terms of their job satisfaction. This means that teachers who thought they had a

85

high level of inﬂuence in the decision-making process in their schools had a higher

level of job satisfaction than those who thought they had a lower level of inﬂuence.

Table 4.17: Means and standard deviations for levels of inﬂuence (N = 213).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Inﬂuence Frequency Mean Score: Std. Dev.
Job Satisfaction
High inﬂuence 1 16 1.9026 .4073
Low inﬂuence 97 2.1940 .4679
Range of levels of inﬂuence: High 1.00-1.49
Low 2.00-4.00

Table 4.18: Results of one-way ANOVA: inﬂuence x job satisfaction.

 

 

 

 

Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value
Between groups 1 4.4860 4.4860
23.6090*
Within groups 211 40.0921 .1900
Total 212 44.5781

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, when the analysis was extended to include the relationship among
actual involvement, level of inﬂuence, and job satisfaction, the relationship was not
statistically signiﬁcant (Table 4.19). This two-way ANOVA indicated that there was
no signiﬁcant relationship among actual involvement, level of inﬂuence, and job

satisfaction. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected.

86

Table 4.19: Results of two-way ANOVA: actual involvement x level of inﬂuence x
job satisfaction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Variation SISquuna1ers df Mean Square F-Value
Main effects: 7.981 3 2.660 15.450"
Range of actual involvement 3.495 2 1.748 10.150’
Range of Inﬂuence 2.338 1 2.338 13.575"
itizgizzitiiigir' 2 2....
Explained 8.933 5 1.787 10.376"
Residual 35.645 207 .172
Total 44.578 212 .210
*p < .05.
BMW

The relationship between teachers’ actual involvement and job satisfaction
does not vary according to the organizational structure of the school.

The Spearman correlation for the main effect (organizational structure of the
school xjob satisfaction) (Table 4.10) revealed that a signiﬁcant relationship existed
between respondents’ school organization and their job satisfaction. The means and
standard deviations for the categories of school organization are shown in Table
4.20. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to ascertain whether the mean job
satisfaction scores differed for respondents in the three categories of school
organization. The items in the survey that related to school organization included
teamwork to set goals, and setting goals that are clear, speciﬁc, measurable, and
accountability based. Also included were items regarding adequacy of materials to

achieve goals, as well as funding, training, and establishing timelines to achieve

87

goals. As shown in Table 4.21, a signiﬁcant relationship was found between the
organizational structure of the school and job satisfaction. These results indicate
that in schools with a high level of organization, as identiﬁed by those survey items,

teachers were more satisﬁed.

Table 4.20: Means and standard deviations for organizational structure of the school

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(N = 213).
Level of Organization Frequency Mean Score: Std. Dev.
Job Satisfaction
High organization 60 1.7229 .3547
Moderate organization 89 1.9957 .3885
Low organization 64 2.3832 .4010
Range of levels of organization: High 1.00-1.64
Moderate 1.65-2.12
Low 2.13-4.00

I

Table 4.21: Results of one-way ANOVA: school organization x job satisfaction.

 

 

 

 

Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value
Between groups 2 13.7438 6.8719
46.8018"
Within groups 210 30.8343 .1468
Total 212 44.5781

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Scheffé post-hoc procedure was employed to determine the signiﬁcance
of all painrvise comparisons of means (see Table 4.22). This analysis indicated that
there was a signiﬁcant difference between the high-organization group and both the
moderate- and low-organization groups in terms of job satisfaction. There was also
a signiﬁcant dlfference between the moderate- and low-organizatlon groups In this

regard.

88

Table 4.22: Results of the Scheffé post-hoc comparison for school organization
and job satisfaction.

 

 

 

 

Level of School Mean Score: Job High Moderate Low
Organization Satisfaction Organization Organization Organization

2‘1"“ 1.7229

31°33“ 1.9957 .

1:: 64) 2.3832 * 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘p < .05 for pairs of groups.

However, a two-way ANOVA did not reveal a signiﬁcant relationship among
actual involvement, school organization, and job satisfaction (see Table 4.23).
Because no signiﬁcant relationship was found on this test, the null hypothesis was

not rejected.

Table 4.23: Results of two-way ANOVA: actual involvement x school organization
x job satisfaction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Variation Ssquurgr: df Mean Square F-Value
[ Main effects: 15.726 4 3.931 28076"
| Range of actual involvement 1.982 2 .991 7.077
Range of inﬂuence 10.082 2 5.041 36.000"
4
Explained 16.013 8 2.002 14.294‘
Residual 28.566 204 .140
Total 44.578 212 .210

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*p < .05.

89

Hypothesisﬁ

The relationship between teachers’ actual involvement and job satisfaction
does not vary according to their desired involvement.

The Spearman correlation for the main effect (desired involvement x job
satisfaction) (Table 4.10) revealed that a signiﬁcant relationship did not exist
between respondents’ level of desired involvement and their job satisfaction. The
means and standard deviations for desired involvement are shown in Table 4.24.
Table 4.25 shows the results of the one-way ANOVA for desired involvement and
job satisfaction; the results of the two-way ANOVA for actual involvement, desired
involvement, and job satisfaction are shown in Table 4.26. In both analyses, the
relationship was found not to be signiﬁcant; thus, the null hypothesis was not

rejected.

Table 4.24: Means and standard deviations for desired involvement (N = 214).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Desired Involvement Frequency Mean Score: Std. Dev.
Job Satisfaction

High involvement 59 2.0293 .4574

Moderate involvement 99 1.9996 .4219

Low involvement 56 2.1026 .5158
Range of desired involvement: High 1.00-1.64
Moderate 1.65-2.21
Low 2.22-4.00

90

Table 4.25: Results of one-way ANOVA: desired involvement x job satisfaction.

 

 

 

 

Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value
Between groups 2 .3813 .1907 .9100
Within groups 211 44.2087 .2095

Total 213 44.5900

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.26: Results of two-way ANOVA: actual involvement x desired involvement
x job satisfaction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Variation Sum at (If Mean Square F-Value
Squares

Main effects: 5.932 4 1.483 8.015’
Range of actual involvement 5.551 2 2.775 14.999"
Range of desired influence .279 2 .140 .775
2-way interactions: actual
involvement x desired .726 4 .181 .981
inﬂuence
Explained 6.658 8 .832 4.498'
Residual 37.932 205 .185

Total 44.590 213 .209

*p < .05.
S [ I I ll . I I.

A summary of the results of hypothesis testing is presented in Table 4.27. A
signiﬁcant relationship was found between job satisfaction and teachers’ actual
involvement in the decision-making process (Hypothesis 1). That is, teachers who
were highly involved in their schools were more satisﬁed with theirjobs; conversely,
those teachers who were not highly involved were less satisﬁed. On the other hand,
no signiﬁcant relationship was found between either level of expertise (Hypothesis
2) or desired involvement (Hypothesis 5) and job satisfaction. When considering

91

teachers’ Inﬂuence and its effect on job satisfaction, the data indicated a signiﬁcant
difference between the two groups of high and low involvement and inﬂuence. That
Is, teachers who thought they had a high level of inﬂuence in the decision process
in their schools did have a higher level of job satisfaction; however, no signiﬁcant
relationship was found when the analysis was extended to include actual
involvement (Hypothesis 3). Further, a signiﬁcant relationship was found between
school organization and job satisfaction, indicating that in schools with a high level
of organization, teachers were more satisﬁed. However, a signiﬁcant relationship
was not found when the analysis was extended to include actual involvement. That
is, a signiﬁcant relationship among actual involvement, school organization, and job

satisfaction could not be established (Hypothesis 4).

Table 4.27: Summary of results of hypothesis testing.

 

Hypothesis Reject Do Not Reject

 

1:111: There is no relationship between teachers'
actual involvement in the decision-making process X
and their job satisfaction.

 

lip]: The relationship between teachers' actual
involvement and job satisfaction does not vary X
according to their expertise in decision issues.

 

1103: The relationship between teachers' actual
involvement and job satisfaction does not vary X
according to their level of inﬂuence.

 

110112 The relationship between teachers’ actual
involvement and job satisfaction does not vary X
according to the organizational structure of the
school

 

H15: The relationship between teachers’ actual
involvement and job satisfaction does not vary X
according to their desired Involvement.

 

 

 

 

 

92

Chapter V contains a summary and discussion of the ﬁndings, conclusions
drawn from the ﬁndings, further discussion, implications for future research, and the

researcher’s reﬂections.

93

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter consists of six sections: an introduction, an overview of the
study, conclusions related to the hypotheses, implications for practice,

recommendations for future research, and concluding remarks.

IDI_IO_CI_U_C1I9_I1

A review of the literature indicated that teachers’ participation in the decision-
making process improves organizational effectiveness and increases job
satisfaction. The review also revealed that, during the past 20 years, a number of
reform initiatives focusing on teachers’ involvement in the decision-making process
have been undertaken. National attention to such initiatives has had political
implications for educators. In Michigan, recent changes in the law have mandated
building-level decision making in all schools. Although the literature on teacher
involvement contained a variety of assumptions about the nature of decision making
and its beneﬁts, little empirical evidence has been accumulated to assist in
understanding the nature of teachers’ involvement in decision making. Furthermore,
little has been done to assist schools in implementing the state mandate for

involvement.

94

vi f

This study was undertaken to examine the theoretical assumption that
teachers’ involvement in the decision-making process is related to their job
satisfaction. The researcher’s primary purpose was to investigate whether there Is
a relationship between teachers’ involvement in the decision-making process in
Michigan public elementary schools and theirjob satisfaction. A secondary purpose
was to examine variations in this relationship according to teachers’ expertise in
decision issues, level of inﬂuence, organizational structure of the school, and desired
involvement.

The conceptual framework for this study was based on the assumption that
when teachers exercise more control over decisions that affect their professional
work environment, the result will be a greater correspondence between the
expectations of the organization and the need disposition of staff members
(Thierbach, 1980). Further, the greater this congruence between the normative and
personal dimensions, the higher will be teacher satisfaction. The research questions
were based on the literature on job satisfaction, social systems theory, the theory of
cooperation in organizations, and decision theory. The researcher formulated ﬁve
hypotheses (stated on pages 56-57) for determining the relationship between the
independent variables of actual involvement, expertise, inﬂuence, structure of the
organization, and desired involvement and the dependent variable ofjob satisfaction.

The 217 randomly selected teachers in the study sample compared to the
statewide population in terms of gender (Table 4.6) and level of education (Table

4.7). The sample differed from the statewide population in terms of number of years

95

taught (Table 4.9). In comparing total number of years taught, the population forthis
study was slightly less experienced than the general population; 11.2% had taught
fewer than three years, as compared to 7.6% of the general population. This could
be because Oakland County, an outgrowth of the metropolitan Detroit area, is a
rapidly growing area and reflects resultant population growth and the on-going
process of employing teachers to fill this need. Likewise, 59.5% of the Oakland
County teachers surveyed for this study had taught 20 years or less, compared to
62.1% of the general elementary population.

Sample survey methodology was used in the study. A three—part survey,
based in part on previous research by Thierbach (1980) and Rice (1993), was used
to gather the data. In Part I, teachers were asked to rate their actual and desired
extent of participation in making decisions regarding 20 issues and their expertise
in each issue. Part II contained 27 items concerning teachers’ satisfaction with
various aspects of their teaching positions. Part III concerned teachers’ personal
and situational characteristics, including years taught, years in present school,
grade(s) currently teaching, gender, and highest degree achieved. Questions in Part
III also concerned the organizational structure of the school and the extent to which
teachers believed their participation in decision making was inﬂuential.

