ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE ROLE OF THE SUBORDINATE AND SUPER-ORDINATE WITH RESPECT TO AUTHORITY, RESPONSIBILITY, AND O OELEOATTOH TH THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 0F TLTHT AT THE HTTEHOAHOE CENTER LEVEL Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. ’ MICHEGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BOBBY M. METCHELL SR. 1973 - LIBRARY Mickgrmn f— 3‘12?) Ur?” ' This is to certify that the thesis entitled ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE ROLE OF THE SUBORDINATE AND SUPER-ORDINATE WITH RESPECT TO AUTHORITY, RESPONSIBILITY, AND DELEGATION IN THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OF FLINT AT THE ATTEngfieEWTER LEVEL Bobby M. Mitchell, Sr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for 10%: .D" degree in avg/fiwi’EI/WL tufmémwu cam. 7 7 ( Mninr nvnfnccnr Date—gm 0-7639 1 ABSTRACT ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE ROLE OF THE SUBORDINATE AND SUPER-ORDINATE WITH RESPECT TO AUTHORITY, RESPONSIBILITY, AND DELEGATION IN THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OF FLINT AT THE ATTENDANCE CENTER LEVEL BY Bobby M. Mitchell, Sr. In this study the writer sought to determine if significant differences exist between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variables authority, responsibility, and delegation as measured by the following instruments: Responsibility, Authority and Delegation Scales; Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire; The Job Satisfaction and Job Expectations Questionnaire. The RAD Scale measures how the individual per- ceives his responsibility, authority, and delegation. A (P) value of <.05 would indicate harmony or dissonance based on a significant or insignificant statistic when analyzed. The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire commonly referred to as (LBDQ) is an instrument that measures the perception of one leader in the formal Bobby M. Mitchell, Sr. organization by another leader in the formal organization or by himself. The pronoun (I) may be substituted for (He), if one uses the instrument to measure himself. The Job Satisfaction Scale measures satisfaction with school, administration, and recognition. The Job Satisfaction Scale is counted as one variable even though it has three parts. The Job Expectations Scale measures expectations concerning work, advancement, friends' attitudes, pay, freedom on the job, family attitudes, and job security The sample of this study included the entire pOpulation of the elementary principals and community school directors in the inner-city of Flint, Michigan. There are 44 elementary principals and 42 community school directors in the elementary schools of Flint, Michigan. Because of the special nature of two of the schools, teachers who acted in the capacity of community school director in their respective building are included in this study. One school was an elementary school for the mentally retarded students, therefore, the board could not justify the employment of a full-time director. Another school was a school for the academically talented, there- fore, a full-time director could not be employed for that school. These directors were not performing all of the functions of community school directors, because they had their regular teaching assignments as well. These Bobby M. Mitchell, Sr. quasi-directors, however, did assist the principals in working with parents, school activities, other teachers, and the curriculum. For the reasons mentioned above, two teachers at the reSpective schools were substituted for community school directors. The data was examined by a multi-variate analysis of variance test (programmed by Jeremy Finn). Signifi- cance was determined by a confidence level of .05, and a (P) value of <.OS considered significant. The following conclusions were made as a result of this study: 1. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to the variable reSponsibility. 2. There is a significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable authority. 3. There is a significant difference between the per- ceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable delegation. 4. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school director with respect to the variable initiating structure. 10. 11. 12. Bobby M. Mitchell, Sr. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable considera- tion. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable school management and recognition. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable work. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable advancement. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable friends. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable pay. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with reSpect to the variable freedom. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable family. Bobby M. Mitchell, Sr. 13. There is no significant difference between the per- ceptions of the principals and community school directors with reSpect to the variable job security. Implications and Recommendations It appears from the findings of this study that an administrative reorganization at the attendance center level is a function of many implications factors; among them is the creative personnel involved, and that admini- strative directives, job descriptions, and definitions have their limitations. Significant differences were found in Hypothesis 2. These differences appear to be due to the fact that, in his new role the community school director is a sub- ordinate and not a quasi-colleague as he was before, and this appears to cause conflict. The principals accustomed to being concerned about the K—6 program, and though they relish the notion of having the authority over the com- munity school director, they appear not to relish the thought of the added time spent in taking part in the night-time activities. Significant differences were found in Hypothesis 3. How authority is delegated has some interesting socio- psycho-anthropological manifestations. Conflict in dele- gation may breed insecurity in the personnel of the organization. It may result in disloyalty and reduce efficiency. A commitment to the task delegated might Bobby M. Mitchell, Sr. result in minimum effort to complete the task and reduce creativity. How does this effect community education? Com- munity education is an area that thrives on creativity. A conflict in authority threatens creativity. To be sure, delegation is an integral part of the organizations func- tion, but conflict in this area is not healthy. It becomes a matter of what activities are delegated to the community school director, for example, lunchroom duty, discipline, and various other types of alienating activity may get in the way of the community school directors' relationship with the community and the students. As was indicated in the interviews, the delegation of K-6 increased responsi— bility reduces the time for community work. However, on the positive side most interviewees agreed that the most salient point of the reorganization plan is that it per- mits people to understand who they are to report to and who is responsible. The problem appears to be how, and to what extent. In sum, the study appears to indicate that the reorganization plan in Flint may be a viable alternative to the "two headed monster." The data gives evidence that there is conflict with respect to the variables authority and delegation. Bobby M. Mitchell, Sr. Recommendations Based on the data, the writer sets forth the following recommendations: 1. That the chief administrator reexamine the goals of the organization in order to evaluate the utilization of the data. Two major considerations must be taken into account. a) Is change the major goal of the organization? b) Is it desirable to have the two administrators differing or having the same perceptions? If the goal of the organization is to bring about change only; then the present state of affairs is acceptable. If the goal of the organ- ization is to promote change while preserving harmony, then the process should be employed to ameliorate differences. It appears that this may be accomplished through in-service training of administrators; providing periodic opportunities for the two groups to be together away from the task environment; reorganization of administrators so that more compatible administrators will be together; reducing ambiguity in roles through a clarification of roles or having the two groups mutually define roles. That studies be conducted to analyze why there is a difference in authority and delegation to further Bobby M. Mitchell, Sr. delineate cause and effect relationships in the problem. 3. That studies be conducted to ascertain the effects of the problem on the organization. 4. That studies be conducted to ascertain the effects of the problem on the curriculum. 5. That studies be conducted to ascertain the effects of the problems on subordinate staff morale. 6. That studies be conducted to ascertain the effects of the problem on student morale. 7. That a "consensual base" be established for the health of an organization and to offset the tendency of organizations in dynamic change to tend toward atrophy. In summary, Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 were found to be statistically significant. They were related to the variables authority and reSponsibility. Hypo- theses 1, 4, S, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13 were not found to be statistically significant with a (P) value of <.05, according to the analysis. ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE ROLE OF THE SUBORDINATE AND SUPER-ORDINATE WITH RESPECT TO AUTHORITY, RESPONSIBILITY, AND DELEGATION IN THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OF FLINT AT THE ATTENDANCE CENTER LEVEL BY 1. C Bobby M? Mitchell, Sr. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1973 7/757/ (7‘ ‘5 Copyright by BOBBY MACK MITCHELL, SR. 1973 (:D This manuscript is dedicated to the most wonderful lady in the world, Loretta Elaine Mitchell Sharing these honors are Tammye Lynne, and Tarra Leene and a significant other part of me, Bobby M. Mitchell, Jr., my shadow ii "IN MEMORIA" To Those Who Have Been a Party to This Document in Absentia: ”You will be a doctor." My mother Bernice Margaret Lee Mitchell "You will take care of me when I am old" My grandmother Lillian McPherson ”I have taken care of this boy since he was eleven days old” My grandfather Charles McPherson "What I am worth, is what I have been doing for people" My patron Saint Charles Stewart Mott iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I shall ever be indebted to the elementary prin- cipals and community school directors of the forty-four elementary schools of Flint, Michigan. I shall be ever grateful to Mrs. Ann Gregory and Dr. Peter Clancy for making this study possible. To the greatest guide, and sharer of the beacon light of wisdom, I salute my chairman, Dr. Joseph H. McMillan. To the ablest committeemen, Dr. Clyde Campbell, Dr. Howard Hickey, and Dr. James McKee, for their profound assistance in crystallizing this study. Thanks to the amicable statisticians, Dr. Lawrence W. Lezotte and Dr. John H. Schweitzer, for their constant guidance in the research component of this study. Thanks to Mr. Charles Stewart Mott and the Mott Foundation for providing the Mott Fellowship that made this study possible. Thanks and appreciation for their support go to my colleagues Alma Seniors, Donald Butler, Douglas Godwin, Donald Tobias, Donald Grahm, John Thiel, Jerry Defries, and John Ambrose Fallon. iv To my wife, Loretta, whose tolerance, faith, and inspiration was unceasing during the most critical times of this study. To my children, Bobby M. Mitchell, Jr., Tammye Lynne, Tarra Leene, who in their own way assisted in the collating of the instruments. To my aunt, Rubie Smith, who gave me inspiration and financial assistance when needed. To my mother-in-law, Bernice Mitchell, who gave me inSpiration and faith, I shall always be grateful. Last, but not least, to Dr. James Coleman who had faith in me when all was lost, I shall be forever grateful. To Dr. Willard Robeson who gave me the benefit of his experience. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES O O 0 0 O O O O O O O PREFACE O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 Chapter I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O 0 II. Statement of the Problem . . . Needs and Assumptions of the Study Purpose of the Study . . . General Hypotheses . . Delimitations of the Study . Limitations of the Study . Definitions of Terms and Illustrations . . . . . . . . Overview of the Thesis . . . . . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . Administrative Theory and Supportive Research . . . . . . . . . . The Socio-Psychological-Cultural Implications of Role and Role Conflict Psychological Implications of Role Conflict . . . . . . . AnthrOpological Approach to Role and Role Conflict . . . . . . . Summary of Socio-Psycho-Anthropological Implications of Role Conflict . . . The Changing Role of the Principal and Community School Director in the Reorganization and Merger of K-12 and Community Education in the Schools of Flint . . . . . . vi Page ix xi xii \lmU'leN H 0% 13 l3 17 33 54 59 67 68 Chapter III. THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . The Site and Sample . . . The Instrument . . . . . The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire . . . . . The Job Satisfaction and Job Expectations Questionnaire The Job Satisfaction Scale . The Job Expectations Scale . Modification of the Job Satisfaction and Job Expectations Questionnaire Personal Data . . . . . Procedure . . . . Hypotheses to be Tested . Treatment of the Data . . Summary . . . . . . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis lO Hypothesis 11 Hypothesis 12 Hypothesis 13 Summary . . \qummbwk’l‘ to one... o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o. o 0.0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . o o o o o o o o. o. o o o o o o o o o o o. o o , 0 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDY . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . Implications and Explanations Recommendations . . . . . vii O O O O O O Page 91 92 95 98 101 101 102 102 104 106 107 109 110 112 113 114 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 126 127 128 129 133 133 136 145 151 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . APPENDICES Appendix A. Instruments . . . . B. Communications . . . C. Auxiliary Information viii Page 154 161 175 183 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1. Data on the Sex of the Principals and the Community School Directors . . . . . 94 3.2. Data on the Number of Years Serving as Principal or Community School Director . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 3.3. Ages of Principals and Community School Directors Reported in Five-Year Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 3.4. Number of Years in Service in the Respective Position . . . . . . . . 106 3.5. Summary of Questionnaires Sent and Returned 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O 110 4.1. Multivariate Analysis of Variance--For All Variables: Responsibility, Authority, Delegation, Initiating Structure, Consideration, School Manage- ment and Recognition, Work, Advancement, Friends, Pay, Freedom, Family, Job Security . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 4.2. Multivariate Analysis of Variance-- ReSponsibility . . . . . . . . . . 116 4.21. Mean Scores of Perceptions of Principals and Community School Directors on the Variables ReSponsibility, Authority, Delegation and Initiating Structure . . . 116 4.3. Multivariate Analysis of Variance-— Authority . O O O O O O O O O O O 117 4.4. Multivariate Analysis of Variance-- Delegation O O O O O O O O O O O 117 ix Table 405. 4.9. 4.10. 4.11. 4.111. 4.12. 4.13. 4.14. 4.15. Multivariate Analysis of Variance-- Initiating Structure . . . . Multivariate Analysis of Variance-- Consideration . . . . . . Mean Scores of Perceptions of Principals and Community School Directors on the Variables Consideration, School Management and Recognition, Work, Advancement, and Friends . . Multivariate Analysis of Variance-- School Management and Recognition Multivariate Analysis of Variance-— Work 0 O O O O O O O O Multivariate Analysis of Variance-- Advancement . . . . . . . Multivariate Analysis of Variance-- Friends . . . . . . . . Multivariate Analysis of Variance-— Pay 0 O O O O O O I 0 Mean Scores of Perceptions of Principals and Community School Directors on the Variables Pay, Freedom, Family and Job Security . . . . . . Multivariate Analysis of Variance-- Freedom . . . . . . . . Multivariate Analysis of Variance-- Family 0 O O O O O O O Multivariate Analysis of Variance—- Job Security . . . . . . Multivariate Analysis Combined Table of all Mean Scores of Principals and Community School Directors . . . . . Page 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 125 126 127 128 130 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Interacting Perceptions of Subordinate's R01e O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 10 2. Diagram of Mechanism of Communication Flow About Delegated Task . . . . . . . ll 3. Delegated Task Which Might Create Disharmony . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 xi PREFACE For men who toil and can see the bitter end, it gives an incentive to carry on unceasingly towards a goal yet to come and a mountain yet to climb, however, success brings a joy never to be tasted by the quitter, the defeated, the insecure, and those who are not confident. xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. To paraphrase Thomas, "if men perceive situations as real, they are real in their consequences." With some men perception is a questionable topic, however, educa- tors use the term quite freely in their conversations. The way we see things is another way of saying that we perceive things, objects, or ideas. The way we perceive things is another way of expressing our internalization of what our senses are exposed to in our environment. If we internalize these impressions they are real to us. In Community Education for a long while there has been a question of whether the principals and community school directors share the same or similar perceptions. This difference in perception apparently has led to the notion of the "Two Headed Monster." This study examines the notion of the "Two Headed Monster" in terms of authority, responsibility, and delegation. Organizations live and die, but the health of an organization depends on a constant search for a conquest of uncertainty. One approach to dealing with this un- certainty is by a systematic search for an answer to live dynamic problems in the organization. Research provides for us a vehicle to explore these problems of uncertainty; it is to this end that this study is undertaken. Statement of the Problem The problem was to determine whether or not sig- nificant differences exist between principals and com- munity school directors with respect to reSponsibility, authority, and delegation as analyzed by the Responsi— bility, Authority, and Delegation Scale; Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire; and The Job Satis- faction and Job Expectations Questionnaire. Needs and Assumptions of the Study Studies have been done to cover broad spectra of populations, and wide administrative domains. These studies have usually covered perceptions of principals and teachers or community directors and teachers. There have been studies done on the perceptions of superin- tendents and principals or community school directors and parents with respect to authority, responsibility, and delegation. But none have been done with the principal and thecommunity school director as a legitimate subordinate-superordinate relationship. No school system affords a principal and community school director in a more legitimate superordinate-subordinate relationship than Flint. Assumptions The following are assumptions underlining this study: 1. It is assumed that the instruments Responsibility, Authority, and Delegation Scale; Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire; and The Job Satisfaction and Job Expectation Questionnaire; and personal interviews will provide researchable data to provide some understanding of role per- ceptions of principals and community school directors. 2. It is assumed that the respondents are aware of the major change in the organizational structure and how it affects them. 3. It is assumed that paradigms of a transplantable nature can be identified in the Flint school system. Purpose of the Study I In the marriage of ideas, there are two essential components. One is the understanding of perceptions, and the other is understanding of the person's perspective. Perceptions may be interpersonal or extrapersonal. This study is concerned with perceptions. Dow defines percep- tions as: The perceived behavior is the actual leadership activities of elementary principals as described by themselves and their teachers. Stogdill refers to this type of behavior as "real" behavior. The Flint Community Schools have a unique organ- izational arrangement for principals and community school directors. The principals have a direct line and staff relationship over the community school directors. The community school directors report only to the principal. In an interview with Peter Clancy, Superintendent of Flint Community Schools, Clancy stated: The community school director will be assigned directly under the direction of the principal and will become an assistant principal.2 1John Dow, Jr., ”A Comparative Study of Inner-City Elementary Teachers' and Principal's Perceptions of and Role Expectations for the Leadership Behavior of Selected Inner-City Elementary Principals" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1971), p. 4. 2Peter Clancy, Superintendent of Flint Community Schools, interview, August 15, 1972. Homer E. Dowdy, Vice-President, Program Administra- tion, Mott Foundation, stated: To date 5/6 of the community school director's salary is tax supported and only 1/6 Mott Foundation sup- ported in the elementary schools of Flint. On the high school level the Mott Foundation supports half and the taxes support half.1 The statements above suggest two unique concepts: (1) that there is a subordinate and super-ordinate rela- tionship between the principal and community school director, (2) that the community school director is supported by tax monies and is a legitimized position within the regular school system. Therefore, the principal is the super-ordinate, and the community school director is the subordinate. It is the purpose of this study to examine the perceptions of the role of the principal and community school director in a unique, changing, transitional, community education organization model. The perceptions will be examined by using three instruments: ReSponsibility, Authority, and Delegation Scale; Leadership Behavior Questionnaire; and the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. General Hypotheses 1. Significant differences exist between the per- ceptions of the principal and community school 1Homer E. Dowdy, Vice-President, Program Admini- stration, Mott Foundation, Speech made to 1972 Mott Interns, Flint, Michigan, September 19, 1972. director with respect to the Responsibility, Authority, and Delegation Scale. 2. Significant differences exist between the perceptions of the principal and community school director with reSpect to the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire. 3. Significant difference exists between the per- ceptions of the principal and community school director with respect to the Job Satisfaction and Job Expectations Questionnaire. Delimitations of the Study This study is concerned with the perceptions of the principal and the community school director as meas— ured by the Responsibility, Authority, and Delegation Scale; Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire; and The Job Satisfaction and Job EXpectation Question- naire; and interviews with the reSpondents. This study is restricted to the administrator at the elementary attendance center level. Due to the nature of the sample, it is restricted to the elementary level. The study is limited to the cooperation of the respondents. This study is not concerned Specifically with any other population on the school staff except as they relate directly to the role of perceptions of the principal and community school director, because these are the para- meters of the population of the study. Limitations of the Study Conclusions drawn from this study are subject to the following limitations: 1. The study is limited by the recent reorganization of the school district. 2. The study is limited by the newness of super- ordinate-subordinate legitimate relationship of the principal and community school director. While being aware of these limitations, the re- searcher realized that personnel changes in rapid succession or large magnitude are not atypical of urban school systems today. This is a "nuisance variable" and personnel changes cannot be controlled by the researcher. Definition of Terms and Illustrations In order to clarify some terms used in the study, the following statements are made: RAD Scale: is a scale that measures the authority, responsibility, and delegation of super-ordinates and subordinates in different kinds of organizations and institutions. LBDQ: is an instrument that may be either used to describe the behavior of one's supervisor or his own behavior. JS and JE: is an instrument used to measure the respondent's satisfaction with his school and its management, and the reSpondent's recognition, and his expectations past and present. Chief Administrator: is defined in this study as the principal. Subordinate: is defined in this study as the community school director. It refers to a position of lower rank in an organization, and is not used in this study to reflect in any way upon the individual in that position as a person. Super-ordinate: is defined as the person in a superior status position in an organization. This term is used frequently in some literature to describe administrative hierarchy. Harmony: refers to similar perceptions of the two administrators in this study as measured by the instruments. Disharmony: refers to significant differences in the two groups of administrators as measured by the instruments employed in this study. Illustrations On the pages that follow, illustrations of possible problems in perceptions are presented in diagramatic form (Figures 1 through 3). Overview of the Thesis In Chapter II, selected related literature and research are reviewed. Among the topics covered are: administrative theory and supportive research, socio- psychological-cultural implications of role and role conflict, the changing role of principal and community school director in the reorganization and merger of K—12 and community education in the schools of Flint. In Chapter III, the design of the study will consist of the following: site and sample, the instruments, personal data, procedure, hypotheses, and treatment of the data. In Chapter IV, the results of the data gathered is pre- sented and analyzed. In Chapter V, the results of the research is summarized, and conclusions and recommenda- tions are made based on the findings of the data. 10 Symbolic Representation: 1. CP = Chief's perception 2. SP = Student's perception of subordinate's role 3. PP = Parent's perception of subordinate's role 4. PUP = Public's perception of subordinate's role 5. RSPR = Resultant perception of subordinate's role 6. Harmony = H 7. Disharmony = D 8. CT = Chief's task Equation: CT——)SP x PP x PUP = 2-——)RSPR H Figure 1.--Interacting Perceptions of Subordinate's Role. 11 .xmme omummmamo usond 30am coflumowcsEEou mo Emflcmcomz mo Emuo6fl0u1.N musmflm =>coEumn= ca Emummm ouansa sh changa an cm>flmoumm mm omme m>wuwmom oumcwouon5m mo mmmEH 30A .m mucmumm an a mucmumm an Um>wmouom mm mmew m>fluflmom m mumcwpuonsm mo mmmEH 30a .w A mucmpsum >3 1 mucmpsum an om>flmoumm mm moms“ m>auwmom m mumcflouonsm no 0065“ 30A .m .1 mumnommu wn “u mumcommu >9 om>flmoumm mm moms“ m>Huflmom a mumcHUHOQSm mo mmmEH 30A .m mmmEHImamm w>fluflmom mamuoe mumcHUHOQSm 30A .H xomnommm m>flusmoa ouuumnumo xomncmmm m>aummmz owuomzumo mi llllllll .I.W m ¢|ul.llululullllul mmummmz ucmumq .m mmMmmoz mo cowummoumm .m a ucmuma not v f u T «momma: ummMAcmz on. mmmmwmz mo coaumoouom a ummmacuz m.ouucsnuonam m m.mmsno 12 .wcoEumgmHo mummuu ucofiz nownz xmme pmummmHmouu.m musmwm mcowuwomuu no oflmoa co mcwum unmmo mmwco on» mH mmmocm nummmap Hmsow>flocfi now some mcfimn mum mcoflmfl>oum was: .cousuo uo =.umommmmom= u now mumcaouOQSm may mcwms on was mmflno one .maawxm m>aumuumacaeom we uoc ncm mucous >8 mo monsoon cowuwmom we now cmuooawm mus H cm>wmoummnwmdmmmz ucmumq xounvmum o>fluummz owuoonuoo massaaomflo game .mumcwpuo unsm u now macs oousufiumcoo mHHmusuaso nm>oummm on» ma mace .m .mcfiamwomflp 06 on med» on» m>mn uoc moon moano one .m .imcflamflomflov «mum man» as maawxm umuumn mm: on mmsmomn mcflamwomflp mo oumo mxmu mundaouonsm on» m>mn ou anommmomc ma DH .H umcoaummoumm ummmacmz A.I.I..mwmmmmzlmwmwmAuu. \ mafiaaaomflo / «cameos ummmacmz gone CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Strong pressure for changes in the group can be established by creating a shared perception by members of the need for change, thus making the source of pressure for change lie within the group. --Warren G. Bennis The focal point of this chapter will be directed toward deve10ping a background of related literature with respect to the role of chief administrator and the sub- ordinate. The chief administrator at the attendance center level is the principal and the subordinate is the com- munity school director in the public schools of Flint. This study draws heavily upon the behavioral leadership studies done at Ohio State University, at the Bureau of Business Research, and the behavioral leadership studies done at the University of Chicago. The studies that were done at Ohio State University were led by Ralph M. StOgdill, and the studies done at the University of Chicago were led by Andrew W. Halpin. An attempt will 13 14 be made to gather information relating to other studies in leadership behavior that are related to the role per- ceptions of personnel at the attendance center level in administrative positions. Views will be presented from other authorities in the field on their perceptions of the roles of the chief and the subordinate. The literature will be examined in terms of how practitioners and authorities view the role of the principal and community school director roles. If we can conceive of a social system in which stratification is inherent, then a study like this becomes more meaningful. Organizational stratification implies differentiation of roles. While the above statements are apparently obvious, what is not obvious are the problems presented by role perceptions in the three variables: authority, responsibility, and delegation. Much has been written about authority, reSponsibility, and delegation, and numerous studies have been researched in business, hospitals, army, and navy installations with respect to these variables. Halpin has done studies on the super- intendents' roles. At the attendance center level there is a more direct line of communication between the client and the next level administrator (client-~in this case is the student, and the parent). Therefore, harmony at this level is essential for harmony in the areas of management, curriculum, and human relations. 