The data were processed by calculating means for responses to the 20
decision involvement questions for each of the three independent variables: actual
involvement, expertise, and desired involvement. Data for two other independent
variables, inﬂuence and organizational structure, were obtained from Part III of the

survey. The means for the independent variables were compared to the means for

96

the dependent variable ofjob satisfaction, which were obtained from responses to
27 job satisfaction questions included in Part II of the survey. The data for job
satisfaction were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS, Release 4.1 for IBM OS/MVS). The analytical procedures used in this study
were (a) Spearman rho correlational analysis, (b) one- and two-way ANOVA, and (c)

Scheffé post hoc comparisons.

I ' l t

The ﬁndings, derived from the analysis of the ﬁve research hypotheses, are
presented in this section. Results revealed an interesting pattern, suggesting that
teachers who are highly involved in decision making and who believe that their
involvement is inﬂuential experience greater job satisfaction. Further, teachers
whose involvement is based on team collaboration to address buildingwide goals are
more involved and more satisﬁed with their jobs. In the following section, each
hypothesis is restated, followed by the conclusions regarding that hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1: There is no relationship between teachers’ actual involvement
in the decision-making process and their job satisfaction.

Conclusion: Teachers’ actual involvement in the decision-making process
was directly proportional to their job satisfaction.

Discussion: Social systems literature, which formed the framework for this
study, indicates that social behavior is determined by both the needs of the
institution and the needs of the individual (Getzels 8 Guba, 1957). As reported in

the literature review In Chapter II, much of the research on decision making has

97

been based on the assumption that involvement of staff members in the decision-
making process will result in greater congruence between organizational and
individual needs (Barnard, 1938; Thierbach, 1983; Wallace, 1990). As shown in
Figure 2.2, people in organizations deﬁne mission and align organizational and
individual needs through an on-going process of collaborative decision making,
which ultimately can contribute to the success of the organization. As reported in the
social systems literature, the greater the congruence between the idiographic and
normative dimensions, the greater will be teachers’ job satisfaction.

The ﬁrst hypothesis concerned the relationship between teachers’ level of
actual involvement in decision making and job satisfaction. Responses to the 20
decision issues were analyzed and means were categorized as high, moderate, or
low involvement. An analysis of the data indicated that a signiﬁcant linear
relationship existed between level of involvement and job satisfaction. That is,
teachers who were more involved in the decision-making process in schools were
more satisﬁed with theirjobs. This finding for elementary school teachers supports
the research on middle school teachers by Thierbach (1980) and Rice (1993) and
suggests that decision involvement that is occurring at elementary and middle
schools Is signiﬁcantly related to job satisfaction.

The ﬁndings also reﬂect the literature on job satisfaction as reported in
Chapter II. Herzberg (1966, 1987) claimed that the only way to motivate is to
provide challenging work in which employees can assume responsibility. As noted
in the research on cooperation in organizations (Barnard, 1938), as well as social

systems theory (Getzels et al., 1968) and decision theory (Lipham 8 Hoeh, 1974),

98

people will focus energy to achieve individual and organizational purposes. The 20
decision issues surveyed in this study included a wide variety of decision areas, as
shown in Table 4.1 (p. 70). The resulting signiﬁcant correlation between teachers’
involvement In those decision issues and their job satisfaction supported the
literature and indicated that teachers did feel more job satisfaction as their actual
involvement increased.

Mohrman et al. (1978) studied teachers’ involvement in decision making in
relation to instructional/technical and managerial/schoolwide domains (see Table
4.1). They concluded that teachers desired greater involvement in technical/
instructional issues than in managerial/schoolwide issues. Further analysis of the
responses in the present study confirmed the ﬁndings from previous research on
involvement, which indicated that teachers preferred involvement in areas that most
closely involved their daily work, such as curriculum and methodology (Bacharach,
1990; Bacharach et al., 1986; Mohrman et al., 1978) and were least willing to be
involved in managerial and administrative decision issues (Conley & Bacharach,
1990).

The 20 decision issues rated byteachers in this study can be categorized into
the following two domains identified by Mohrman et al. (1978): instructional/
technical and managerial/schoolwide. The instructional/technical domain includes
areas most closely associated with teachers’ work lives, such as specifying learning
objectives, reporting student progress, assigning students to instructional groups,
preparing the budget, selecting textbooks, and determining grading procedures. The

managerial/schoolwide domain consisted of issues that were more global and

99

administrative in nature, such as determining the administrative and organizational
structure of the school, planning inservice or counseling programs, setting goals,
evaluating teachers and the instructional program, determining ways to involve
parents, and hiring teachers. Results of this study supported the ﬁndings from
previous research in that teachers preferred involvement in the technical/
instructional domain over involvement in the managerial/schoolwide domain.

Rice (1993) found that teachers reported a general condition of decision
deprivation. That is, they desired more involvement in decision making. This study
conﬁrmed that ﬁnding. As shown in Table 4.2, teachers desired a higher level of
involvement (1.93) than they were actually experiencing (2.58). This was consistent
for both the technical/instructional and the managerial/schoolwide domains. This
indicates that, whereas teachers preferred more involvement in the technical/
instructional domain as compared to the managerial/schoolwide domain, their
desired level of involvement in both domains was less than their actual involvement.
This seems to Indicate that these teachers were willing to be involved to a greater
extent in all of the decision areas. In summary, results show that teachers’ job
satisfaction can be explained by their involvement In decision making. That is,
teachers who are highly involved are more satisﬁed with their jobs than those who
are not as involved.

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between teachers’ actual involvement and
job satisfaction does not vary according to their expertise in decision Issues.

Conclusion: Teachers’ job satisfaction was not related to their expertise in

the decision issues.

100

Discussion: The second hypothesis concerned the relationship between
teachers’ expertise in the decision issues and their job satisfaction. In this study,
expertise was deﬁned as the extent to which teachers were qualiﬁed to make useful
contributions to solving problems. That is, are teachers capable of making a
meaningful contribution in the particular decision area? Bacharach and Conley
(1986) devised a model of participation that emphasizes the importance of teachers’
professional discretion and expertise in diagnosing and addressing educational
needs. Collaboration of teachers to use their expertise to identify key issues is a
signiﬁcant element contributing to organizational success. For collaboration to be
effective, teachers need to be given sufﬁcient responsibility and authority. Herzberg
(1966, 1987) contended that intrinsic motivators, orfactors that lie within individuals,
are key elements of job satisfaction. These include (3) Information, (b) control over
work, (c) respect for workers as individuals, and (d) chances to grow. The decision
area of expertise involves these aspects of intrinsic motivation.

In the present study, teachers rated their expertise as ranging from a great
extent (1.78) in the technical/instructional domain to some extent (2.22) in the
managerial/schoolwide domain (Table 4.4). Mean responses to the 20 decision
questions showed a normal pattern of distribution related to expertise (Table 4.14).
However, the data indicated that teachers’ level of expertise was independent ofjob
satisfaction. That is, no signiﬁcant relationship was found between respondents’
level of expertise and their job satisfaction.

One possible explanation for this result might be that, as mentioned in the

limitations section of the study, teachers’ expertise was derived from their own self-

101

reports. Questions might be raised regarding the validity of these responses. A
variety of personal and professional Issues may interfere with the accuracy of such
self-reports of expertise. Furthermore, in this study, ratings of expertise indicated
the respondents’ own individual level of proﬁciency in their speciﬁc area of study and
did not necessarily reﬂect expertise derived from team collaboration or
organizational goal setting. When compared to the signiﬁcance of the relationship
between actual involvement in decision making and job satisfaction, the issue of
expertise can be viewed as one of individual versus collective decision making. That
is, actual involvement in decision making can often be presumed to be accomplished
collectively as a collaborative exercise in developing buildingwide goals and planning
for school improvement. However, teachers’ self-reports of expertise may be more
related to individual accomplishments ortraining. This explanation is consistent with
the literature, which has recognized the value of professional development
opportunities that center on collective training and team-building approaches to
increasing teachers’ expertise and skills in identifying and addressing organizational
goals (Carnegie Commission, 1986; Conley 8 Bacharach, 1990; National Governors’
Association, 1986). An analysis of the collective expertise of a staff or a building
team who may be gaining knowledge and expertise to address buildingwide issues
or goals might yield different results from those reported in this study.
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between teachers’ actual involvement and
job satisfaction does not vary according to their inﬂuence in decision issues.
Conclusion: The level of job satisfaction was signiﬁcantly related to

respondents’ inﬂuence in the decision issues.

102

Discussion: The third hypothesis concerned the relationship between
teachers’ level of influence in selected school decision issues and their job
satisfaction. Inﬂuence stems from the capacity to shape decisions through informal
or nonauthoritatlve means, including personal characteristics (such as charisma),
expertise, and informal meetings and discussions. In this study, two survey
questions were posed to determine the extent to which teachers thought that their
participation was influential in making decisions that affected their entire school or
their grade level/instructional team. The results showed a signiﬁcant positive
relationship between respondents’ levels of inﬂuence and their job satisfaction.

The results supported the social systems literature reported in Chapter 2,
indicating that inﬂuence appears to be a signiﬁcant factor in the political structure of
organizations. Where Inﬂuence is dominant, the organizational structure is less
hierarchical (Mohrman et al., 1978). Conley (1991) cited the signiﬁcance of
teachers’ inﬂuence in the realm of decision involvement and noted that research also
has suggested that influence may be the main underlying issue In current reform
Initiatives.

However, a two-way ANOVA examining the combined effects of both actual
involvement and inﬂuence failed to explain job satisfaction. That is, inﬂuence Is a
signiﬁcant predictor ofjob satisfaction; however, job satisfaction cannot be explained
by the combination of actual Involvement and inﬂuence. This outcome may be
attributed to the nature of participation. In a comprehensive review of teacher
participation in school decision making, Conley (1991) noted that studies of

participation often have addressed indirect beneﬁts rather than direct beneﬁts to

103

students In particular. Research often has been based on the assumption that
teacher participation Is good for the school. Conley stated that Individuals’ Inﬂuence
In educational organizations provides an indirect beneﬁt. However, whereas Indirect
beneﬁts, such asjob satisfaction and morale, do accrue from inﬂuence, when actual
participation Is viewed as compliance with administrators’ requests for participation,
the relationship may break down. For example, when teachers are given authority
to participate as a beneﬁt resulting from their compliance with managerial decisions,
the commitment to participate may not be genuine for either the administrator orthe
teachers. It would seem that there is a need to view the beneﬁts of inﬂuence In
relation to actual involvement, recognizing the interrelationships of teachers’
professional needs with the managerial needs of administrators. This could result
in a broadening of the scope of inﬂuence in conjunction with added authority for
teachers as they work collaboratively on school Improvement teams.

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between teachers’ actual Involvement and
job satisfaction does not vary according to the organizational structure of the school.

Conclusion: Teachers’ job satisfaction was signiﬁcantly related to the
organizational structure of the school.

Discussion: The fourth hypothesis concerned the relationship between the
organizational structure of the school and teachers’ job satisfaction. The items in the
survey that related to school organization included teamwork to set goals, and
setting goals that were clear, speciﬁc, measurable, and accountability based. Also
included were items regarding adequacy of materials to achieve goals, as well as

funding, training, and establishing timelines to achieve goals.