15 In a community school system harmony may be more important than in other school systems. One reason may be because there are a greater number of peOple of all ages interacting with the school on a daily basis. These peeple tend to hold the school under a microscope and may be more sensitive to symptoms of disharmony. The term ”feedback variables," will be defined as those variables that evolve as a result of disharmony between the perceptions of the prescribed role as defined by the principal and the community school director. While the writer is aware of a certain amount of ambiguity that is inherent in the leadership process in terms of the roles that the chief and subordinate may play, he suggests that administrative processes should be approached scientifically to provide for efficiency and to deal with uncertainty. Thompson refers to this as "com- putational strategy."1 Bales points to these problems with great pessimism. Bales states that: The difficulty in defining what the leader does or in constructing a value theory of what he should do is certainly due in part to the fact that the leader is usually required to do different things at different times, according to the condition of the group and its common culture as a system. Our ability;to specify what some of these important differences of condition are has improved in the past five or ten years, but one feels that we have 1James D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967), p. I34. 16 only begun to be able to handle the problem empirically.l Another statement by Bales clarifies part of the key notion in this study, when he talks about the mal- integrative terminal effects of the distribution of authority and status and its effect on the solidarity of the group. Bales says: One chain of events has its starting point in the necessities of adaptation to the outer situation and proceeds in its series of strains through changes in the division of labor, changes in the distribution of property, authority, and status and has its malintegrative terminal effects in 2 the disturbance of the existing state of solidarity. In the field of social psychology, a term, ”cohesiveness,” is used which appears to be close to the notion of "harmony." Bales defines the term ”cohesive- ness” as: "anything that attracts people to take part in a group."3 Therefore, creating "harmony” or existing harmony would be a characteristic of "cohesiveness," because it is reasoned that a state of "harmony" would make subordinates more inclined to work more effectively for group goals. Bales further states that: Cohesiveness is a value variable; it refers to the degree of reinforcement pe0ple find in the activities of the group. Festinger and his colleagues consider two kinds of reinforcing 1Robert F. Bales, Small Groups (New York: Alfred-A-Knoff, 1965), p. 357. 21bid., p. 127. 3 Ibid.’ p. 173. 17 activity: the symbolic behavior we call "social approval" (sentiment) and activity valuable in other ways, such as doing something interesting. Administrative Theory and Supportive Research Now that we have some background information about the uniqueness of the Flint organizational model, we may now examine and explore the theoretical bases for role theories. What Halpin calls role conflict situation, the writer calls a ”role perception conflict situation." Halpin suggests: Role conflict occurs whenever a role incumbent is required to conform simultaneously to a number of expectations which are mutually exclusive, contra- dictory, or inconsistent so that adjustment to one set of requirements makes adjustment to the other impossible or at least difficult. Role conflicts in this sense are situational givens and independent of the personality of the role incumbent. They are evidence of disorganization in the nomothetic dimension and may arise in several ways: (a) from disagreement within-- reference group defining the role; e.g., the principal of the school may be expected by some teachers to visit them regularly for constructive help and by others to trust them as professional personnel not in need of such supervision.2 Another example could be a principal assigning a community school director a curriculum assignment at a time when he has an important community interests group lIbid., pp. 173-74. 2Andrew W. Halpin, Administrative Theory in Education (Chicago, 111.: Midwest AdministratIOn Center, University of Chicago, 1958), p. l. 18 going. John Connor, Superintendent, Worcester Public Schools, discusses the conflict caused by the community school director reporting to too many heads. He suggested the way he has dealt with the problem. When these schools were initiated into the Worcester School System, Connor states that: He sent both the principal and the community school director to Flint to study Flint's model. On the Worcester organizational chart he placed the com- munity school director in a line and staff relation- ship directly under the assistant principal.1 Connor's organizational model2 places the com- munity school director in the following line and staff relationship: Supervisors of Elementary Schools ‘ 1 _Advisorylr Council Table of Organization WOrcester Elementary Public Schools School Chart 3 Principals January 1, 1970 Assistant] Principal] Communit School Director 1John Connor, Superintendent, Worcester Public Schools, WOrcester, Massachusetts, Speech to Mott Interns, Flint, Michigan, October 5, 1972. 2Abstracted from the Table of Organization, Wor- cester Public Schools, Chart 3, January 1, 1970. 19 Connor discusses his team approach to ameliorating staff conflict in a document distributed at the seminar. Connor states: In the Worcester Community Schools responsibility for the program implementation is in the hands of an administrative team composed of the school principal, community school director,aand the assistant principal. The community school director in Worcester is a full-time twelve month administra- tive position. The principal also serves the year round. This allows the team to successfully carry out the program ramifications of the community school concept. Dow reports in his study of inner-city elementary teachers and principals that: . . . it is found that principals expect more on their own performance than what they are them- selves actually performing. Which is to say, they are not doing as well as they think they should with regards to their leadership behavior. Roger Harrison examines role orientation in terms of types of organizational character. He classifies organizations into two classes of organizational character. One class is "interests of people," and the other is "interests of the organization." He contends that the behavior of the individuals is a function of the role orientation of the organizational character. Harrison categorizes and contrasts organizations having different orientations and how the arrangement 1John Connor, Superintendent of Schools, "Staffing of the Community School," in Worcester Community Schools Mean . . . Peo le (Worcester, Massa.: Worcester Public Sc 00 s, Septe er, 1972), p. 13. 2 Dow, 92, cit., p. 102. 20 affects the interests of people. Harrison finds that organizations that have the interests of people exhibit the following type of "Role Orientation": high: security against economic, political, psychological deprivation; low: opportunities for voluntary commitment to worthwhile goals; low: Opportunities to pursue one's own growth and development independent of organization goals. In contrast, organizations that have the interests of the organization exhibit the following type of "Role Orientation": moderate to low effective reSponse to dangerous, threatening en- vironments; low: dealing rapidly, and effectively with environmental complexity and change; and high interval integration and coordination of effort if necessary, at the expense of individual needs.1 For at least twelve years, the schools of Michigan have had a philosophy of the union of the school and com— munity. It is thought by some that this role can be filled by the community school director as an aid to the prin- cipal. Some people feel that the role of role of uniting the school and community is the responsibility of the principal. By others this liaison role can best be filled by the community school director Operating semi- autonomously. However, the basic philosophy was laid down by Bartlett. Bartlett states: lRoger Harrison, "Understanding Your Organiza- tion's Character,” Harvard Business Review, L, No. 3 (May-June, 1972), 121. 21 For too long a time it was thought by some that a good school could be operated more or less apart from the community. Regrettably there are those who still believe this to be possible. We do no: think so. We believe that a good school cannot thrive and grow without the active support and constructive interest of the people in the school community. The question of who or how the individual should play this liaison role is a moot question today. The Flint school system has made a step in the direction of searching for a way to provide a liaison administrator under the K-12 program to have some institutionalized relative position to the principal. An article in the Flint Journal quoted Cenko, President of the Flint Board of Education as saying: The K-lZ program has dealt with the first objective while the Mott Foundation financed community school program has dealt with the second he said. The two are interrelated in that the development of indi- viduals contributes to a better community and a better community stimulates the development of better individuals, Cenko said.2 This statement by Cenko complies with the spirit; if not the letter of the statement made by Hart in 1960. lLynn M. Bartlett, State Superintendent, A Statement of Basic Philosophy Regarding_Publick Education, Tfie Importance of the Community to Education, Prepared’ by the Department of Public Instruction (Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Public Instruction, 1960), p. 2. 2Lewis A. Morrissey, "Early Gets New Duty: Clancy is Successor," Flint Journal, Flint, Michigan, May 25, 1972. 22 Campbell in his discussion of "High Quality Leadership,” quotes Mary Follet, and she describes in dramatic form what a community leader should be concerned with. Campbell states: Whoever has struck fire out of me aroused me to action which I should not otherwise have taken, he has been my leader. The community leader is he who can liberate the greatest amount of energy in his community.1 In relating this idea to the community school director, Campbell stated the position of the late Frank Manley on what he thought the role of a community school director should be: Frank hit upon the technique of having his men start work at noon and then continue on in the evening. By making their staff members a kind of friend in court to fathers, mothers, and children, their role became exciting, dynamic, indeed to them a new profession in its own right. There is a maxim in school administration that whenever everybody is responsible, nobody is reaponsible. Frank put teeth into Community Educa- tion by making Community School Directors accountable for certain school-community activities.2 Clancy is taking this concept one step further and extending this role to the principal and establishing an atmosphere whereby these roles can be interchangeable with respect to the principal and community school director. 1Clyde Campbell, "High Quality Leadership," The Community School, National Community School Education Association, nt, Michigan, X, No. 11 (July, 1972), 2. 21bid., p. 3. 23 A bill resides in the house of representatives today concerning the establishment of federal funds for community schools. The bill is H.R. 11709, and is spon- sored by Donald Riegle of Michigan. Riegle states: . . . would provide Federal moneys to help local communities set-up community school systems. These federal dollars appear to suggest a genuine interest in community education by the federal govern- ment. According to Riegle, the amount of taxes people pay appears to be a concern of the public in considering community education. One only has to note the percentage of many citizens' salaries that go for local taxes. Riegle states: Many older Americans are now paying 20-40 percent of their meager incomes to the local tax collector.2 Senator Church (D-Idaho) and Senator Williams (D-N.J.) are proposing the Community School Center Development Act. Riegle states: Gives modest federal financial assistance for the establishment of new community schools and the bolstering of existing ones and would also pay community school directors.3 As the writer reviews the literature of educa- tional administration, one is constantly reminded of the 10.8., Congressional Record, 92d Cong., 2d sess., 1972, CXVIII, Part 2, p. E6670. 2 3 Ibid., p. E6670. Ibid., p. E6671. 24 inadequate body of knowledge in the study of role defini— tion and role perceptions in the field. Four writers, who are well versed in the educational administration field, state very clearly that a need exists for research in the field. These writers are Roald Campbell, Luvern Cunning- ham, Roderick F. McPhee, Raphael O. Nystrand. Campbell suggested that: If there are to be more diverse roles, the need for role understanding and clarification is intensified. Somehow, ways must be found of helping all who work in school systems to understand something about the work of others in the system.1 The writer feels that the administrative team should not be immune to this self-searching of reducing role ambiguity and understanding of role perceptions. The discussion that follows, as sort of an after-thought, the writers do point out the dilemma of the administrator himself. Campbell suggested that: Not only will the administrator of the future find the job of role definition for members of his staff more demanding than at present, he will also find it more difficult to delineate his role in the administrative hierarchy.2 Another great writer in the field of educational administration has been made aware of the limited studies 1Roald F. Campbell, Luvern L. Cunningham, Roderick F. McPhee, and Raphael O. Nystrand, The Organization and Control of American Schools (2nd ed., COlumbus, Ohié: CHarIes E. MerrilIPublishing Company, 1970), p. 265. 21bid., p. 265. 25 in the area of roles and role perceptions in educational research. Halpin suggested that: During the post war period, however, administrators have become increasingly aware of the role of theory and have come to recognize the contributions that social scientists can make to our understanding of educational administration. The superintendent's job and the jobs of principals and supervisors have been viewed afresh in the light of recent human relations research. Those of us responsible for training administrators have welcomed research find- ings on leadership and group behavior, and we have found ourselves drawing heavily upon insights about administration derived from other disciplines. But at the same time we are abashed by the poverty of ‘theory within our own field, have been dismayed by the extent to which our own research has been anchored to "naked empiricism."1 This study will make an attempt to reduce some of the "poverty of theory" in the field, that was stated so ably by Halpin. At this point the writer would like to state some derivations that Halpin found in research studies about role perceptions, and the superordinate—subordinate administrative relationship. He Speaks of it as a kind of interpersonal perception, which is partly what this study will get into except it is reasoned that the major conflicts are not the results of mere personality but due to a lack of administrative data in how to deal with role perceptions. To this point Halpin suggested that: 1Andrew W. Halpin, Administrative Theory in Education (Chicago, Illinois: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1958), p. l. 26 We may mention first a very simple derivation, that is, that the administrative relationship always functions at two levels of interaction. The first level derives from the particular offices or statuses in the social system and is determined by the nature of the roles involved in the interaction. This is, of course, the nomothetic dimension of our model. The second level of interaction derives from the particular people or individuals in the social system and is determined by the personalities involved in the interaction. This is, of course, the idiographic dimension of our model. You will recall that we said that the publicly prescribed nomothetic relationship is enacted in two separate private idiographic situations one by the superordinate. The functioning of the administrative process will, we said, depend on the nature of the overlap-~i.e., on the relative congruence or discrepancy--between the separate perceptions of the expectations in the two situations. This is one way of explaining what will happen when the superordinate and subordinate interact in a school situation that might result in conflict if the perception of subordinate's role is not in harmony with superordinate. Halpin goes on to suggest what happens in a role conflict situation, which the writer refers to as a "role perception conflict situation." Halpin suggested that: Role conflict occurs whenever a role incumbent is required to conform simultaneously to a number of expectations which are mutually exclusive, contradictory, or inconsistent so that adjustment to one set of requirements makes adjustment to the other impossible or at least difficult. Role conflicts in this sense are situational givens and independent of the personality of the role incumbent. They are evidence of disorganization in the nomothetic dimension and may arise in several ways: (a) from disagreement within--the 11bid., p. 159. 27 referent group defining the role; e.g., the princi— pal of the school may be expected by some teachers to visit them regularly for constructive help and by others to trust them as professional personnel not in need of such supervision. This example in the writer's Opinion, is analo- gous to the chief administrator prescribing roles or tasks for his subordinates and the subordinates perceive the prescribed roles or task differently which could lead to possible conflict. The writer has talked a great deal up to this time about role and role expectation. Stogdill has done a great deal Of research on this concept. Indeed, this concept has many dimensions, and has been defined in various ways, but Stogdill suggested a quite workable definition for this term. He suggested that: The concept of role thus encompasses both role expectations and role behavior.2 In this study we are concerned with both expectations and behavior. Let us suggest for the moment how this may happen. The chief prescribes for one assistant the role of disciplinarian. The chief prescribes for one assis- tant or community school director in this case a possibly unacceptable role. The chief has certain expectations of the individual that he has assigned this role to, and the 11bid., p. 161. 2Ralph M. Stogdill, Leadership and Role Expecta- tion (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administra- tion, 1956), p. l. 28 subordinate has certain perceptions as to how this role should be fulfilled. How he will behave in filling this role is dependent upon what the chief expects and what he can reconcile himself to do and at the same time maintain his self-esteem. The resulting role behavior will be a product of what the chief expects him to do and how he sees himself, and how he can reconcile the resulting dif- ferences within his ego-structure. StOgdill refers to Linton's studies to explain the roles associated with the various statuses that an individual plays at various points in time. Though this concept does exist in the school setting, the role of the subordinate is more characteristically a steady state, and is culturally constituted, by the dictates of the prior educational systems. When one refers to the sub- ordinates in the administrative hierarchy at the attend- ance center level, certain stereotypic pictures flash in the minds of central office staff, teachers, parents, pupils and chief. One has only to search the nearest library to find only a very small mention of the sub- ordinates' existence, though the load he carries in the functioning of a school is monumental. A harmonious social system is one in which there is clarity of role expectations on a multilateral basis. It appears to the writer that tradition is a possible dilemma facing both principal and community school 29 director in regard to this problem. The problem may be answered by simply saying, ”we always did it this way." A more scientific approach in dealing with role expecta- tions it appears, is to ask yourself questions. Whose expectations are involved in the problem? Do the roles that I prescribe have synonymous meaning to the person they are being prescribed for or are they unilateral in the direction of my choosing? Do they have meaning for others? Are the roles too restrictive or are they too general? Stogdill suggested that: Roles are not by any measure clearly defined when one examines small formally organized groups and attempts to analyze individual responses concerning expectations for some of the more Specialized statuses, such as vice-president, commanding officers, and similar statuses found in these groups. It is found that these statuses and roles frequently are controversial matters: there is often considerable disagreement among the members of the group in their expectations of behavior for persons occupying these various positions. This situation soon becomes evident when an empirical examination of the problem is attempted.1 To remedy some of the confusion Stogdill makes a distinction between the two types of expectations. Stogdill suggested that: It has been found convenient in the present analysis to distinguish between two types of expectations: (a) Self-expectations and (b) expectations by others.2 Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., p. 3. 30 The fluidity of the role definition was discussed by Haas under what he called "role consensus." Haas defines ”role consensus" as: These normative specifications which a person holds may be referred to as his definition of the role, or more simply, his role conception. Each member of a group has a conception of what is required, what is permitted behavior for each of the roles which are the normative base for the performance structure of the group.1 Haas also Speaks to the point of the multi- dimensional configuration of the Of the role makes it an exciting forces the researcher to stay in ical because he cannot be really tionship, however, data can help role. This characteristic variable to study, and the realm of the theoret- sure of the causal rela- him to be more objective about the concept. Haas suggested that: A role is a relatively complex and multi-dimensional configuration. Any instrument designed to elicit an accurate reflection of a person's role conception must take this complex characteristic into account. That is, the instrument must differ from a uni- dimensional scale in that it must elicit responses to many different aspects rather than to just one.2 Fendrock suggested that: When man's material wants are satisfied, his quest for improvement moves to other areas. The result has been the voicing of increasing concern for the nonmaterial values in life which seemed to have eluded our society during this harvest of plenty. This self-evaluation is not new. It can be traced 1 J. Eugene Haas, Role Conception and Group Con- sensus (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State’University, Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administra- tion, 1964), p. 33. 21bid., p. 44. 31 to Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson, who sought the simple pleasures in life, ignoring the then prevalent pursuit of industrial development. Today, however, this mild protest has been trans- formed into violent reaction and caustic criticism of what the American way of life has become. Much attention has focused upon the manager as the creator of this condition. Fendrock makes this general statement about the changing role of the executive. Fendrock suggested that: Concurrent with the demands of his job are those demands made upon him as a socio-civic person in the community, a husband and father in the house, and a man living with himself.2 If the principals in Flint need to find comfort in numbers, they should be quite satisfied because accord- ing to Fendrock the new role of the principal as a "socio- civic person in the community," is the new image for all executives. Jennings makes the following statement about the trend in handling authority and delegation. Jennings states: Today the chief executive delegates his authority to more executives who interact more frequently with him about decisions made exclusively by his predecessors. Because his subordinates are more numerous and carry more authority than ever before, the offices in the executive suite are both larger and more numerous.3 1John J. Fendrock, Goals in Conflict (New York: American Management Association, Inc., 1969). p. 7. 21bid., p. 99. 3Eugene Emerson Jennings, Routes to the Executive Suite (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971), p. 35. 32 In summary, this exploration of the literature has made an attempt to explain some background information about a dramatic unique change that is taking place in the Flint school system. The K-12 program and the com- munity school program are being merged. The roles of the principal and community school director are being changed to a super-ordinate and subordinate relationship. Studies in role relationships are presented to give a basis for examination of the perceptions of the roles of the two pOpulations in this study, the principals, and the community school directors. The broad Spectrum of comparisons that have been studied on this subject may lend itself to the possibility of more freedom of error. A narrowing in on a comparison Of two groups having a more similar function, and a one—to- one relationship, might more one a step closer to the problem. For example, studies have been done on teacher versus principals, community groups versus community school directors, and administrators, but seldom if ever have studies been done on positional relationships that are relatively similar in physical environment, and posi- tional relationships. The principal is in a different environment from the superintendent, and the teacher has a different function from the principal. Therefore, these differences may be inherently conflicting. 33 The Socio-Psychological-Cultural Implications of ROIe and RoIe Conflict The concept of role and role conflict is a socio- psychological-cultural term that has its base in the field of psychology, sociology, and anthropology. For more depth of understanding one has to examine this notion in these fields. In this section of the review of the litera- ture, an attempt will be made to scratch the surface of this concept in its proper perSpective using a multi- disciplinary approach trying to remain ever cognizant of the relationship of role as it relates to the principal and community school director. More specifically, what happens in a super-ordinate and subordinate relationship in an organizational group setting? What are the socio-psychological implications of conflict in the school setting? Educational administration as described by Roald Campbell, and its future direction, gives promise to becoming a true science through scien— tific inquiry. Campbell states: Educational administration will be seen not only as a field of practice but also as a field of study intimately related to the broader world of scholar- ship.1 Due to the multidisciplinary domain of problems faced by educational administrator and the history of the discipline, it has been necessary to resort to the fields of sociology, 1Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Adminis- tration (New York: The MacMiIlan Company, I967), p. vi. 34 psychology, and anthrOpology for its source of data and theory. Therefore, socio-psychological-cultural implica- tions may be discussed at this point. Socio-psychological may be defined as relating to, or involving a combination of social and psychological factors. The principal and community school director are individuals that interact with each other, and other groups. Therefore, problems which result from these interactions have both social and psychological and social connotations and implications. Role as defined by Gross is: A term which we use to refer to expectations or standards applied to the behavior of incumbents of a position. Role conflict in this study will be defined as any notice- able differences between one individual's perceptions of what his role is and what his superordinates or subordi- nates think his role should be. The principalship may be defined by Gross as: the individual who leads his staff.2 Gross made a study of 175 principals and examined their perceptions of the administrative superior's be- havior. The instrument that he used is referred to as the lIbid., p. 91. 2Neal Gross, Staff Leadership in Public Schools: A Sociolo ical In uir (New York: John Wiley and SOns, Inc., 1963), p. I36. 35 EPL (Executive Professional Leadership). Gross used a .02 level of confidence or, p < .02. Gross states the follow- ing findings: Three out of four principals say their work is an important activity (item 1). But only two out Of five say their superiors always help them to understand their important problems or make prin- cipals' meetings a valuable educational activity (items 5 and 6).1 The latter statement in the above quote appears to be a source of role conflict. What the principal has perceived as important is not perceived as important by his super- iors or his superiors have not found it necessary to pay attention to his needs. Whatever the reason the situation is potentially conflict producing. Gross further states other areas of conflict when he cites obstacles to the principal conforming to his role. Gross states: We have posited that a ba51c obstacle to a prin- cipal's conforming to professional leadership definition of his role is the resistance his sub- ordinates could offer to his efforts to influence their behavior because of their ideas about their own autonomy.2 Of the 175 principals studied by Gross he ob- tained some very interesting findings. Gross states: 1. The greater the EPL displayed by the principal's immediate administrative superior, the greater the EPL of the principal. 2. The greater the managerial support displayed by the principal's immediate administrative superior, the greater the EPL of the principal. 1 2 Ibid., p. 108. Ibid., p. 108- 36 3. The more social support a principal receives from his immediate administrative superior, the greater the EPL of the principal. 