104

Previous researchers have found that teachers viewed the beneﬁts of
participation as outweighing the costs of Increased time and energy through
empowerment that was derived from gaining authority, ﬂexibility, and resources to
solve educational problems at their schools (Elmore, 1990; Raywid, 1990). The
conceptual framework for this study was based on Barnard’s (1938) theory of
cooperation in organizations and Getzels et al.’s (1968) models of behavior in a
social system. The underlying assumption was that people will focus their energy
to achieve individual and organizational goals. This is consistent with Herzberg’s
(1966, 1987) theory that intrinsic factors serve to motivate Individuals and contribute
tojob satisfaction. These factors include Information, control overwork, respect, and
chances to grow.

The data in this study revealed a normal distribution of responses for job
satisfaction and organizational structure ofthe school; a signiﬁcant relationship was
found between the two (Tables 4.20 and 4.21). These ﬁndings support those from
previous research and underscore the importance of individuals’ contributions in
relation to the organization of the school. That is, teachers are more satisﬁed when
they work as a team to develop goals. The survey Items pertaining to organizational
structure were derived from research on organizational involvement and included the
following: Goals should be clear and speciﬁc, measurable, accountability based,
and time bound. In addition, teachers should be provided with adequate materials,
funding, and training to achieve goals (David, 1989, 1991, 1994; Miles, 1981).

When the relationship between the organizational structure of the school and

job satisfaction was extended to Include actual involvement, the results were not

105

signiﬁcant. That is, actual involvement had no relationship to the organizational
structure of the school and job satisfaction. This finding appears to be consistent
with the explanation presented in the earlier discussion of the role of inﬂuence and
involvement. Teachers’ actual involvement may stem from issues that are separate
and distinct from those issues related to organizational structure. There Is a growing
trend toward uneasiness among teachers and administrators as both parties
reassess their respective roles (Lieberman, 1988; Malen 8 Ogawa, 1988). The
difﬁculty may be due in part to a tension between the dimensions of Inﬂuence and
authority. That is, when teachers are actually participating in making the decisions
and are Involved in schools where there is a high level of organizational structure,
are they exercising inﬂuence or ﬁnal authority in those decisions? Firestone ( 1977)
suggested that a lack of teacher Influence on ﬁnal decisions may negate the effects
of involvement in all previous stages. Teachers may enjoy involvement in highly
structured organizations; however, they may actually see little decision authority in
their Involvement. If teachers participate but the administrator exercises the ﬁnal
authority, teachers may view their involvement as less effective and not contributing
to their satisfaction. This was suggested In the literature review concerning schools
with a highly bureaucratic structure as compared to those operating as social
systems (Conley, 1991). This research did not extend the examination of actual
involvement in school governance to include the effect of authority and inﬂuence.

Hypothesis 5: The relationship between teachers’ actual involvement and

job satisfaction does not vary according to their desired involvement.

106

Conclusion: Teachers’ job satisfaction was not signiﬁcantly related to their
desire for Involvement in the decision issues.

Discussion: The fifth hypothesis concerned the relationship between
teachers’ desire for participation and their job satisfaction. Desire for Involvement
Is the extent to which teachers wish to be involved In decisions within their schools.
The ﬁndings from this study supported previous research (Ferrara, 1992) In that
teachers reported desiring much more decision Involvement than was presently the
practice. After comparing teachers’ actual and desired involvement, Ferrara
concluded that deprivation existed across all decisional situations and categories in
the school setting, and that teachers’ desires for participation were not being met.

A comparison of means In the present study revealed that teachers desired
to be involved to a greater extent (1.93) than they actually were (2.58). Further,
teachers desired more involvement in the technical/instructional domain (1.70) than
in the managerial/schoolwide domain (2.15). This ﬁnding is consistent with previous
empirical (Mohrman et al., 1978) and conceptual (Bridges, 1967) research, in which
teachers were found to prefer involvement in decisions related to direct student
instruction over involvement in those related to issues involving school management
and administration.

The data In the present study reflected a normal distribution of responses to >
the 20 decision questions related to desired Involvement (Table 4.24). However, the
data indicated that desired involvement existed independently of job satisfaction.
That is, no signiﬁcant relationship was found between respondents’ desired

involvement and theirjob satisfaction. One explanation for this result might be that

107

desired Involvement, compared to actual involvement, is subjective and situational.
As a result, drawing conclusions from desired involvement might be less accurate
than drawing conclusions from actual involvement. Also, as with the issue of
expertise, desired involvement reflects the respondent’s personal and individual
preferences for involvement and is not necessarily representative of results that

might be derived from collaboration and goals that are derived from organizational

goal setting.

This study was conducted to better understand teachers’ involvement in the
decision-making process and to identify variables that affect job satisfaction. The
ﬁndings from this study did provide empirical confirmation of research reported in the
literature review, and these results hold the potential for practical application. For
example, results showed a signiﬁcant relationship between teachers’ involvement
In school decisions and their job satisfaction. This ﬁnding, based on respondents
who were elementary school teachers, conﬁrms previous research on secondary
teachers (Rice, 1993; Thierbach, 1980). This ﬁnding supports the literature
advocating a participative school environment that recognizes and encourages
schoolwide involvement of teachers (Rice, 1993). An implication is for
administrators to provide, to the greatest extent possible, opportunities forteachers
who are affected by a decision to be Involved In making the decision. This can lead
to increased involvement, which, according to this study, will lead to higher levels of

job satisfaction.

108

Results from an analysis of teachers’ Involvement In the Instructional/
technical domain as compared to the managerial/schoolwide domain (Table 4.4)
Indicated that, whereas teachers preferred involvement In the instructional/ technical
domain, they indicated a desire to be involved to a greater extent (1.93) than they
currently were (2.58) in both domains. Implications are that administrators have
leeway to involve teachers in decisions related to managerial and administrative
issues, such as determining the administrative and organizational structure of the
school, establishing school policies, developing inservice programs for teachers,
setting and revising building goals, and hiring new staff.

A positive relationship also was found between teachers’ job satisfaction and
school organizational structure. Organizational structure Includes such factors as
working as a team to develop goals that are clear and speciﬁc, measurable, and
accountability based. Other factors include availability of adequate materials,
funding, and training to meet those goals. The study ﬁndings reafﬁrm Barnard’s
(1938) theory of cooperation in organizations and suggest the need for those at
individual school sites to work collaboratively to identify goals based on individual
school needs and to align individual and organizational purposes to meet those
needs. Although this Implication seems evident, it should be noted that the research
literature has long emphasized the importance of employee participation In both
operational work decisions and long-range strategic planning, yet this advice has not
been widely adopted in schools (Bacharach 8 Conley, 1986). This research can
serve to assist school administrators in designing effective decision—making

processes and procedures to optimize that involvement.

109

The literature on social systems, job satisfaction, and cooperation in
organizations has tended to focus on the benefits to Individual teachers. As shown
in this study, teachers’ job satisfaction is related to organizational structures that
support team building. An often-overlooked perspective Is the importance of
developing collegiality and viewing it as a beneﬁt of participation. This notion brings
into question the traditional paradigm that organizational "effectiveness" is based on
the willingness of subordinates to accept the directives of managers (Conley, 1991).
Rather, the ﬁndings from the present study seem to suggest that employees are
willing to assume responsibility for setting personal goals that are aligned with those
of the organization. Administrators can assist in assessing teachers’ levels of
involvement and working with teachers to reach consensus as to what that level of
Involvement is and what it ought to be. Consequently, administrators need to be In
regular communication with staff regarding their role in the decision-making process.

In this study, it was found that teachers were involved in making decisions to
a much lesser extent than they desired. Yet teachers, as line professionals, are key
to maintaining contact with students. Administrators need to access this knowledge
to make effective managerial decisions (Bridges, 1967). That teachers have not
become an integral part of the formal decision-making process of schools (Duke et
al., 1981) underscores the importance of valuing teacher participation. The results
of this study indicated that teachers desired to be involved to a greater extent in
making decisions in their schools. As reported in the literature review, however,
decision involvement is not always a viable strategy for all segments of the

population, and not all teachers share an equal desire for involvement.

110

One interesting implication for practice is the effect of influence on job
satisfaction and its relationship to authority. In this study, a positive correlation was
found between inﬂuence and job satisfaction. As Conley (1991) noted, researchers
have suggested that the issue of influence is a key factor in current reform initiatives.
The implication for administrators may be to encourage teachers to assume greater
responsibility for school leadership by providing them with opportunities to inﬂuence
decisions that affect their schools. This inﬂuence can translate positively to increase
their job satisfaction.

The ﬁndings also suggest a need to explore relationships between the
process of decision involvement and the potential for professional development. The
data on organizational structure, expertise, and desire for involvement underscore
the importance of individualizing decision making at each school site. As individuals
in schools work to identify unique needs and goals for improvement, more site-
speciﬁc professional development will be needed to identify, Implement, evaluate,
and revise plans. Professional development opportunities that involve preparing
teams or staffs to meet speciﬁc needs identiﬁed at the site may beneﬁt the
organization more than training offered to individuals In their area of specialty. That
is, although teachers’ expertise in decision issues was not related tojob satisfaction
in this study, an Implication for practice may be that of encouraging staffs to create
core areas of expertise in which satisfaction can evolve not only from individual
expertise but also from meaningful involvement and collegial expertise.

This focus of professional development implies that teachers should develop

a more global awareness of buildingwide issues. It will be necessary to design staff

111

development In the areas of goal setting, the change process, group dynamics,
organizational development, and related areas. Little training Is readily accessible
to teachers in these realms. The issue of professional development has important
implications for those at the site level as they work to comply with the state mandate
for building-level Involvement.

One problematic implication stemming from the study ﬁndings centers on the
process of Implementing decision making. Although the Michigan legislature has
mandated that schools establish building-level decision making, it has not indicated
how this should be accomplished, nor has It identiﬁed the methods and extent of
involvement. There will be a need to provide staffs at school sites with skills and
training to effectively Incorporate the mandated involvement into daily operations.
This may require a reorganization of the traditional bureaucratic structures of the
existing school operations. Implementation of mandated strategies may necessitate
a restructuring of bureaucratic styles as the organization moves toward a more
participatory state.

Finally, the overarching theme from the study ﬁndings is that teachers’
involvement in the decision-making process has the potential to lead to more
collaborative and site-based school improvement processes, which may prove to be
more productive than traditional systems. The research Indicated that the greater
the participation by teachers in decision making, the greater would be their job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. This can result In changing school
organizational structures and existing roles and relationships to enhance teacher

involvement. Administrators may need to learn new ways of leading and teachers

112

new ways of participating. Recommendations for future research on teacher

involvement are made in the following section.

BecommendatlonsfoLEutureBeseaLcn

This study focused on the relationship between teachers’ Involvement in the
decision-making process and theirjob satisfaction. This research can contribute to
a data base that will be useful in future research regarding the process of teacher
decision making. The results indicated that further study Is needed to clarify the
effect of the state legislature’s mandate for building-level decision making in which
staffs are required to Identify goals and to individualize plans to meet needs at each
school site. Future researchers can identify effective models for implementing
decision making. These models can be tailored to meet the unique needs at
Individual school sites.

Although the results showed a signiﬁcant positive relationship between
teachers’ involvement and their job satisfaction, It should be noted that this study
was limited to a report of such involvement. The researcher did not attempt to
address issues of the quality of that involvement, nor did she attempt to relate
involvement to student performance. Future researchers could explore this area, as
well as that of determining whether involvement In some areas diminishes teachers’
attention to their primary Instructional duties.