4. The more the higher administration's approval of a principal's introducing educational change, the greater his EPL. 5. The more the higher administration involves a principal in the selection of his teachers, the greater the EPL.1 This study is interesting because now the prin- cipal is in the superior role, and it will be of interest if the same general response or reactions to their super- iors will be found by the subordinates of the principals. In short, how much change in behavior will be observed by the principal switching roles from a subordinate to a superior status? How much conflict is inherent in the status position? For a more technical definition of role one may refer to Gross. Gross states: A role is a set of expectations, or in terms of our definition of expectations, it is a set of evaluative standards applied to an incumbent of a particular position. The usage of the term in this study is bidirectional because it refers to one's own expectations and the ex- pectations of one's own superior or subordinate. Stogdill suggests that all groups have as one of their components of interaction, expectations. In this study the 11bido' pp. 108“].80 2Neal Gross, Ward 8. Mason, Alexander McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis (New York: John Wiley an Sons, Inc., 1956), p. 60. 37 expectations of the incumbent and the relationship with the person in the Opposite role is suspect. Role conflict may be described as the incompati- bility of expectations. Gross suggests that incumbents who suspect that they have been exposed to role conflict will find their job satisfaction influenced or affected./ Closely associated with the term role is the term position or status. It is necessary to take this term under consideration before talking about the role con- flict because they are so interrelated. Gross states: . . . locations of actors in systems of social relationships, they can be completely described only by an examination of the content of their relationships.1 This relationship of the status of principal and community school director is not easily defined in most school systems. However, the superintendent's office is direc- tionally clear. With some understanding of what role and status might be, let us examine some possible approaches to conflict resolution. Gross quotes Parsons on one possible approach. Gross states: . . . differences have to be adjusted by an ordering of allocation of the claims of the different role expectations to which the actor is subject. This ordering occurs by priority scales, by occasion, e.g., time and place, and by distribution among alters . . .2 llbido' pp. 49-50. 21bido' p. 281.. 38 Gross cites Toby's approach of prevention of conflict, and Getzel's and Guba's approach of mobility or mobilizing the conflict forward.1 According to Parsons the process of finding and creating the necessary roles is conflict oriented. He suggested that in the earlier stages of the groups in which individuals interact, there is a struggle for position or status, and otherwise settling questions of relative statuses.2 In many school systems because of the nature of the ambiguity of the two positions, principal and community school director: this "jockeying for position," as Parsons calls it, continues and is probably continuing now. Parsons suggests that goal specification of the individual member will lead to gratification. This gratification states Parsons perhaps in the beginning comes from success in his role as a promoter of solidarity and provider of tension release.3 This works fine if the individual accepts the role of instrumental leader. However, if the individual accepts the role of the sociometric leader, goal specification is conflict producing. Parsons stated that: lIbid., p. 281. 2Talcott Parsons, Robert F. Bales, and Edward A. Shils, Workin Papers in the Theory of Action (Glencoe, Ill.: Tfie Free Press, 1953), p. 250. 31bid., p. 250. 39 When we say that a role is institutionalized and that its pattern accordingly derives from the common value system. We mean essentially that the incumbent of this role as a unit is a system and performs certain types of interaction . . .1 For example, the institutional role, of the principal is not to get too overly involved in the after- noon program, but to concentrate his energies toward the K-12 program solely. To expect him to revolutionize his orientation instantaneously might become a source of conflict. To begin to share in responsibility, authority, and delegation might be a traumatic experience, and a source of probable conflict. Parsons explains what action Clancy has taken in defining the principal and community school director's role in theoretical terms. Parsons states: The legitimation of a differentiated role if "per- mission," is granted in accordance with the common value pattern by alter or alters for ego to act differently from the way they do.2 Parsons makes a point of the power and influence of the institutionalized role. Though he was concerned with the doctor-patient relationship, the analogy may be the same; if you view the situation in terms of the variables being, needs of others, expectations of others, and institutionalized framework. Parsons states: Ibid., p. 250. Ibid., p. 252. 40 . . . he is placed in an institutionally defined framework which are imputed to him, which is such an important feature of his role.1 Parsons suggests that universalism, neutrality, and specificity, are necessary factors in the acceptability of the role relationship. Parsons looks at role conflict as: By this is meant the exposure of the actor to con- flicting sets of legitimized role expectations such that complete fulfillment of both is realis- tically impossible. Parsons connects conflict to uncertainty and mal- integration. He suggests that role conflict might have its beginning when there is a dilemma between the "per- fectionistic," compulsive conformity pattern and the ego. However, he suggests that the ego is not always to blame. The cause may be outside of the social system. However, Parsons does mean that both sides of the conflicting ex- pectations are legitimized. This differs slightly from the Flint situation because the board posits that the status of the relationship will be that the principal is the superordinate, and the community school director is the subordinate.3 Parsons argues that societal differentiatedness breeds role conflict. If this be true then there must be 1Talcott Parsons, The Social System (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press of Glencoe, 195I), p. 475. 21616., p. 280. 31616., p. 281. 41 a way to ameliorate or deal with the conflict once it has arisen. Parsons states: The differentiatedness of the society therefore must be articulated with the capacities of its individual members to manage these plural role participations which with greater differentiatedness, inherently involve potentialities of role conflict 1 as well as 1ndef1n1teness of normative expectat1on. Dunkin did a study of 114 male primary teachers in Australia to determine the nature and how to resolve role conflict. He was concerned about role conflicts between teachers' needs and role expectations. His design was similar to this study in that he concerned himself with perceptions of the individual and the perceptions of others. He referred to this as "self oriented" and "other oriented.” The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule was used in the study. With a .01 level of confidence, his data suggested that individuals who are self-directed have role conflict with socially induced forces. Their behavior will be exhibited in terms of their needs. The other directed individual will behave in the reverse.2 A c0py of the structural arrangements of Dunkin's paradigm is located in Appendix C. The illustration Shows 1Talcott Parsons, American Sociology (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968), p. 328. 2Michael J. Dunkin, "The Nature and Resolution of Role Conflict Among Male Primary School Teachers," Sociology of Education, XLV, No. 2 (1972), 167—82. 42 that the structure of conflicts is a function of role expectation versus needs versus role expectations divided by behavioral continuum. Mitchell reports on a study made at the University Of Kentucky in which it was found that practicing educa- tional administrators could be classified into three broad personality groups according to behavior. These groups are as follows: . . . accept their own worth and . . . believe that other people are equally or more accepting of their worth. . . . administrators "reject themselves but believe that other peOple are more accepting of themselves." . . . individuals who "accept themselves and believe that other people are less accepting of themselves."1 Mitchell reports that behavior is a function of one's perception, and that changing perceptions would be changing behavior according to the University of Kentucky study.2 Mitchell found the following results to be sig- nificant in his study: Initiating structure behavior is Significantly correlated with consideration behavior. Perceptions and expectations are significantly correlated. 1Leonard L. Mitchell, Jr., "The Expressed Percep- tions and Expectations of Selected Prospective Secondary School Teachers as They View the Leader Behavior of the Secondary School Principal" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta— tion, Michigan State University, 1969), p. 33. 21bido' pp. 33-340 43 Perceptions cannot be used as predictors of expectations. The reverse is also true. Crosby suggested in his study that he would make some recommendations for ways in which conflicting ex- pectations might be harmonized if it is developed that there were such conflicting expectations. He also sug- gested that in the past the community school director may have assumed or failed to assume his professional roles appropriately, it may be due to lack of knowledge of the expectations, or lack of skill in recognition of situations which call for an expanded and different set of roles.2 Crosby recommends as an area for further study the following statement: Since Cowan's study indicated considerable conflict between the community school directors and teachers, additional research should be considered to deter- mine if the high level of conflict still exists. If so, the reasons for the conflict Should be determined.3 In support of the statements above, Edson reports in his study that: 11616., p. 79. 2Jerry David Crosby, "A Study of the Expectancies Which Community School Directors and Related Others Have of the Community School Directors' Roles in Serving Neighborhoods of Eight Inner-City Schools in the City of Flint, Michigan" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965), p. 3. 31616., p. 183. 44 In an attempt to discover the nature and extent of agreement among role-expectations and among the role-perceptions held by various reference groups concerning the superintendent's function, Sweitzer found a greater commonality of percep- tions among those in the same reference group than among those in different reference groups within the hierarchy of a school system. In summary, Gross dealt with the principals and their superiors. There appeared to be discrepancies in the perceptions of the principals and their superiors when Gross examined their roles. Theories of conflict may have different bases. Parson bases role conflict on the expectations and statuses of the actors in a role, while Getzel and Cuba focuses on the mobility of the conflict as a resolution technique. Crosby and Mitchell base their conflict theories on structure and expectations. The broad spectrum of comparisons that have been studied on this subject may lend itself to the possi- bility of more freedom of error. A narrowing in on a comparison of two groups having a more similar function, and a one-to-one relationship, might move one step closer to the problem. For example, studies have been done on teachers versus principals, community groups versus community school directors, and administrators, but sel seldom, if ever, have studies been done on positional 1Gilmore L. Edson, "An Analysis of the Percep— tions of Administrative Activity by Michigan School Superintendents and Professors of Educational Adminis- tration” (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963), p. 14. 45 relationships that are relatively similar in physical environment, and positional relationships. The principal is in a different environment from the superintendent, and the teacher has a different function from the prin— cipal. Therefore, these differences may be inherently conflicting. TO state further, Mitchelll states that behavior is a function of one's perception, and perception is a way in which we see things. Therefore, perception conflict might be caused by blinding environmental pollution. The sociologists, as he views man's problems of conflict, focus in on the human social structure and relationships. How man behaves as a social being in con- flict situations. He differs from the psychologist in that the psychologist focuses on the individuals or groups as it relates to the mind and the emotions. The socio— psychologist, focuses on a blending of the two disciplines. Problems of individual or group's mental or emotional problems as they relate to human social structures and their relationships. Using Talcott Parson's five pattern variables, namely, company job requirements, company interest, uni- formity of performance emphasis and work specificity, Mumford found the following to be true about job satis- faction. Mumford states: lMitchell, 9p. cit., pp. 33-34. 46 If a firm can recruit and train employees whose need dispositions meet its role expectations, then there will be little conflict of interest and there should be a considerable overlap between the ob- jectives of the company and the objectives of its staff. Similarly, if an individual can find an employer whose role expectations meet his need dispositions then the same degree of harmony Should occur. Again the position that Dunkin took about the individual and his "needs" seem to have a relationship to the harmony that exists between the staff members of an organization. In conclusion Mumford states: The analytical approach set out here, which starts with the product market and then considers the culture and functions of a company and the impact these have on the role expectations they will have of its staff, can provide a method for distinguishing the work environment of one type of firm from that of another. It seems a more viable approach than looking at simple factors such as size of technology. It can also provide managers with a method of checking if they are selecting, training, controlling and motivating staff in a manner which is in line with the firm's objectives.2 According to Lauer and Boardman an interesting theory of roles is proposed by Lauer. Lauer states: Appropriative role-taking is the process by which the attitudes of the other are not only imagi- natively constructed, but internalized. That is, l . . Enid Mumford, "Job Satisfaction--A New Approach Derived From an Old Theory," The Sociolo ical Review, The Un1vers1ty of Keele, Staffordshire, §VIII, No. I (March, 1970), 77. 21bido' pp. 94-990 47 the attitudes of the other are incorporated into the structure of the self.1 Another concept closely related to role-taking is synesic which is defined by Lauer as: Synesic role taking is the imaginative construction Of the other's attitude, such that not only is his behavior anticipated, but an understanding of his feelings, his perceptions, his definition of the situation, is gained.2 Lauer suggests that role—taking leads to playing at the role that leads to appropriate role-taking that causes a change in Opinions.3 Braroe uses an example of the Indian and the White community's reciprocal exploitation. The White men exploit the Indian men economically, and the Indians exploit the White men by acting as "con- artists.” Braroe feels that Indians and Whites success- fully predict one another's behavior and both are mutually benefited, as far as their images are concerned.4 GerHardt suggests that role conflict differs with the class structure; it differs mainly in the resolution of conflict as we cross class lines. No one would argue that principals and community school directors are in the 1Robert H. Lauer and Linda Boardman, ”Role-Taking: Theory, Typology, and PrOpositions," Sociology and Social Research, Los Angeles, California: University of Southern California, LV, No. 2 (January, 1971), 139. 