The study ﬁndings supported those from previous research, which Indicated
that teachers actually participate in curriculum, Instruction, and pupil decisions to a

greater extent than they do in managerial and budgetary decisions. Conley ( 1988)

113

found that writers have tended to focus on teachers’ roles in basic policy decisions
to the exclusion of other management functions. As staffs engage collaboratively
to design school improvement plans, they may become more involved in managerial
decisions that support the goals of the entire school. Future researchers could
examine the traditional paradigm that holds administrators exclusively responsible
for school management Issues. Studies could be directed to identifying trends that
may blurthe distinctions between these categories by extending teachers' traditional
goal-setting, planning, and monitoring activities from the classroom to the building
level. In this regard, teachers’ traditional practice of making routine operational
decisions can be extended to encompass the broader realm of buildingwide decision
making.

In this study, teachers’ level of influence was positively correlated with their
job satisfaction. However, the issue of who maintains ﬁnal authority over decisions
was not explored. Future researchers should focus on the distinction between
authority and inﬂuence. An important issue Is the degree to which teachers are
given inﬂuence through a consultative role or whether they are granted authority,
which implies ﬁnal decision-making power. Research in this area Is unclear (Conley,
1991). Because teacher influence and job satisfaction are related, what should be
studied are not only teachers’ expectations for Involvement and the speciﬁc areas
in which they desire more involvement, but also their degree of influence In affecting
outcomes from that involvement. Such research also could help to deﬁne the range

of inﬂuence In particular decision areas for both the administrator and the teacher.

114

The results reported here Indicated that teachers do wish to be more involved
in decision making. This ﬁnding has implications for contract negotiations, which
traditionally focus attention on such areas as salary, beneﬁts, hours, and class size.
Herzberg (1987) asserted that these are external factors and do not affect job
satisfaction. As the school system changes to include more teacher empowerment,
unions will be faced with either opposing the shift or joining the effort to make
decision involvement an integral part of the school improvement process. Future
researchers could examine the expansion of negotiation discussions to center on
teacher professionalism and other pedagogical concerns.

This study extended previous research on middle school teachers by
Thierbach (1980) and Rice (1993) to elementary school teachers and conﬁrmed
many of the ﬁndings from those studies. Future researchers could explore decision
involvement in other departments (such as music, theater, or art) or areas (such as
sports), or in university settings. It seems logical that studies of decision
participation by faculty in those settings would generate similar ﬁndings and lend
credence to the practice of shared decision making in all aspects of management
and operation.

One caveat in recommending research concerns the complexity of the
decision-making process and the difﬁculty of generalizing ﬁndings too broadly. The
basic assumption underlying this study was the importance of Involving individuals
In the decision-making process and the relationship of that Involvement to job
satisfaction. It should be noted that there are numerous political and situational

variables that inﬂuence any study of human beings in a social system. The

115

assumptions of the rationality of the decision-making process as outlined in this
chapter belie the complexity of the theories of decision involvement, social systems,
and job satisfaction, which were presented in Chapter II. The effect that political,
contextual, and environmental factors have on this process should not be

underestimated.

I in

The increased involvement of teachers in the decision-making process has
received much study and attention. This national trend has been mandated in
Michigan. The ﬁndings from this study are consistent with the human relations
perspective that has prevailed in research on teacher involvement. The results
Indicated that the greater the participation of teachers in decision making, the greater
theirjob satisfaction and organizational commitment. The results also indicated that
teachers’ job satisfaction was related to their level of inﬂuence in making decisions.
Furthermore, teachers desired to be involved In the decision process to a greater
extent than they currently were.

Overall, the results of the analysis of actual involvement and job satisfaction
corroborated the ﬁndings of previous research, indicating that when teachers
actually do participate, they participate more in curriculum/instruction and pupil
personnel decisions than in those decisions relating to staff personnel and budget!
management. The ﬁndings also supported previous ﬁndings indicatingthat teachers
desire more participation and that decisional deprivation occurs frequently among

teachers in the school setting (Bacharach et al., 1990).

116

The results of this study did not indicate a relationship between Individual
teachers’ expertise or desired Involvement and theirjob satisfaction. Furthermore,
the inﬂuence that teachers thought they had in making decisions that affect the
organization was highly related to their job satisfaction. Also, in schools with high
levels of school organizational factors, teachers were more satisﬁed. These factors
include working as a team, within a speciﬁc timeline, to establish building goals that
are clear and speciﬁc, measurable, and based on accountability. Sufﬁcient training
and funding are among the organizational factors contributing to teacher satisfaction.

The results reported here indicated an interesting trend. Whereas the focus
of this study was on teachers’ job satisfaction in relation to actual Involvement,
expertise, inﬂuence, organizational structure, and desired involvement, an analysis
of the results suggested the importance of collaboration and collegiality. The results
suggested that there should be more extensive collaboration and interaction among
those at the school site in planning cooperatively and coordinating plans for school
improvement. Such collaboration could extend vertically from teacher to
administrator, as well as horizontally by extending opportunities for peer interaction
and inﬂuence. The resulting alignment of organizational goals with actions of those
who are involved in the daily operation of the organization is important in
establishing fundamental change. As shown in the model of collaboration in
organizations based on Barnard’s theory (Figure 2.2), the process continues as an
ongoing cycle. What results is school improvement that is based on the strengths

and commitment of those at the individual school site. It is the Institutionalization of

117

collaboration and collective goal setting that can ensure the effectiveness of the
organization.

Although much still remains to be learned about the interactions of teachers
in the decision-making process, it is clear that teachers’ involvement Is integral to the
success of the school organization. As teachers are provided with the factors
Herzberg Identiﬁed as critical to intrinsic motivation--information, control over work,
respect, and chances to grow--their job satisfaction and, in turn, organizational
effectiveness and efﬁciency can develop. Although the issue of teacher involvement
in the decision-making process is complex and multidimensional, it appears clear
that decision making is an Important step that can lead teachers to a greater

commitment to the profession and a resultant improvement In the quality of schools.

118

APPENDICES

119

APPENDIX A

PRINCIPALS’ TELEPHONE INTERVIEW

120

Hello,

 

Introduction:
My name is Mary Biziorek, and I am a student at MSU. I am conducting a
research project under the direction of Professor Jan Alleman through the Department of

Education Administration at Michigan State University.

Purpose:
The purpose of my call is to ask whether you would be willing to allow your staff

to participate in a study of teacher involvement in decision making. Your willingness to
participate would mean that you would allow me to mail surveys to you which you would
distribute to your teachers. The survey takes approximately 20 minutes to complete and »
includes 3 parts (decision involvement and job satisfaction surveys and a personal data
sheet).
If you will agree to distribute the surveys, I will mail you:
-a cover letter of explanation,
-a copy of the 3-part survey for your use
—copies of the surveys for you to distribute to classroom teachers with
stamped envelopes addressed to me. The only criteria I have is that
you distribute the surveys only to teachers who have worked in
your school for more than one year and do not hold administrative,
counseling, or other non-teaching positions.

Outline of the Research:

The purpose of my study is to investigate whether there is a relationship between
teachers’ involvement in the decision making process and job satisfaction.

Your anonymity is protected because my focus is on elementary teachers in
Michigan rather than on individual teachers or schools. I can provide feedback only in
summary form. While summary data are not the most practical for each principal, they
protect the anonymity of individuals and schools. It may be useful, too, for principals to
know which decision issues teachers actually are participating in most often and which
issues they desire to participate in more. Summary information of this type will be sent to
principals of participating schools.

Do you have any questions?
Will you participate in the study? Yes No

How many surveys shall I send you? (How many teachers with at least one year
experience without administrative, counseling or other non teaching ?)

Thank you for your time and assistance in this project.

121

APPENDIX B

COVER LETTER AND FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD

122

(This cover letter was sent to each principal who agreed to participate in the study.
Enclosed with this letter were teachers’ letters, surveys, and stamped envelopes
addressed to the researcher.)

October, 1997

Dear ,

Thank you for your interest in my study of teacher involvement in decision making.
As I mentioned to you in our phone conversation, this study is being conducted through
the Department of Educational Administration at Michigan State University. As teachers
today are participating to a greater extent in the decision making process, I think it is
important to learn more about this process and how teachers feel about their involvement.

This is the purpose of my study.

Your anonymity is protected because my focus is on elementary teachers in
Michigan rather than on individual teachers or schools. Neither you nor your teachers will
be referenced. While summary data are not the most practical for each principal, they
protect the anonymity of individuals and schools. It may be useful, too, for principals to
know which decision issues teachers actually are participating in most often and which
issues they desire to participate in more. Summary information of this type will be sent to
principals of participating schools.

As stated in our telephone conversation, I am asking that you distribute the
enclosed surveys to teachers whofhave been in your school for more than one year and
who do not hold administrative, counseling, or other non-teaching positions. A copy of
the three surveys is enclosed for your review. They can be completed in about 20

minutes.

If you have any questions regarding the research or your involvement, please call
me at (248) 887-6298. If I am unavailable, please leave a message, and I will return your

call.
Again, I wish to thank you for your assistance with this study.

Sincerely,

Qw( . 3:30“
Mary K. Biziorek

123

(This postcard was sent to each principal who received surveys. It was sent
approximately 3 weeks after surveys were mailed.)

November, 1997

Dear ,

A few weeks ago, I sent you a set of surveys for your staff. I would appreciate it
if you would remind your teachers to please complete these surveys. For those who have,
I am so grateﬁrl. To those who have not, I truly do understand that it is “just one more
thing” to add to an already busy schedule; however, these surveys pr0vide data critical to
my study.

Thank you so much for your assistance with this important aspect of my research.
I believe my results can make a" difference for the professional lives of teachers. Your

support is invaluable!
If you have any questions, please give me a call at (248) 887-6298.

Sincerely,

VQWK. Biy'omk
Mary K. Biziorek

124

(This cover letter for teachers was sent to each principal who agreed to participate
in the study. Attached to each letter was a set of surveys and a stamped envelope

addressed to the researcher.)

October, 1997

Dear teacher,

As teachers today are participating to a greater extent in the decision making
process, I think it is important to learn more about this process and how teachers feel ,
about their involvement. This is the purpose of my study. I am conducting this research
through the Department of Educational Administration, Michigan State University.

Your anonymity in this study is guaranteed, and no individual, school, or school
district will be identiﬁed in any reports. It is expected that the results of this research will
have practical value for educators as we continue to seek ways to improve our schools.

Your school has been randomly selected for this study. I have discussed this study
with your principal who has agreed to allow the teachers in your school to participate.
Please complete the three-part survey which is enclosed with this letter, and return it
directly to me in the enclosed envelope if you desire to participate in this study. The
surveys include:

Part1 - Decision Involvement Survey
Part II - Job Satisfaction Survey
Part 1H - Personal Data

This can be completed in about 20 minutes. Please return them by November 21.
If you have any questions regarding the research or your involvement, please call me at

(248) 887-6298. If I am unavailable, please leave a message, and I will return your call.

I appreciate your assistance with this study

Sincerely,

«I‘m-t Ii. Elegant

Mary K. Biziorek

125

APPENDIX C

APPROVAL LETTER FROM UCRIHS

126

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

November 2, 1997

TO: Janet Alleman
RE: IRBﬂ: 97-707
TITLE: TEACHERS' ROLES AND EXPECTATIONS IN SCHOOL-BASED

DECISION MAKING
REVISION REQUESTED: N/A
CATEGORY: l-C
APPROVAL DATE: 10/29/97

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIHS)
review of this project is complete._ I am pleased to adVise that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
rotected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.
Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project and any reVisions listed

above.

RENEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project beyond one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e original agproval letter or when a
project is renewed) to seek u date certification. There is a
maXimum of four such expedite renewals possible. Investigators
Wishing to continue a prOJect beyond that time need to submit it
again or complete reView.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human
subjects, rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at
the time o renewal, please use the green renewal form. To
revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year,
send your written request to the CRIHS Chair, requesting revised
approval and referencing the project's IRB # and title. Include
in your request a description of the change and any revised
instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/

CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the
work, investigators must noti y UCRIHS promptly: (1) roblems
(unexpected Side effects, comp aints, etc.) involving Euman
subjects or (2) changes in the research environment or new
information indicating greater risk to the human sub'ects than
eXisted when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved.

se do not hesitate to contact us

If we can be of any future help a
43 l.

at (517)355-2180 or FAX {517)

lit

ple
-117

I
q
A

Sincerely,

   

 

   

David E. Wright,
UCRIHS Chair

DEW:bed

pn,

   

cc: Mary K. Biziorek

127

APPENDIX D

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

128

DECISION INVOLVEMENT ANALYSIS

INSTRUCTION SHEET

The purpose of this research is to determine teacher involvement in the decision-making
process and job satisfaction of teachers in elementary schools within Michigan.

This document consists of THREE PARTS:
Part 1: Decision Involvement Analysis
Part 11: Job Satisfaction Survey
Part 111: Personal Data
This document should take approximately 20 minutes to complete.
Please do the following:
1. READ THE DIRECTION S in each part.

2. ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS in the spaces provided.

 

'*2;Attirespansesiwmiremainconfdwmat

Therewaenozdenaﬁtwno/

personschoolorschooldrsmct.

Thank you for your participation!

129

 

_00_._00 50> 5 E0505 9:00.500 05 @5505 .w

 

00.0 «00.330 5 00. 000cm
50> ES? 059m 65:02.05 2 050030 m:_cm_00< K

 

.00200 50> 5 05:00.2 .2 080505 022005 0:50.000 .0

 

.0050 50> E 00200 >..m£_a_00_u mcEmﬁmﬁm .m

 

E0E0>0Eom
E0030 9000000 .2 00500005 9:00.000 .v

 

030.00
2 000.605 E0030 95,600.. Low 00500005 9.50.000 .m

 

60:00 50> v.0 05.05.50
55:00:35 0cm cozmszEum 05 9:55.200 .N

 

5:05:05
“.0 =5 5000 .0“ 00500.30 @5502 05 mE>to0em .F

 

v m N r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0:02 0 0
0:20:00 0:: 9:me 0:20:00 0:20:00 0:5 u m
s wwﬁmmaxm 0:: 9:er 0:: 05me 0560 n N
mmmmwOQ E EOE0>_o>c_ *0 E EOE0>_o>:_ *0 #005 n v
36> 2 090% as; e» #2008 000000 0.2000 .239. ﬂaqmdzammm
50> 0_ “93> 50> 0_ “05>
z _.r NIZQHWMIJG _. z E.
.0000 00:00.00. 05 9 968000.50 5:200 90:00.30
05 E x :0 @5me >0 00:09 n0ﬁ_0c-co_0_000 om =0 .60 0550050 00.5 05 Co 2000 9 08000.. 00005 ”sz_._.omm_n_

m_w>._<z< ._.Zm=>_m>.._O>z_ ZOE—own— H_ ...m<n_

130

 

9050mm“ 3w: GEE... .ON

 

0:20.000 0_ 60:00 50> :03 30: 0:05.03: .3

 

E0505 9:500. .050030 0:.
95:05 :_ 050.00 m:_>_o>:_ .2 00500005 9.52050 .3

 

0.0000_ E00. .0 0020500050. _0>0_.000.m 05.00.00 .2

 

050030 50> 20 000.005
05 m:_.0:_0>0 .2 00500005 9:005 05550.00 .9

 

5005500 0:0 00:20:. mcz0oo=< .mw

 

0_0_.0.0E 0:000:20: .050 0:0 00.00002 9500.00 .3

 

0000005
0:0 00500005 9500:0500. 50030 m:_::0_0 .9

 

05:000. 20
505.00 0:. .2 000: 00 2 00500005 0:. 9.55200 .9

 

60:00 50> .0 00% 05 9050. 0:0 9:200 .:

 

0:0=0_0.
>:::EE00-_00:00 :. 00:00_ .0 0E0_00.0 0520000 .3

 

.0m050 90:5: 05 95000.0 .0

 

«4 m N F

 

 

 

v m N r

 

 

 

v m N —

 

 

 

 

 

26.06% as 9..me
5 005.0000

mmmmwom
30> 2 00.000 0:; 0 ..

«rad—Hana

 

“2.20000
0.5 05er
:_ 5050202. .0
hzwhxm omewo
50> 0_ :0:>>
ergHmmdd

 

0:20.000
2... 9..er
:_ 500.0295 .6
0.2953 ._<..:.O<
50> 0_ .0:>>
Uganda

 

0:02 n v
0—23 u m

0600 n N

00.0 n F
Mddormwzdmwum

 

 

131

 

0.00.0.5 .06000 .0 00.0 50> 00.050 0. 0>0: 50> .0:. 00.55.5000 0: ._. .3

 

00.:0030 50> :..3 05.60.25 50> .o >...0:0 0: h .m.

 

00.200500
0.. 00.060500 0:0 0055000. >..::EE00 0:. :0.:3 0. .500 0: .. .N.

 

00000: 0>..00..0 .0.:00:.0 50> .00E 0.0.00 0.0 :0> 623 0. .500 0: 0. .3

 

0.00.0.0 _oo:00 50> 5 055. 50> .o.

 

03.58800
0:. 0:0 0.5.00 >0 E0505 0.00000 50> .0 05.50.0505 0:... .m

 

0.00000 50> 5 0.0:000. .050 .o 0.53 .0 >...0:0 0:.: .w

 

0.00:00 50> .0 :0..0.:00. .0550 0: 0. .:

 

00.0.9.0.5E00 050.50 50> 5 0>0: 00> .03.. 0:... .o

 

05.000.50.00
m50..:0 50> :..3 005.005 00:00.0 0. 000.55 00555000 0:... .m

 

000.0E 50> >0:0E .0 .50E0 0:...

 

 

v.
05.00205 50> 5 £305 .2 00.55.5000 50> .m
N

00.065000. 0.0 00> 50:3 .0. 0.5030 .0 .00E:: 0:.. .

 

0.00:00 50> 5 0.0:000. .0:.o >0 0:00 0.53 .0 .50E0 0: 0. ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.5.80.0 0000:0005 0002.00 00.5.00 .
>.0> .0:30Eom .0:30.:0w >.0> .:..3 00> 0.0 02.0..00 3o...
.96 0.85. 00020000:
.:000 0. 005000. 20.50500 .02:
0:. 055.05 >0 55000 .5500. 50> 53 5:020:00 50> 0.50.000. 0:0..0050 0530.6. 0:. 530:0 0000.0 .sz...Om~..0

>m>~5w ZO_._.U<n_m_._.<w 00.. H= Ewan.

132

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.00000 50> >0 00~.00:0E0 00260.00 0:0 0.00m 0: 0. R

«c.0505 0.02.00 50> 5 .:0E0>.0>:. 0.>..:3EEoo 0: 5 am

«00:000. .050 :..3 0>0: 30> 00.005006. .0600 0:0 .0:00.00 0: 5 .mm
0.00.0.0 .00:00 50> 5 0.550 005.. 0: 0. cm

000 0. 006090 0.0 30> 0.53 .0 .:30E0 0: .. mm

0.:0E0500 0:0 0.0..0.0E .0:o..03..05 0.0..00500 .o >....00..0>0 0:... .mm
«0000:

05.00000 .0.:003.0 50> .00E 0. 0.00 0.0 30> 02:3 0. .500 0:.: .8
«50:00 50> 5 5050.300 0:0 00000 .0 .:0E0m:0..0 0:... .8

0.0.30.0 .0050 50> 5 0.300000 >.0.00 0:» .0.

0.0050 50> 5 :5 @509. 0. .0:3 .0 000:0.030 50> .9

00.0005 .03E 30> .0:. 000.0 60.030 .0 .0053: 0: 0. .t

 

0.0.0..0.:.E00

m50_.30 50> .0 0.00.0000. 0:0 00:0.00E00 65.00.05 0: H

.w.

 

0.00:00 50> .0 00.....00. .00.0>:0 0: ._.

.m.

 

 

00:0..0050
>.0>

 

8.5.80.0
.0:30800

 

85.00
0:30.50

 

00:0..0w
>.0>

 

”5.3 30> 0.0 00:0..00 30...

 

 

133

 

00:00... 00.0000 0 0>00 0.000 000000 >0. 0. .0.

 

0.000 .30 0>0_000 0. 00.50.. 003000 0.05 00030.0 0.0 0.5 000000 >E 0. .N.

 

0.000 .30 0>0_000 0. 00.003. 0.030000 0.3.. 00030.0 0.0 02, 000000 >0. 0. .:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.000 .30 0>0_000 0. 0.5.0.0... 0.030000 0.05 00030.0 0.0 0.5 000000 >E 0. or

.>.__.00.030000 05300. 0.000 000000 >0. 0. 0

0.00.3000E 0.0 0.000 000000 >0. 0. 0

050000 000 .00.0 0.0 0.000 000000 >0. 0. 0

0.000 0o.0>00 0. E00. 0 00 0.03 03 000000 >E 0. w

.0>02 E00.0w 00E..0E0m 0>0>>_<

.0.0.0oo|| .0._0.000m | 000.00.). I 0_.o.0000m I ”00.000 .0000_0 .3o> 0. .00>> .0
0.00.0“. 0.05. .0850. 0.00000 .3o> 0. .00>> .v
0 0 v 0 N . v. .0000. 008. 00.9.8 :9. 8 @0090 .22, .0
0.00> 0.00000 .0000.0 .30> 5 050000. 0000 30> 0>00 0.00> >00E .50... .N
0.00> 0050000. 0000 30> 0>00 0.00> >00E 30... .0

02.00085 00.00300. 00. 050005 .0 05.050 >0 ._00.3o> .3000 00000030 0532.0. 00. .03000 0000.0 .sz_..om_~=o

<k<D 0<20wmwm u_= ...m<n_

134

 

0.020032. 0. 05.00.2000 .3o> .00. 30> 00 .0008
.003 0. E00. 600003.005 .0 .05. 000. .30 .0000
.00. 0050.80 000.00. 5 0.00.0...00 30> 000>> .9

 

0000305 0. 02.00.2000
.3o> .00. 30> 00 .0008 .003 0. 30000 0.. 0 00. .00..0
.00. 000.0.000 000.00. 5 0.050000 30> 000.5 .3

 

.5502

 

 

.55 3.:

 

.0000 0.0.8 ., ,.

 

. 1.005.320

 

 

 

 

135

BIBLIOGRAPHY

136

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alutto, J. A. & Belasco, J A. (1972a, Winter). Patterns of teacher participation

in school system decision making. WM,
9, 27-41.

Alutto, J. A. & Belasco, J. A. (1972b, December). Atypology for participation in

organizational decision making. Admirﬂetmtjyeﬁeiengeﬂueﬂedy, 11.
117-125.

Argyris, C. (1957). Eersenalitundemanizatienglheeenﬂiemetweenevetem
antheJndjviduel. New York: Harper.

Argyris, C. (1964). IntegLatnghedevIdualentheergamzatm. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.

Argyris, C. (1966, March-April). Interpersonal barriers to decision making.