2 3 1616., p. 139. Ibid., p. 140. 41616., p. 141. 48 middle class. However, GerHardt divides his study into the upper middle class and the lower classes, and con- cludes that differences between the individual and collective resolutions of conflict are directly related to work positions and social inequality.1 GerHardt states that many authors hold that roles are internalized. This view is held by Lauer. However, GerHardt suggests that research differentiates between two forms of internalization in addition to other forms of norm commitment. Which he refers to as "humanistic- flexible orientation," and the "conventional-rigid orientation,” for the internalized roles. For the norm commitment he refers to them as "compliance," and 'identification."2 GerHardt states further in his discussion of conflict orientations: Conflict orientations, on the other hand, are exper- ienced in those positions whichtoffti a certain scope of'free detision and autonomy for the roIe incumBents. ReIative autonomy and SCOpe of decision are conditions for the occurrence of conflicting demands in a role and at the same time theyyare characteristics of superordinate occupational rank. 3* 1Uta GerHardt, "Role Conflict and the Class Structure," Sociology and Social Research, LV, No. 3 (April, 1971 , 2 3 Ibid., p. 287. Ibid., p. 289. * Indicates these statements are very significant to this study. 49 Viano reports on a study by Blankenship and Miles in which they examined the relationship between organ- izational size, hierarchical position, and five dimensions of managerial decision behavior. Viano suggests " . . . that position in the hierarchy mediates the relationship between agency size and managerial attitudes."1 Viano used 296 individuals from throughout the United States. They came from the federal, state, and county and city systems. His data indicated that on the dimension which included soliciting, weighing and incorporating the decisions of their peers and subordinate administrators, the study suggested that high scores were indicative of a readiness to involve peers in decision making.2 Beegle suggests some ways to ameliorate super- ordinate-subordinate conflict. Beegle states: The more you delegate, the more time you have for training and developing your subordinates so that. 3 they can assume even more delegated respon81b1lit1es. Beegle believes that one should visit his sub- ordinates periodically on a friendly non-business basis. lEmilio Viano and John Wildeman, "Organizational Size and Managerial Attitudes of Probation Administra- tors," Sociology and Social Research, LVI, No. 4 (July, I972), 481. 21616., p. 483. 3BernardB. Beegle, "Don't Do It--Delegate It!" Supervisory Management, XV, No. 4 (April, 1970), 3. 50 In this way he can spot problems before they arise. He suggests further that one should become acquainted with his subordinates' capabilities so as not to assign him tasks that are not attainable, too difficult, or too distasteful to him.1 Benton uses the illustration of a football game to demonstrate how people's perceptions color their opinions. He suggests if spectators viewed a football game accurately and objectively they would all agree on what happens. However, states Benton: Our attitudes, our interests, our expectations-- all of these help to determine how we perceive something.2 Benton writes a section of his article in which he entitles it quite fittingly, "Correcting Distorted Vision.” Benton states: Once you understand how and why perceptions differ you can take steps to prevent the conflicts they often cause. First, you should examine your own position when a disagreement erupts or seems imminent. Here are some questions you might ask yourself, before you jump into the argument. A few of the questions will be listed in the following statements. Benton states: 11616., p. 6. 2Lewis R. Benton, "The Many Faces of Conflict: How Differences in Perception Cause Differences of Opinion," Supervisory Management, XV, No. 3 (March, 1970), 7. 31616., p. 10. 51 Am I taking all the facts of the situation into account or only the ones that fit in with my way of thinking? How are my attitudes influencing the way I see this situation? Am I looking at it fairly and objectively, or through the distorting filter of my prejudices? Levison in discussing the subordinates points out a possible conflict. Levison states: . . . some so-called leaders are actually afraid to develop other peOple. They seem to feel threatened by the talents of others. They appar— ently fear they may be outclassed.2 Levison admonishes the superordinate to motivate, inSpire, and encourage his subordinates. Uncover the hidden talents that your subordinate might have. He says that our job is to search for the deeply hidden talents of ourselves and others with whom we have supervision over . 3 Dr. Candoli, Superintendent of Lansing Schools, stated: That he was not aware of the environmental distance between the superintendent's office and the assistant principal's office until he had been in office for a year. They made him aware of his neglect toward them, and now he meets with them once a month.4 11616., p. 10. 2Robert E. Levison, "Are You Afraid to Develop Talented Subordinates?" Supervisory Managgment, XVII, No. 3 (March, 1972), 12. 31616., p. 14. 4Dr. Candoli, Superintendent of Lansing Schools, Lansing, Michigan, Interview, October 18, 1972. 52 Drabick suggests that group influences the per- ception of a societal role. He also suggests that based on experimentation, persons resident in logically discrete societal categories exhibit the same perceptions of the group in which they are resident. Included in this ran- domized study were school administrators, teachers, and community members.1 Epstein studied 899 professional social workers. In analyzing the action effects of the role orientation, Epstein found that bureaucratic orientation relates to conservatism, a client orientation relates to radicalism and a profession orientation, when taken alone, is neither.2 In explaining how graduate students take on the professional identity, Jackson, Spitzer, and Ballentine examine role using a different approach from the symbolic interactionistic approach to social behavior such as role playing, role taking, the development of self, and role commitment. Jackson's position is the categories used to classify people, situations, and objects is learned through language. Therefore, the individual, contrary 1Lawrence W. Drabrick, "Social Position as a Factor in Perception of Role Performance,” Sociological Abstracts, xx, No. V (August, 1972), 1060. 2Irwin Epstein, "Professional Role Orientations and Conflict Strategies," Sociological Abstracts, XX, Nos. I-II (February-April, 1972), 9. 53 to the Freudian concept, defines his sex role expecta- tions on the basis of an accomplished level of cognition.1 Brumbaugh in a study of 34 practicing school administrators and 95 graduate students studying admin- istration examined authenticity-inauthenticity. In- authenticity is reality distortion in the psychoanalytic sense. The evidence did not support the hypothesis that ambivalence was inversely related to dogmatism at the .01 level. He concluded that using the ambivalence measure as an index of inauthenticity was questionable.2 In summary, the relationship of role in a social setting as evidenced by the behavior on the job gives clear examples of role conflict in a practical setting. Some areas of concern according to Mumford were staff expectations and staff relationships. The perceptions of the "other" as researched by Lauer, reveals socio- logical implications of role conflict. Some hold that role conflict is a function of social class. Benton and Levison have given some alternative ways for dealing with role conflict. Whatever the rationale used, it appears that role conflict does have an influence on the actions of others. 1Ronald Jackson, Steve Spitzer, Jeanne Ballentine, "Cognition and the Acquisition of Professional Identity," Sociological Abstracts, XX, No. III (May, 1972), 26. 2Robert B. Brumbaugh, "Authenticity and Theories of Administrative Behavior,” Sociological Abstracts, XX, No. IV (July, 1972), 39. 54 Zabiholah studied 134 male supervisors of a civil service organization that were classified in three job levels. He predicted, and the evidence supported his con- tention that motivator characteristics of role perception were positively related to indices of job performance, but not hygiene characteristics. His data supported his hypothesis that motivator characteristics of role percep- tions of supervisors at higher level jobs would increase.1 Zabiholah states: The results of this study supported the industrial applicability of Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene Theory and its predictions regarding motivational sources and job performance. Psychological Implications of Role Conflict Klinger and McNelly, in a study of role analysis held that the concepts of "motive" and "role" are not mutually exclusive terms. He suggested that they operate on a different sphere of analysis. Klinger and McNelly suggested that: Role enactments are socially supported and controlled and presumably develOp as the behavioral product of social operant shaping processes. The implied invokability of sanctions can be expected to maintain learned avoidance responses on the part of the participants in social interaction. Each role thus comes to suggest and delimit an individual's 1Sabet-SharGhi Zabiholah, "The Relationships Between Motivational Orientation, Role Perception, and Job Performance,” Dissertation Abstracts International, xxx11, No. 3B (Septeflaer, I971), 1894f. 21616., p. 18948. 55 permissible aspirations, rewards, strategies and acts in each particular kind of social context, and also Specifies a number of role-inappropriate aspirations, rewards, strategies, and acts. In the anthropological sense, this means that role enact- ment does not allow for acceptable deviance within the normal range. This enviromment for role behavior provides for a fertile field for conflict. To state this another way, Klinger and McNelly suggested that: The presumption, then, must be that persons who defy role prescriptions do so at the cost of some anxiety. One consequence should be the readily observable fact that people develop2 resistances to role-inappropriate behavior. strong Klinger and McNelly concluded that social class status is related to values and performance. That achievers perceive themselves as overcoming difficult tasks, that the possibility of success is limited, and that they strive the hardest under these circumstances. One way in which status might effect performance is by prescribing approach or circumventing achievement goals. This exposes the individuals to role conflicts during role-inappropriate competition which gives rise to anxiety and gets in the way of performance.3 4' 1Eric Klinger and Frederick W. McNelly, Jr., "Fantasy Need Achievement and Performance: A Role Analysis, Analysis,” Psychological Review, LXXVI, No. 6 (November, 1969), 575. 2 3 Ibid., p. 282. Ibid., p. 989. 56 Derr, in a study of conflict resolution, borrows from the views of an educational administrator. Derr stated that: The conflict resolution strategy that usually proves effective is Situational. It depends on one's assessment of the severity of the disagreement, on who the organization is being attacked by, on whether the conflict is potentially constructive (that is, will produce creative tensions) or destructive, and knowledge the administrator possesses for dealing with the particular conflict in question. Though Derr is referring to extra-organizational conflict, some parts of this technique might be applicable to intra- organizational conflict down to the one-to-one relation- ships.2 In Speaking of interpersonal conflict, Derr stated that: Conflicts arise because of differences of opinion, different orientations, power struggles, role competition, and other events that involve two or more persons. The source of the conflict is between these parties--usually over work—related issues—- rather than just within the individuals themselves.3 Derr further discusses conflict and cites instances where principals are in competition with one another. Conflict is many times bred from competition for scarce resources. Derr suggested that conflict may be bred from role lC. Brooklyn Derr, "Conflict Resolution in Organ- izations: Views from the Field of Educational Administra— tion,” Public Administration Review, XXXII, No. 5 (SeptemEer70ctober, 1972), 495. 2 3 Ibid.’ p. 495. Ibid.’ p. 496. 57 negotiation, which he defined as a process of negotiating for a more favorable-~yet acceptable--role in the organization.1 In summary, Derr suggested that the administrator should assess the situation, make a decision about the scarce resources that he might employ, and apply appro- priate strategy to resolve the conflict.2 Runkel suggested in his discussion of the homo- geneity of role taking in a given group that an arbitrary choice of groups or organizations, rather than random sample cannot yield an unbiased estimate of the pervasive- ness of some characteristics of role taking. He points out as an example the number of identifiable roles that one might discover in a group.3 Peterfreund suggested in his discussion of how individuals deal with conflict that defense activity, behavior, or subjective psychological experience can be referred to as the clinical manifestations of the sub- stitute. He feels that the organism has a deactivating capability to turn off programs that produce pain, anxiety and conflict. Detective or inadequate programming can 1 2 Ibid., p. 501. Ibid., p. 500. 3Philip J. Runkel and Joseph E. McGrath, Research on Human Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1972), p.—IB3. 58 lead to conflict that may lead to pathological activity that results from stress, pain and anxiety.1 Guttman's definition of perception is quite dif- ferent from the one used in this study, "perceiving is behaving.” Guttman speaks of this methodological dualism in psychology. He holds that the concepts of perceiving, and behaving are systematically interchangeable. He posits that all human activities whether of the so-called mental type or overt actions, or interactions of the organisms react to objects that have stimulated them.2 In summary, it appears that psychological impli- cations of role conflict can have a profound affect on the administrative behavior of the individual as he inter- acts with his subordinate or superordinate. There are possibilities for psychological damage to be done. There are possibilities for dealing with conflict as suggested by Derr. Psychological well being should be a considera- tion in examining role conflict as evidenced by the research. Mental attitudes and sound emotional make-up appears to be important variables in considering conflict 'according to the literature. 1Emanuel Peterfreund, "The Programming of Bio- logical Activity, Behavior, and Subjective Psychological Experience: Pathology Conflict, and Defense," Psycho- logical Issues, VII, No. l (1971), 170. 