Ary, 0., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1990). Wu
edueajjen (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Ashby. S. (1989. February). Emmedngjeeeberelhekeyjeeeheetbaeed
LeLQLm. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of

Teacher Educators, St. Louis, MO. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 311 004)

Babbie, E. R. (1973). W. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bacharach, S. B., &Aiken, M. (1976). Structural and process constraints on
Inﬂuence In organizations: Alevel-speCIf’ c analysis. Admjnjsnaﬂve

W, 21(4), 623- 642.

Bacharach, S. 8., Bamberger, P. Conley, S. C., &Bauer, 8. (1990, May). The
dimensionality of decision participation in educational organizations: The
value of a multi-domain evaluative approach. EgueaﬁonaLAdmmistatign
mm. 2.6. 126- 167.

137

Bacharach, S. 8., Bauer, 8., & Conley, S. C. (1986). Organizational analysis of
stress: The case of secondary and elementary schools. JoumaLoﬂALoﬂs

W. 1.3. 207-321.

Bacharach, S. B., &Lawler, E. E. (1980). EQIIILQLandjeIItieejneLganizatiene;
IbeeecialeembetoguLcenﬂWiﬂeneandbargainjng. San

Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

Barnard, C. (1938). W. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Barth, R. S. (1990). WWW
W. San Francisco: Jossey- -Bass.

Barth, R. S. (1991, October). Restructuring schools: Some questions for
teachers and principals. Ehj_D_el_ta_Kapp_an, 13(2), 123-128.

Bartunek, J. M., & Keys, C. (1979, April). Participation in school decisionmaking.
UrbaLEdueatiQn. 13(1). 52-75.

Belasco, J. A., &Alutto, J. A. (1972, Winter). Decisional participation and
teacher satisfaction. WW 8. 44- 58

Berends' J' (1992)' WWW

scheQIs. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center on Organization and
Restructuring of Schools.

Best, J. W., &Kahn, J. V. (1989). Reeeambimedueatiemeth ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bidwell, C. (1965). The school as a formal organization. In J. G. March (Ed.),
HendboelseLQEQaﬂizaﬁenemp. 972-1022). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Blake, R., Mouton, J., & Williams, M. (1981). Iﬂeeeademjeadminjejrator. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blau, P. M. (1964). W. New York: Wiley.

Bloom, P. J. (1995, May). Shared decision making: The centerpiece of
participatory management. W. 13. 55-60.

Boyan, N. J. (1966). The emergent role of the teacher and the authority
structure of the school. In R. 8. Allen & J. Schmid (Eds), Celleclive

negetiationeandedueatienaLadminietLatien (pp. 1-20). Fayettsville:

University of Arkansas Press.

138

Boyan, N. J. (1982). Administration of educationalinstitutions. WM
eduealieneLreseaLQh. NewYork: Macmillan.

Brandt, R. (1991, May). On restructuring schools. A conversation with Mike

C.ohen EdueatienaLLeadeLebip. 46(8), 54-58.

Bridges, E. M. (1964, May). Teacher participation in decision making.
AdmjnjetLaterjeNeleeoek. 12(9), 23- 26.

Bridges, E. M. (1965, Spring). Bureaucratic role and socialization: The Inﬂuence
of experience on the elementary principal. WW
Quarterly. 1(2). 19- 28.

Bridges, E. M. (1967, Winter). Amodel for shared decision making In the school
principalship. EQUQallQDaLAleﬂlﬂtaﬂQﬂﬂuaﬂﬂly. 3(1), 49- 61.

Bridges, E. M. (1970, Winter). Administrative man: Origin or pawn in decision

making EdueatienaLAdminietLaﬂenﬁuadedv. 6(1). 7-25.

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, Task Force on Teaching as a

Profession (1986).A_natIeerLepared.leaeheLe£oLthe21eLcentum.

New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Carnoy, M. (1990, November 7). Restructuring has a down side, too. Edueation
Week. pp. 32. 24.

Casner-Lotto, J. (1988, January). Expanding the teacher’s role: Hammond's
school improvement process. Wm. 53. 349-353.

Cawelti, G. (1989, May). Key elements of site-based management. Edueatienal
LeadeLebie 46(8), 46.

Clark, D., & Astuto, T. (1994, March). Redirecting reform: Challenges to popular
assumptions about teachers and students. EnLDeltanappan, 15(7), 513-
520.

Clear, D. K, &Seager, R. C. (1971, Winter). The legItImacy of administrative
inﬂuence as perceived by selected groups. EdmﬂenaLAdminileaﬂQn
Quanedv. 1,46- 63.

Clinchy, E. (1995a, January). Learning in and about the real world:
Recontextualizing public schooling. Ehj_D_elta_Kappan, 16(5), 400-404.

Clinchy, E. (1995b, January). Sustaining and expanding the educational
conversation. Ehjﬂeuaneppae, 16(5), 352-354.

139

Clune, W. &White, P. (1988, September). Sebeetbaeedmenagement.

IN...” qm‘20lll0‘lll40l Io .- o u- “-.I
(CPRE Research Report Series RR- -.008) New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University, Center for Policy Research in Education.

CoateS. B R (1992). IbeeﬂeeteLebaLedJiecIeIenmakmgmﬁaebeueb
eatieIaetienendJeaebeLpLdteeeionaliem Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, United States International University, San Diego, CA.

Coch, L., & French, J. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human
Belatiene. 1(4). 512-533.

Cohen, D. K. (1990). Governance and instruction: The promise of
decentralization and choice. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.), Choice

0 o o o

O O O ‘ ‘ ‘0 O ' O ‘ ‘0 O O ‘ 0 O O
c - o c 0
. . . .. . .

memerieanedueatienmp. 337-386). Philadelphia: Falmer.

Cohen, M. D, March, J. G., &Olsen, J. P. (1992). Agarbage can model of
organizational choice. AdmmIetLatmeSeIeneeﬁuadedL 11.1-25.

Committee for Economic Development. (1985).1I:Iyeetlng_ln_eur_oblldren._
Buemeeeandjbepublieeebedle. New York: Author.

Conley, S. C. (1988). Reforming paper pushers and avoiding free agents: The
teacher as a constrained decision maker. EdueaﬁenaLAdminjstaﬁgn
Quadedv. 24. 393-404

Conley, S. C. (1991). Review of research on teacher participation in school

decision making. In G. Grant (Ed) BexieweLLeeeachidedueatienNol.
17, pp. 225-265). Washington, DC. American Educational Research

Association.

Conley, S. C., & Bacharach, S. (1990, March). From school-site management to
participatory school-site management. Ween, 11(7), 539-544.

Conway, J. A. (1976, March). Test of linearity between teachers’ participation in
decision making and their perceptions of their schools as organizations.

WWW.21,130-139.

Conway, J. A. (1984, Summer). The myth, mystery and mastery of participative

decision making in education. EdueatlenaLAdminielLatienﬂuaﬂedx. 29(3).
11-40.

Conway. J. A., 8. Calzi, F. (1995-96, December/January). The dark side of
shared decision making. WW 53(4), 45-49.

140

Corcoran, T., Walker, L., &White, J. (1988). W

Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

ConIvin, R. G. (1974). Models of educational organizations. In F. N. Kerlinger 8.

J. B. Carroll (Eds.), WW3 (pp. 247-295). ltaska,

IL: Peacock.

Covey, S. R. (1992). EﬂneiplecemeLedJeadeLsmp. New York: Simon 8

Schuster.

Cuban, L. (1984, May). TransformIng the frog intoaprince: Effective schools
research, policy, and practice at the district level. Wm
Review. 51(2), 129- 151.

Cuban, L. (1988, January). A fundamental puzzle of school reform. EhLDena
Keenan, 69. 341-344.

Darling- -Hammond, L. (1988). Policy and professionalism. lnA. Lieberman

(Ed.,) BuﬂdingeemfeeeienaLcultvLeJneebeele(pp. 55-77). New York:

Teachers College Press.

David,J. (19893). i‘ . .IIIIII‘ ' ‘ II IIII"III“II'
(Results in Education Series). Washington, DC: National Governor’s
Association, Center for Policy Research in Education.

David, J. (1989b, May). Synthesis of research on school- based management.

EdueatienaLLeadeLebie 46(8), 45-53.

David, J. (1991, May). What it takes to restructure education. Educatignal
LeadeLebip. 48(8). 11-15.

David, J. (1994, May). School-based decision making: Kentucky’s test of
decentralization. mm. 15(9), 706-712.

Davis, W. J.,&Frank, F. (1978). Iberelatienebiebetweenjbepemeivedlevemj

or ' II-_ Cal .0qu o ‘ one. In --. I‘ ..II I‘ 0.-

58W. Madison: Wisconsin Research and

Development Center for Individualized Schooling.

Dayton, C. M. (1970). IbejeeIgneLedueanenaLezpenmeme. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

DeLeon. R. Z- (1993)- leeeheLSLatmudeeaboutebaredjeeiejenmaking.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School,
Claremont, CA.

141

Deming, W. E. (1986). Wage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dewey, J. I. (1903, December). Democracy in education. Iheﬂemenmm
Sebeolleaeber. 4.. 193-204.

Dolan, W. P. (1994). ReelmetunneevLeebeeleApnmeLdnevetemIeebange
Kansas City, MO: Systems and Organization.

Drew, C. J., & Hardman, M. L. (1985). WWW
Leeeach. New York: Pergamon Press.

Duke, D., Showers, B., 8 lmber, M. (1980a, Winter). Teachers and shared
decision making: The costs and beneﬁts of involvement. Edueaﬂgnal

AdmmmLalIenQuadedv, 16. 93106.

Duke, D., Showers, B., 8 lmber, M. (1980b, May). leaghemejeeiejgmakers
(Project No. 80-A7). Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Educational
Finance and Governance.

Dunham, R. B., Smith, F. J., & Blackburn, R. S. (1977, September). Validation of
the index of organizational reactions with the Job Descriptive Index, the

M80, and Faces scales. AeademveLManagememMmal, 29, 420-432.

Educational Research Service. (1990). mm.
Arlington, VA: Author.

Education Week (Eds.). (1993). WWW
referm. Washington, DC: Editorial Projects in Education.

Elmore, R., &Associates. (1990). ReetmctvungeebedleJhenexteeoeLalIenﬂ
educatjenaLLeLQrm. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (1977). W3
WWW. Eugene: University of Oregon, The

Clearinghouse.
Etzioni, A. (1964). Medermganizaﬂoge. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Firestone, W. A. (1977). Participation and inﬂuence in the planning of

educational change JeumeLeLApeliedBellmLieLaLSeience. 13. 167- 187.

Flannery, D. M. (1980). IeeebeLdecIeeanlevementeLmeeeatIeiactIeIm

WW. Unpublished doctoral dIssertatIon University of
Wisconsin, Madison.

142

Frey, S. H., & Gerschman, K. R. (1970). WWW
readings. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.

FuIlan, M. (1982). W. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Garms, W., Guthrie, J. &Pierce, L. (1978). ﬁcheQLﬁnanceJhejcenemIeeend
pelﬁmteublleedueallen. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Gay. L- R. (1987). EmmetienaLreeemeompetencieeJQLanalveIeand
appljealien(3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Geisert, G. (1988, November). Participatory management: Panacea or hoax?

EdvcaﬂonaLLeederebip. 45. 56-59.

Getzels, J. W., 8. Guba, E. G. (1957, Winter). Social behavior and the
administrative process. SebeQLReview. 85. 423-441.

Getzels, J. W, Lipham, J. M., &Campbell, R. F. (1968). Edueaﬂenal
adnﬂnietLatieneeeeeeiaLeeceee. New York: Harper&Row.

Glasser, W. (1990, February). The quality school. E3LD_elta_Kappa3, 11(6),
425-435.

Goldhammer, K. (1968). Administrators in negotiations. QLegenjdueatien.
43(3), 3-5, 7, 42-43.

Goodlad, J. (1984). WWW. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Goodlad, J. (1994, April). The national network for educational renewal. Eh]

DeﬂeKapean. 15(8). 632-637.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1974). W. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960, April). The norm of reCIprOCIty Apreliminary statement.
AmericanﬁecieleeicaLReview, 25(2), 161- 178.

Grant, G. (Ed.). WW3. Washington, DC: American

Educational Research Association.

Grifﬁths, D. E. (1979). Another look at research on the behavior of
administrators. In G. L. lmmegart8W. L. Boyd (Eds..) Emblemjndingin

WWOp. 41-62).
Lexington, MA: Heath.

143

Guthrie, J. W. (1986, December). School-based management: The next needed
education reform. WWII. 41, 305-309.

Hajnik,.S (1988). I'-. n. ‘ n-.. II '..I " 'I' IIII..II I
Qmmiee. Unpublished doctoral dIssertatIon University of California, Santa
Barbara.

Hall. G. E., 8 Hord. S. (1987). mamas-.0500.
Albany: State University of New York Press.

Hammer, W., &Organ, D. (1978). QmemzatlenaLbehavIeLAnepehed
peyebelegicelepmeacb. Dallas, TX. Business Publications.

Hanson, E. M. (1976-77). Beyond the bureaucratic model: A study of power and
autonomy in educational decision making. Intemhange, 1(2), 27-38.

Harrison, 0., KilIion, J. &Mitchell, J. (1989, May). Site-based management.
The realities of implementation. We 46(8), 55- 60.

Hersey, P., &Blanchard, K. (1982). ManagememefemanizatienaLbebavioL
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Herzberg, F. (1966). W. New York: Thomas Y.

Crowell.

Herzberg, F. (1987, September/October). One more time: How do you motivate
employees? HemaﬁBueIneeeRevIew 5. 109- 120.

High, R. M, &Achi|les, C. M. (1988, November). W
meesageJQL'LesiLuvaele (Report No. EA 020 586). Paper presented at

the Annual Meeting of the Mid- South Educational Research Association,
Louisville, KY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 302 915)

Holmes Group. (1986, April). Iomemew’eJeacbeLeJLerzedeLtbetlelmee
91033. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Holt, M. (1993a, December). Deming on education: Aview from the seminar.

EbLQeltaKappan. 15(4), 329- 330.

Holt, M. (1993b, January). The educational consequences of W. Edwards
Deming. EhLDelIaKappan.14(5). 382-388.

Holt, M. (1994, September). Why Deming and OBE don’t mix. Edugaﬂgnal
Leadership. 52(1). 85-86.

144

Hord, S., Rutherford, W., Huling, A. L., 8 Hall, G. (1987). W
change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Howe, H. II. (1995, January). Uncle Sam is in the classroom! Mm.
16(5). 374-377.

HOYvW--&Miskel. C- (1982). W108
magica(Rev.ed.). New York: Random House.

lmber, M., 8 Duke, D. (1984, Winter). Teacher partICIpatIon in school decision

making: Aframework for research ,LQumanLEdugatjgnaLAQmjnisij
22(1), 24- 34.

lannaccone, L., 8Jamgochian, R. (1985). Highneﬁmmlngmﬂmlumend
metLucIIenaUeaderebIemJbejllmaIeJexcellence. Santa Barbara:

University of California.

Johnston, G. 8Germinario, V. (1985, Summer). Relationship between teacher

decisional status and loyalty. JeumaLQLEQueaﬂenaLAdmjnisjmmn, 32(1),
91-105.

Joyce, B. R. (1991, May). The doors to school improvement. Edueatignal
Leadership. 48(8). 59-62.

Katzell, R. A., 8 Yankelovich, D. (1975). W.

New York: Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). EeundatieneetbebavieLaLLeeeach. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, 8 Winston.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). EeundatieneeLbebavieLaLreeeach(2nd ed.). New
York: Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston.

King, N. (1970). Clariﬁcation and evaluation of the two-factor theory of job
satisfaction. WM. 14(1). 18-31.

Knopp, R. (1980, October). JebeatiefactieneLteaebeLe Paper presented to the

Midwestern Educational Research Association, Toledo, OH.

Komoski, P. K. (1994, January 26). The 81 percent solutIon Restructuring our
schools and communities for IIfelong learning. Edueatienﬂeek, pp. 39,
52.

145

Kunz, D. W, 8 Hoy, W. K. (1976, Fall). Leadership style of principals and
professional zone of acceptance of teachers. WW

Quartedv.12(3), 49-64.

Lawler, E. E.,&Porter, L. W. (1972). MeIIvajI'eanwoﬂserganizatiene. Belmont,
CA: Brooks/Cole.

Lester, P. E. (1983). Develemnentﬂamnetrumenﬂemeaevrﬁeaeheueb
eaﬂetaciieil. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.

Lewis, A. (1991, Spring). Sharing power. Agenda, 1, 40-43.

Lewis, A. (1994, January). Reinventing local school governance. E3LD3|ta
Kaepan.15(5). 356-357.

Lieberman, A. (1988). BuildingaeroieeeLdnaLeultumeebeele. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Lipham, J. M. Dunstan, J. F, 8Rankin, R. E. (1981.). W

0‘0Il0‘llll00l0-‘O‘IOO‘ql‘OOe 2.010l

ineelectedeeeendatvecbeeleaechnical Report No. 571). Madison.

Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Individualized
Schooling.

Lipham. J. M. &Hoeh. J. A..Jr. (1974). Ibepnneiealebiemsaﬂeneand
133911333. New York: Harper 8 Row.

Lipham, J. Rankin, R., 8Robb, E. (1982). Cbange.leaderebje.and_deeieien

W. Madison: Wisconsin Center for
Education Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 223

004)

Lipsett, W. F. (1988). EfﬁeacwcbaLactenetIeeeLprIneIualenlmvarebIgb

perfemmMIebIganelementanLeebeole Unnublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University.

Locke, E. (1975). Personnel attitudes and motivation. A3333LRe133333f
Eevcbelegv. 3.5. 457-480.

Lortie, D. C. (1969). The balance of control and autonomy in elementary school

teaching. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), Ibesemtpmfessime (pp. 1-53). New York:

Free Press.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). 333333333391. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

146

Luthans, F. (1977). OrganizatienaLeebavier. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Malen, B, 8 Ogawa, R. T. (1988). Professional- -patron inﬂuence on site- based
governance councils: A confounding case study. EdusaienaLEvaluaien
WW5 10(4) 251-270

Malen, B., Ogawa, R. T. 8Krantz, J. (1989, June). WW
n1anagemenLaean_edueaiena_|1eio1m_eiategv(A policy paper). Salt

Lake City: University of Utah, Department of Educational Administration.

Malen, B, Ogawa, R. T, 8Krantz, J. (1990, May). What do we know about
school based management? A case study of the literature—A call for
research. In W. Witte &J. Witte (Eds.,) Chelseandeeniememenean

O
‘0 a .0 O ’0 ‘0 O ‘ Q‘ " o o O . 0 0|

Lesieelitlllg (pp. 289-342). Philadelphia: Falmer.

March, J. G. (1962). The business ﬁrm as a political coalition. 133133maL31
Bellies. 2.4. 662-678.

March, J. G. (1978, February). American public school administration: A short
analysis. 8eheeLBﬂ'Lew. 88. 217-249.

March, J. G.,8Simon, H. A. (1958). Qrge3i;a_tj333. New York: Wiley.

Marjoribanks, K. (1977). Bureaucratic orientations, autonomy and the
professional attitudes of teachers. WWW
1.5.108-113.

Marzano, R. J. (1992). A_dijif_e1331_k_i33_3f_3l_aee[33m. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Maslow, A. (1943). Atheory of motivation. WM. 5.0. 370-396.

McClelland, D. C., 8 Johnson, E. W. (1984). Ieamingjeaebieve. Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman.

McCurdy,J. (1983). AASAemeaLeeueeLeeeinemeﬂbepmprahn
eﬂeeiveselleels. Sacramento, CA: Education News Service.

McDonald, J. (1989, November). When outsiders try to change schools from the
inside. EbLDeltaKapean. 11(3). 206-211.

McGregor, D. (1960). Ibebemaﬂjldeeienmteﬂse New York: McGraw-Hill.

147

Mendenhall. D. N (1977). Relaienebmtergamanenalemetureand
W. Madison: Wisconsin Research and

Development Center for Cognitive Learning.

Meyer, J. W, 8 Rowan, B. (1992). The structure of educational organizations.

InJ. W. Meyer8W. R. Scott (Eds) OrganizalienaLenviLenmeIJIe;_Ritual
amLLaienalivand ed., pp. 71- -97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Middlekauff, E. S. (1991). AeaeeeeemenLeLsueeertvaIebigaipublmmel

‘o. I‘ _._ lo. I" la. Ila. ._ III. I ‘o. I‘
emeovILeLmem. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University.

Miles, M. (1981). Mapping the common properties of schools. In R. Lehming 8

M. Kane (Eds.), Wigwmp 42- 1.14)
Beverly Hills, CA. Sage.

Miller, E. (Ed. ). (1995, November/December). Shared decision making by Itself

doesn’ t make for better decisions Ibeﬂamariﬁdueallenieiet. 11(6),1-
4.

Miskel, C. (1973, Winter). The motivation of educators to work. Edueatjmal
Adminieiatienﬂvartedv, 9(1), 42- 53.

Miskel, C., Glasnapp, D., 8Hatley, R. (1975, Winter). Atest of the inequity
theory for job satisfaction using educators’ attitudes toward work

motivation and work incentives. EeeeaienaLAemlnleiaienﬂuaﬂeﬂv.
11(1), 38- 54.

Mitchell, D. E. (1978). Expectations, evaluation, and reward systems In schools.

In SebeeLQLganlzaienjndeﬂeete. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 182 365)

Moellar, J. H., 8Charter, W. W. (1966, March). Relation of bureaucratization to

sense of power among teachers. Admlnlsiallveﬁeleneeﬁuaﬂedv. 10(4),
444-465

Mohrman, A. M, Cooke, R. A. 8Mohrman, S. A. (1978). Participation in
decision making: Amultidimensional perspective. Eeueatjmal

Adminisiatienﬂvaﬂedv1413m29

Morse, N. C., 8 Reimer, E. (1956). The experimental change of a major

organizational variable. JemnaleLAbnemmLamLSeeiaLBevehelegv. 82.
120-129.

148

Moyle, C. R. (1979). Principal leader behavior and shared decision making.

JeumaLeLEdueatIenaLAdmmIetLalIeeﬂ 3950

MYerS- DA. (1973). Ieaebemewevirefeeeienalizallenenicelleetive
Wining. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Natemeyer, W. (Ed). (1978). CIaeeiceeLerganizatienaLbebavier. Oak Park, IL:
Moore Publishing.

National Commission on Excellence In Education. (1993, April). 3331133313313

InmnleeLatIveLQLedveatIenaJﬂierm (Publication No. 065-000-00177-2).
Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Ofﬁce.

National Education Goals Panel. (1993). IbenatIenaLeducalIengeaerepert.