2Parker E. Lichtenstein, "A Behavioral Approach to Phenomenological Data,” The Psychological Record, XXI, 59 Anthropological Approach to Role and RO1e Conflict In relationship to how an interview Should be con- structed to obtain meaningful data, Selltiz, Jahoda Deutsch, and Cook reported Neal Gross as stating that: One aspect of this study concerned superintendents' perception of role conflicts (defined by the investi- gators as exposure to incompatible expectations on thepart of different groups). Open-ended questions failed to bring replies relevant to the investigators' concept of ”role conflict"; experimentation with different wording brought no success. Finally, they changed to a procedure of Opening the interview with descriptions of situations involving problems that all superintendents face (criteria for the hiring and promotion of teachers, for example). . . .1 In the interviewing portion of this study an attempt will be made to follow the suggestions of Selltiz relative to the interviewing process. Wallace suggested that many social scientists combine epidemiological data and processual theory to develop unique individual culture types that present the individuals with probable stress situations which are determined by role or some value conflict that is laid down by the culture. Homans states that there are no roles without statuses or statuses without roles. He suggested that once the rights and duties become assigned to statuses 1Claire Selltiz, Marie Jahoda, Morton Deutsch, and Stuart W. Cook, Research Methods in Social Relations (New York: Holt, Rinéhart, and Winston, 1959), p. 259. 60 the individual begins to perform a role the minute the status is activated. Another way of stating the above is that the role is the expected form of the relationship between individuals. According to Homans: Some modern psychologist would say that the subordi— nate extends to the superior those attitudes he has already learned to adOpt toward his father in the small family.1 Homans states that the relationship between superior and subordinate is partially the same in every group; it varies in the degree to which the subordinate can escape from authority, and the degree to which the superior is chosen by the members of the group.2 Homans stated in his summary that: When two persons interact with one another, the more frequently one of the two originates interaction for the other, the stronger will be the latter's sentiment of respect (or hostility) toward him, and the more nearly will the frequency of interaction be kept to the amount characteristic of the external system.3 He separates culture conflicts into role incompatibility, and value incompatibility. He further subdivides role incompatibility conflict into role replacement and simul- taneous role conflict. He cites as an example of replace- ment role conflict, retirement. Simultaneity role con- flict can be seen in "conflict of interests" situations. 1George C. Homans, The Human Gropp_(New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., I950), pp. 12, 134. 2 3 Ibid., p. 246. Ibid., p. 247. 61 Value conflicts have the capability of producing forms of neurosis such as amnesias, "shell Shock," and "combat fatigue."l Burton Benedict reports on Leachian's notion that human action is power based. Burton further reports Barth's notion that a person playing a role must be aware that value lost will be greater than value gained. Burton further reports on Brown and his trans- actional analysis approach as he states that: Instead of looking at the external sanctions which brings an individual actor back into line if he has transgressed the norms of a particular role, we look at the transaction itself in terms of gains or losses to the interacting actors. This attention is focused on forces internalized within the indi- vidual at his range of choices in a given social transaction. These statements have enormous implications for the principal and the community school director, because of the mere structure of the organization if frequent interaction is not built into the design. Kluckhohn suggested in his discussion of social roles that: 1Anthony F. C. Wallace, Culture and Personality (New York: Random House, 1970), p. 232. 21616., p. 39. 3Burton Benedict, "Family Forms and Economic Development," Southwestern Journal of Anthropology [New Mexico: University of New Mexico), XXIV, No. I (Spring, 1968), 3. 62 In the group it is the leader or government (system of legislators and administrators) that assumes reSponsibility for the structuring of social roles and the carrying out of policies (domestic and foreign). The id of the personality is somewhat comparable to the disaffected low status members of a social system, the "unwashed masses," including the "creative minority" (Toynbee) the radical reformers and fanatics, as well as the criminals and psychotics. Every structured ego "holds a lunatic in leash” (Santayana). Kluckholm continues his discussion of social roles when he states that: Thus, by extending the concept of role (social role) to include personal roles, a personality action system and social action system can be represented as roughly homologous, at least in certain ‘ respects. Parsons suggested obligatory role orientation by placing too much pressure on the individual to achieve. Such problems are treated by suspension of the role obligation pressure in favor of allowing the individual to indulge in his dependency needs under controlled conditions. The process is used for a supporting, rein- forcing device, which in therapeutic language, is re- capitulation of the socializing experience.3 1Clyde Kluckhohn and Henry A. Murray, Personality in Nature, Society and Culture (New York: Alfréd’A} Knopf, 1971), pp. 18;19. 21616., pp. 18-19. 3Talcott Parsons, Social Structure and Person— ality (New York: The Free Press, 1965), pp. 288-89. 63 Honigman in his discussion of the nature of cul— ture had this to say about role. Honigman stated that ”For roles simply represent culture allocated to indi- viduals of requisite birth, sex, age, and training."1 Honigman reports that according to anthropological pre- dictions when role behavior goes far enough, kin terms will also alter in order to provide for distinct social statuses.2 It can be seen here that roles are culturally constituted types of behavior, capable of changing or being altered, it varies from group to group and from culture to culture; however there are some commonalities in some situational role categories. Hoebel defines as the directives for doing various tasks the inevitability of man's role playing. He states that every man in some degree is playing a role or "poseur," as he calls it. He says that a person's be- havior is natural when he has become somewhat habituated to all of his roles to the point where he does not have to prepare himself to perform them. He says that the human organism is a complex multi-roles organism; this varies in the degree, intensity, and time that the roles are activated. Roles may be latent or manifest, depending on 1John J. Honigman, Understanding Culture (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1963), p. 311. 21616., p. 75. 64 the level of awareness, intensity, and competition with other competing roles.1 Barrett quotes Porter and Lawler in their study of 1966 and 1962, in which they found a positive relation- ship to exist between hierarchical level and individual need-fulfillment. This is significant to this study because according to Lawler's study one should expect a positive correlation between need-fulfillment and goal integration. Another factor is that according to the study persons in lower status roles are less likely to experience a high degree of goal integration. Therefore it appears that goal integration as well as need- fulfillment is a function of hierarchical level.2 Perlman looks at role from a theoretical per- spective. She examines it via the personality systems and social judgment systems. Perlman stated that: It seems to me that in every age phase, from infancy onward, the continuous exercise of personality functions and tasks that are governed by role expectations and their social judgments. These shape and infuse every aSpect of the personality. Vital roles are both time-extensive and emotion- intensive.3 1E. Adamson Hoebel, Anthropology: The Study of Man (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972), _ pp. 343, 365. 2Jon H. Barrett, Individual Goals and Organ- izational Ob'ectives (Ann Arbor, Mich.: tUniversity of Michigan, I970), p. 42. 3Helen Harris Perlman, Persona (Chicago: The lJniversity of Chicago Press, 1968), p. 56. 65 Perlman quoted Freud when she cited the importance of work to man, which evidenced that man's working rela- tionship with those nearest him is as important as the work itself. Perlman suggested: Freud noted the importance of work to man's connection with his society: " . . . work has a greater effect than any other technique of living in the direction of binding the individual more closely to reality; in his work he is at least securely attached to a part of reality, the human community." But then pessimistically, he added, ”. . . yet as a path to happiness work is not valued very highly by men." Perlman's realistic expectations for dealing with problems of role and role expectations from the point of view of the (helper) or person working with persons who are having conflict lies in the following message by Perlman: Goal achievement is held within modest and realistic bounds for client and helper, both when it is viewed as relative to all particular factors in the particular case and when it is gauged by the client's demonstrated increase of competence and of felt gratification in his daily coping with his erstwhile problematic--others or problematic tasks.2 J. A. Jackson reports on a recent study done by Musgrove and Taylor in which the teachers had entirely different perceptions of their role from others that might have effected them; however teachers'views were much closer to those of school officials. They suggested Ibid.’ p. 59. Ibid.’ p. 220. 66 that the teachers' roles were the sum of other people's expectations.1 Jackson suggested that the concept of social role says nothing about how the individual relates to the role, or of whether or how he reflects it. Jackson re- ports on how Helmuth Plessner states the same thing: . . ”a structure in which every conception of the self can be realized, " and thereby it ranks amongst those concepts of modern sociology which are formal enough to be variable when confronted with the social world in its ethnic and historical diversity without being tied to a specifically modern comprehension.2 Znaniecki suggested that individuals have internal systems for dealing with role conflict. He suggests that: . . . individuals avoid conflicts by limiting the duties of each role so as to prevent them from interfering with the basic duties of the other. This is the usual way when social role are integrated into organized groups. Warr suggested that "implicit personality theory," is suitable only for person perception. This theory, however, would be applicable on this study because it is a technique for perceiving others about whom we have 1J. A. Jackson, Role (London: Cambridge at The University Press, 1972), pp. 122-23. 21bid., p. 13. 3Florian Znaniecki, Social Relations and Social Roles (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, IEKET, p. 275. 67 limited information and the focal point for the search for information is on peOple in general.1 In summary, since there are no genes for role one would assume that roles are learned culturally con- stituted behaviors. The mere fact that characteristics of various roles differ from culture to culture makes some input from the field of anthropology crucial at this point. Wallace delineated the culture conflicts into workable variables that one could examine. They were namely, role incompatibility and value incom- patibility. Homans places great emphasis on ascription of roles and statuses. Honigman examines role as cul- turally based. It appears from the anthropologist point of view that role behavior is culturally constituted, and it is learned behavior that is evaluated in terms of how it is perceived by a particular culture. Summary of Socio-Psychp-Anthro ological Implications offROIe Con ict In summary, it appears from the literature that roles are related to the structure of an organization, or society. That role behavior of one member of a group does affect other members of the group. It appears that conflict results when there are discrepancies between 1Peter B. Warr and Christopher Knapper, The Perception of PeOQle and Events (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1968), p. 133. 68 the perception of the individual, others, or his or her culture. The Changing Role of the Principal and Community SchoOIiDirector In the Reorganization and Merger of K-IZ and—Community Education in the SchOols of Flint Peter L. Clancy in a speech to Mott-interns declared: "The Community School Director is the key man in the school."1 Clancy states that for the first time in the country a total school board and school staff will include community education as part of the regular school program and not just an appendage. He suggested that every teacher, principal and employee in community education will be a part of the total system. He stated that the community school director is directly under the principal, and the principal should get involved in community education. He stated further the principal and community school directors power and authority is set-up in a line and staff reorganization. Principals are accountable for adult education and community activities as much as the community school director. Principals will be charged with making better uses of the money he has in the Operation of his school.2 1Peter L. Clancy, Superintendent, Flint Board of Education, Speech to Mott-Interns, September 25, 1972. 2Ibid., September 25, 1972. 69 A design of contrasting models1 for line and staff organization was illustrated by Clancy. Clancy states: OLD MODEL REORGANIZATION MODEL K-12 Mott f * As As As As * Asv Asv Asv Asv CSD J, l l t t l l 1. P P P P CSD CSD CSD CS * As = Area superintendents **P = Principals * Asv = Area supervisors **CSD = Community School Directors Clancy appears to be suggesting in the discussion above an institutionalization of the community education program within the traditional K-lZ Model. Associated with this concept is a group of "Elementary School Expectations, 1972-73," among which are included an expectation specifically designed for the principal and community school directors (see Appendix C). Ann Gregory states that the following expectations should be initiated by October 1, 1972. Gregory stated that: Further development, and where appropriate, initiation of the accountability model deve10ped by each school. Includes mutually developed 1Ibid., September 25, 1972. 70 (principal, staff, CSD, parents) objectives and delivery systems, plus a method of evaluation.1 The Selby School Model suggests a kinship to the statement above concerning mutuality of the development of the objectives and delivery systems by both the prin- cipal and community school director (see Appendix C). A chart in Appendix C suggests the line and staff of the administrative hierarchy at board level of the reorganization plan of the Flint Community Schools. In a Speech to Mott-interns, Vandel Johnson dis- cusses some possible signs of conflict in dealing with subordinates. Johnson states: The key signs to identifying job satisfaction in subordinates is overaggressiveness. This charac- teristic is more common among men than with women. The ratio of overaggressiveness among men and women is 7 men to l woman. Another sign according to Johnson is psychosomatic illness. A good therapy for this is to make the subordinate feel wanted. Feelings of achievement, and assigning them tasks that can be accomplished, is one way to deal with the problem. ”No one can live on a continuous diet of failure." The community school is one way to deal with this problem. Do not destroy the subordinates' self-reSpect. A commendation, or incorporate the subordinate into the mainstream is a way of dealing with preserving the subordinate's self—respect. Anxiety, is a problem that can be spotted if the subordinates appear insecure about themselves. Examples are that the individual exhibits compulsive behavior, or acts or behavior that shows that the individual acts without alternatives. He 1Ann Gregory, Director of Elementary Schools, Flint Board of Education, Gen. Superintendent's Bulletin- VSl-No. 3 82, September 25, 1972. 