Buildingjbebeeieummarvguide Washington, DC: U. 8. Government
Printing ofﬁce. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 360 396)

National Education Goals Panel. (1994). Ibenaiienaledveaneneealeteeem

Buildingaeatieeetleamere (ISBN No.0 16- 045094- 9.) Washington, DC:
U. S. Government Printing Ofﬁce.

National Governors’ Association. (1986). MW
[33333333333333 Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association,

Center for Policy Research and Analysis.

Newman. F. M. (1992, Fall). ReetmctunngjeheeleevemaneereLhicage
WUssue Report No.3). Madison: University of Wisconsin,

Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.

Newman, F. M. (1994, Spring). Sehoelwidepmteeeimalmmenﬂy (Issue

Report No. 6). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center on Organization
and Restructuring of Schools.

Oakes, J., 8Lipton, M. (1990). W
W. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press.

Odden, A, 80dden, E. (1994, Summer). $3333L3333d_m33393m331_133333w
Wedwrief No. 9). Madison: University of WIsconsrn

Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.

Odden, E. R., 8Wohlstetter, P. (1995, February). Making school- based
management work. E33331i333LLeaderetm 52(5), 32- 36.

149

Ogawa, R. T. (1984, Spring). Teachers and administrators. Elements of the
information processing repertoires of schools. E3333113331Adm131sjratm
Quarterlv. 20(2). 5-24.

O’Neil, J. (1995, February). On lasting school reform Aconversation with Ted
Sizer. EdueahenalieadeLelle 52(5). 4-9.

Otto, H., 8Sanders, D. (1964). ElememaLveebeelerganizatienend
333113131131133(4th ed..) New York: Meredith.

Pardee, R. (1990). MeiIvatIeaneeueeeLmaelowileLzbereﬂcﬁregmnd

II ‘ -._'II .1. 'i' I ”I 'III' I'-. II II II
331131331133_333_m31|131133 (Report No. 140). (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 316 767)

Peters, T. J. 8Waterman, R. H. (1982). WWW
Ameriealebestmmreeraiees New York: Harper8Row.

Pipho, C. (1986, November 26). Restructuring the schools: States take on the
challenge. 33331133131333, p. 19.

Porter, L. (1963). Job attitudes in management: Perceived deﬁciencies in need

fulﬁllment as a function of size of company. J33r33L3LAQ3|j33
Bevebelegv. 41, 141-148.

Porter. L.W.. 8Lawler. E. E- (1968). ManageLIaLattitvdeeandeerfeLmanee

Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Powell, R. M., 8 Schlacter, I. (1971). Participative management: A panacea?

AeademvetManagemenLJevmel.14. 165-173.
Prager, K. (1992, Fall). Esjlﬂialiﬂgjbeeitemmeheelleslwmyﬂegwrief No.

4). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center on Organization and
Restructuring of Schools.

Prager, K. (1993, Spring). Cellegia_eLeeeeeveste_cunieuIar_iecue:_Dilemma
f3333331331|3333r33j32(8rief No. 5). Madison. University of Wisconsin,

Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
Rauch, L. (1990). I‘ ' -.I II I' “I I-I "I-. ' I.‘ ' II II...II -.II

.0! c. ._ OI. “II‘I,-.l III‘qII ‘ Clio. .0... I0.

1333335. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco.

Raywid, M. (1988). Reetmenmngeelleeleevemameivomedele Mepstead.
NY: Hofstra University. Unpublished manuscript.

150

Raywid, M. A. (1990). Rethinking school governance. In R. F. Elmore&

Associates (Ed.). WWW
3333311333LL913L31(pp. 152-206). San Francisco: Jossey—Bass.

Reich, R. (1987, May-June). Entrepreneurship reconsidered: The team as hero.

W35 7783

Rice, E. M. (1993). MW
13333113133333. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Rice. K. (1987. April). W
31119021311. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 282 845)

Robinson, J. W. (1971, March). r' ' ' ' - r'
331392 (Report No. EA 005 297). Eugene: University of Oregon, Oregon
School Study Council, College of Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 079 846)

Roscoe, J. T. (1969). WWW
5219139315. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &Winston.

Ross, J. A. (1980). The inﬂuence of the principal on the curriculum decisions of

teachers. JgumaLQLQuLLIcILumﬁjudIes 12(3), 219-230.

Sarason,S.B.(1990).Ih99L991mahl913ﬂm32Ledu2aﬁ233LLefmm3_Qanﬂ9
21399939911159.123192111539939192 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schmoker, M. (1992, March 27). Restructuring the principalship. E333a1133
1113913. pp. 31-32.

Schmuck, R. A. &Runkel, P. J. (1985). W
d3y3|33m331_13_s3333|3. Palo Alto, CA: Mayﬁeld Press.

Schneider, G. T. (1984). Teacher involvement in decision making: Zones of
acceptance, decision conditions, and job satisfaction. W133

andDeyelopmmLLEdmzatIm 13(1), 25- 32.

Schneider, G.T.(1985).Ih9_m¥1t12tcumﬂn9a_rt1c_An_analsts_oLd9cImn_
mkmmﬂmmmimaﬁstamimmepon No. EA 017498). Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
252 980)

Schwarz, P. (1994, November 23). Top-down or bottom-up? Needed: School-
set standards. W. pp. 34, 44.

151

Schwille, J., Porter, A. &Gant, M. (1980, Spring). Content deClSlon making and

the politics of education. W331, 13(2), 21-
40.

Seashore, S. E., & Bowers, D. (1963). (23332132339513.1911393321339112313221
33212331231123. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social

Research.

Selznick, P. (1947). HA33911332135519215. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

Sergiovanni, T. (1967). Factors which affect satisfaction and dissatisfaction of

teachers. JgumaMLEdugaﬂonaLAdminisiLaﬂon. 5. 66- 82.

Sergiovanni, T, &Carver, F. (1973). 133W
33311315331133. New York: Dodd- Mead.

Sergiovanni, T., 8 Starratt, R. (1971). W. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Shedd, J. B. (1988). Collective bargaining, school reform and the management

of school systems. Edu2311233123m11115113113322339dy. 23. 405-415.

Showers, 8., Joyce, 8., & Bennett, B. (1987, November). Synthesis of research
on staff development: A framework for future study and a state-of-the-art

analysis. Edu2alionaLL9ad91513335(3). 77-87.

Sickler, J. L. (1988). Teachers in charge: Empowering the professionals. 1331
11911333121133.1551. 354-358.

Simon, H. A. (1944, Winter). Decision making and administrative organization.

Bubli2311m1131511311338331193516-30.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Asiminislraihze2ehaxim New York: Macmillan.

Sistrunk, W. (1986). Self-[engwal f3r self-313533131133. Paper presented at the

40th Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Professors of
Educational Administration, Flagstaff, AZ. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 276 119)

Sizer, T. R. (1991, May). No pain, no gain. E229311233LL93291153112. 38(8),
32-34.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., &Hulin, C. L. (1969). W
531151391123J33111911$231L31119131931 Chicago: Rand McNally.

152

Speed, N. E. (1979). WWW
I11313L31239932315333L1321112113112933§11u21123 (Technical Report No.

521). Madison: Wisconsin Research and Development Center for
Individualized Schooling.

Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). 11331333333333333512333113: (2nd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Tannenbaum, A. S. (1962, September). Control In organizations: Individual

adjustment and performance.A1133131511311313_S219399_Quaﬂ91111.Z.236-
257.

Thierbach,G.L. (1980).D9215123_132012em931_and_12b_53191321123_m_1mddl93mi
123121.31232239215. Unpublished doctoral dIssertatIon University of

Wisconsin- Madison.

Timar, T. (1989, December). The politics of school restructuring. 13310333
19121233. 11(4). 265-275.

Timar,T., &Kirp, D. (1988). 11113332132221.19332113122129119399. Philadelphia:

Falmer Press.

Trusty, F. M. 8 Sergiovanni, T. J. (1966). Perceived need deﬁciencies of
teachers and administrators: A proposal for restructuring teacher roles.

Edu2311233LAdm131511311239u31191|112,168-180.

Tucker, M., 8. Mandel, D. (1986, September). The Carnegie Report--A call for
redesigning the schools. 12312911313312.1333. 25(1), 24-27.

Tukey,J. W. (1969). Analyzing data: Sanctiﬁcation or detective work?
Ammi233E5y932122151. 23. 83- 91.

Usdan, M. D. (1994, November 23) Goals 2000. Opportunities and caveats.
31.123111233111991: pp 44 35

US. Department of Education. (1991, April). Am91123_2110_Q;_An_9d11231123
511319211. Washington, DC: Author.

US. Department of Education, Ofﬁce of Educational Research and Improvement,
National Center for Educational Statistics. (1993, May). 331333313

19323915Jmﬁl92132m1999211 (ISBN 0-16-041776-.7) Washington, DC:
US. Government Printing Ofﬁce.

153

U. S. Department of Education, Ofﬁce of Educational Research and Improvement,
National Center for Education Statistics. (1995, June). 8.1319223123112232

2L3311231123.s131151129;_1969_10323993_93(ISBN 0- 16-048128-1)
Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). 13121333232333.1123. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Vroom,V.H.,&Jago,A.G.(1988).139_3.9131|92291&312._Ma£122132_2311121231123
13319333311333. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice— Hall.

Wallace, R. and others. (1990, April). 139135113232333321'3919323‘233132

I‘OIIIuIcII-‘I 0.010 ' IH' Iu 0.. ‘ Io
3331331133. Boston: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 323 629)

Warner, W. M. (1981). I9323912929123133Ql333193193332393119132112333
1335223513919319313319232213. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Wisconsin- Madison.

Weatherley, R., &Lipsky, M. (1977, May). Street level bureaucrats and
institutional innovation. W,ﬂ, 171-196.

Weber, M. (1947). Ib33332312Ls2213133292232m122123312311239. (T.

Parsons, 3.; A. M. Henderson 8. T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free
Press.

Weick, K. E. (1976, March). Educational organizations as loosely coupled

systems 33133153313952.33232333333 2.1. 1- 19

Weiss, C. H. (1993, Fall). Shared decision making about what? A comparison
of schools with and without teacher participation. 193239153223929
892231. 95(1). 69-92.

Wiggins, S. P. (1986, October). Revolution In the teachIng profession: A

comparative review of two reform reports. E23233233LL932919312. 33(2),
56-59.

Willis, S. (1993, February). Creating "totalquality" schools. 359123133313,
35(2). 14.

Willower, D. (1982, Summer). School organIzatIons Perspectlves In

juxtaposition. E232311233LAdm131$1131123_Q333933 12. 89-110.

Wirth, A. G. (1993, January). Education and work: The choices we face. 13111
11333333233135). 360-366.

154

Wohlstetter, P., & Briggs, K. (1994, November). The principal’s role in school-
based management. 133331331, 73(2), 14-18.

Wohlstetter, P., &Odden, A. (1992, November). Rethinking school-based

management policy and research. E23231]2331Adm13131131123.03339ﬂ3.
29(4), 529 549.

Wolcott, H. (1973). 133133333333333313335311123. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
& Winston.

Wolf, M. (1970). Need gratiﬁcation theory: Atheoretical reformulation of job
satisfaction/dissatisfaction and job motivation. W

332321223.5387-94.

Wood, C. J. (1984, Fall). Participatory decision making: Why doesntIt seem to
work? 33231123313333. 39. 54- 64.

Yaremko, R. M., Harari, H. Harrison, R. C, &Lynn, E. (1986). 3311339321
1339312333223331113113313913235332333321293 Mahwah. NJ Erlbaum-

155