71 categorized the signs as: (1) constantly unhappy-- angry with the world all the time, (2) always submissive, and (3) psychosomatic illness.1 Studies in perception of administrators at the attendance center level have been approached in several different ways according to the populations studied, the instruments used, and the results of the data. This study is unique in that it studies two unique populations: the community school directors and their principals. This study is unique in that it takes place in a setting where for the first time in the country the community school director is a legitimate part of the total organ- ization of the school district and not just an appendage. Dow reports in his study of inner-city elementary teachers and principals that: . . . it is found that principals expect more on their own performance than what they see themselves actually performing. Which is to say, they are not doing as well as they think they should with regards to their leadership behavior.2 With an alpha level of .05, Dow found the follow- ing results with respect to his null hypotheses: that there were significant differences between perceptions and expectations for leadership behavior of inner-city 1Vandel Johnson, "Speech to Mott-Interns Seminar," Michigan State University, East Lansing, September 27, 1972. 2Dow, op. cit., p. 102. 72 elementary teachers and principals. That there were sig- nificant differences between the inner-city elementary principals' perceptions and expectations for the leader- ship behavior of inner-city elementary principals.1 Roger Harrison in his article, "Understanding Your Organization's Character," is somewhat critical of organizations that have role orientation. He defines and characterizes these organizations very specifically. He explains these organizations, first on either end of a continuum and then suggests what he considers to be Optimum. Harrison states: An organization that is role-oriented aspires to be a rational and orderly as possible. In contrast to the willful autocracy of the power- oriented organization, there is a preoccupation with legalizing, legitimacy, and responsibility.2 Harrison categorizes and contrasts organizations having different orientations and how the arrangement affects the interests of peOple. Harrison finds that organizations that have the interests of people exhibit the following type of "Role Orientations" high: security against economic, political, psychological deprivation; low: opportunities for voluntary commitment to worth- while goals; low: opportunities to pursue one's own lIbid., p. 104. 2Roqer Harrison, "Understanding Your Organiza- tion's Character,” Harvard Business Review, L, No. 3 (May-June, 1972), 121. 73 growth and develOpment independent of organizations interests of the organization exhibit the following type of "Role Orientations"; moderate to low: effective response to dangerous, threatening environments; low deal- ing rapidly, and effectively with environmental com- plexity and change; and high: interval integration and coordination of effort, if necessary, at the expense of individual needs.1 How do these organizations deal with conflict? Harrison stated that: Such organizations will be very effective in dealing with complex environments and maximizing satisfactions for different types of people, but they will be subject to more internal conflict and ideological struggle than most current organ- izations could tolerate . . . For example, instead of a "company spirit" there will be several "company spirits," all different and very likely antago- nistic. In th is environment of conflicting but mutually interdependent parts, the management not the resolution of conflict will be a task of the greatest importance. Harrison describes a more comprehensive schematic of behavior exhibited by various organizational orientations, refer to Appendix C in the back of this thesis. As the writer begins to examine the role of the principal and his subordinates on the administrative level, one finds considerable ambiguity in the roles of subordinates as defined by authorities and practitioners. McCleary relates: lIbid., p. 127. 2Ibid., pp. 127-28. 74 New roles are being created for teachers, principals, and students. Authority and status relationships are under-going changes. Teaching patterns, motiva- tions, and reward systems are being affected. Change has become an important dimension in the teaching- learning process, and the study and evaluation of 1 such change will be an important task for the future. Though the principal's role is much clearer than his sub- ordinates', McCleary suggested that: Personnel administration will become much better organized and there will be clearer delineation of responsibilities of principals, central-office personnel, and superintendents. System—wide written policies and regulations will become_more common, and increased time and effort will go into the development of policies designed to strengthen educational proqrams. Principals will assume major reSponsibilities for improvement of school instruc- tional programs. Decentralization in school dis- tricts will lead increasingly to the addition to secondary school staffs of competent professionals who will assist principals with instructional leadership.2 In connection with the above statements, Peter Clancy in his reorganization of The Flint Schools had legitimized the role of the community school director. Clancy in an interview indicated that "The community school director will be assigned directly under the direction of the principal and will become an assistant 3 principal. The community school director's role was 1Lloyd E. McCleary and Stephen P. Hencley, Secondary School Administration (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, I965), p.757. 21bid., p. 57. 3Pete Clancy, Superintendent of Flint Public Schools, Interview, August 15, 1972. 75 further legitimized and refined by the statement made by Homer E. Dowdy, Vice President, Program Administration, Mott Foundation. Dowdy indicated that: To date 5/6 of the community school director's salary is tax supported and only 1/6 Mott foundation supported in the elementary schools of Flint. On the high school level the Mott Foundation supports half and the taxes support the remaining half. This change in financial support should lend itself to the role being more legitimized rather than an appendage or auxillary position with respect to the basic administrative organization at the attendance center - level. In connection with this change in financial sup- port the reassignment of community school director by the superintendent to a direct line and staff relationship to the principal should lend itself to increased clarity of role. In the role of assistant principal, the community school director's role could take several directions according to Faber. Faber states: A commonly accepted job definition for the assistant principal is lacking. Usually, however, the assistant principal in actual practice fits into one or another of the following three categories: The substitute principal. The assistant prin- cipal who functions as a substitute principal is usually an administrator in name only. Typically, he teaches full time or teaches part time and serves 1Homer E. Dowdy, Vice President, Program Admin- istration, Mott Foundation, Speech made to 1972 Mott- Interns, Flint, Michigan, September 19, 1972. 76 the remainder of his time in some supportive capacity, such as audio-visual coordinator. He has no real administrative or leadership duties. The disciplinarian. In some elementary schools, discipline is the chief item in the assistant's job description, as is the case with many of California's vice principals, or because it is the kind of task the principal most often delegates to the assistant. In either case, if the assistant principal has few if any administrative duties and is expected to confine himself to handling discipline we think it more appropriate to refer to him as "chief dis- ciplinarian” than as an assistant principal. The Deputy Principal. The third type of assistant principalship is one wherein the assistant is con- sidered a member of the administrative team, sharing the principal's responsibilities through some type of division of effort.1 This type of assignment is probably more humanistic or desirable. The third type of community school director role was seen rarely in the Flint system. There were varying combinations of types (1) and (2). Through interviews it was found that the design was more of principal's choice. Joseph Groulx in his dissertation on the role of the principal in curriculum development stated the following about the changing role of the educational personnel: The roles of educational personnel will continue to change as new circumstances dictate. A con- tinuous evaluation of roles will need to be con- ducted so that feedback on the training and 1Charles Faber and Gilbert F. Shearrou, Elementary School Administration Theory and Practice (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,jWO), p. 252. 77 preparation of all educators is more nearly valid. Groulx defined the principalship in terms of certification and what the district says he is. Groulx states: An elementary principal possesses a valid teaching certificate. He supervises an elementary building and is given the title of "Elementary Principal" by the school district.2 John Dow defines the elementary principal in a similar manner only he adds the following statement: "That person is the full-time administrator of a kinder- garten through sixth grade elementary school."3 The only difference in Dow's definition of per- ception and the one in this study is the term "community school director,” in place of the term "teacher." Dow discusses the importance of the role of the principal and his integral part in the success of the school. Dow reports: 1Harry Joseph Groulx, "A Study of the Influence of Selected Factors on the Elementary School Prin- cipal's Role in Curriculum DeveIOpment as Perceived by Selected Elementary School Teachers and Elementary School Principals" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1968), pp. 5-6. 2Ibid., p. 6. 3John Dow, Jr., "A Comparative Study of Inner- City Elementary Teachers' and Principal's Perceptions of and Role Expectations for the Leadership Behavior of Selected Inner-City Elementary Principals" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1971), p. 4. 78 Strong support for the principal's role in success- ful schools is reflected by Gross and Herriott who suggest that "as the principal, so the school."1 A statement by Dow which has great relevance to this study concerning the behavior of the principal in his role is found in the statement that follows: the A review of the literature concerning the role of the principal and related theories, suggest that the importance of common understanding between the principal and his staff for his behavior is vital to the educational process.2 Dow reports some quite interrelated statements on principal's role behavior by Gwynn, Vroom, Glantz. Groups work well together only when they understand what brought them together. Likewise, Vroom suggested that the more positive a person's attitude toward an organization, the greater the tendency for him to perceive a similarity between the organ- ization's goals and his own. Glantz has suggested that group success is related to the perceptions and interactions of leaders and group members. "Group success . . . is the complex outcome of similar perceptions by the leader and the members .of the inter-personal relations of leader and the members.3 The community school director in the Flint schools is in a transitional stage in moving from a semi-autonomous administrative position to a direct subordinate position under the principal. The language of the job description of the community school director sort of implied this direction in the earlier years of Community Education. It was suggested by the earlier pioneers in Community l 2 Ibid., p. 9. Ibid., p. 54. 3Ibid., p. 54. 79 Education that this relationship operate in a spirit of co- Operation which might have caused some ambiguity. Peter Clancy's reorganization of the schools to include Community Education as an institution made it feasible to institu- tionalize the position of the community school director and place him under the principal. The community school director's position and role has been an ever-changing and ever-evolving one. In the discussion that follows, three different concepts of the role of community school director will be presented. Crosby reports: Major, Scieszka and Tassee, at the time directors themselves, were early definers of the community school director's role. In a prepared paper for a class at Eastern Michigan University, they summarized the director's position. The community school director receives one-half of his salary from the Board of Education and one-half from the Mott Foundation (this arrangement is not true today). As a community school director, one-half of his time is given to the teaching of physical education in grades four, five, and six during the afternoon. As a Mott Foundation employee, he assumes full responsibility for the afternoon and evening adult education, and evening recreation program. By this definition, the community school director has a semi-autonomous position with respect to the prin- cipal. The authors further defined "full responsibility," to mean full responsibility for the evening curriculum, 1Jerry David Crosby, "A Study of the Expectancies Which Community School Directors and Related Others have of the Community School Directors' Roles in Serving Neighborhoods of Eight Inner-City Schools in the City of Flint, Michigan” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1965), p. 45. 80 building, human relations, reporting to the principal, and to the Board of Education.1 Crosby's definition is slightly different than the definition above. Crosby's defines the community school director as: This person is responsible for administration, super- vision, and organization of the after-school and evening community school program. In most schools, he normally teaches half-time during the regular school day, but in several of the eight neighborhood schools, instead of teaching, some of the director's time is devoted to working entirely with community problems.2 This appears to represent a more fluid position than the first. Teaching as a prerequisite appears not to have the emphasis that it had in the first definition. There are alternatives to teaching half-time. There are many perceptions and conceptions related to what the role of the principal and community school director should be. Administrators in the field and col- lege professors differ on structure, organization, and the relationships between these two roles and statuses. There appears to be nothing sacred about either of the options presented. However, it appears from the litera- ture that each perception or concept has some merit. It appears from the examination Of the most current thinking in the field of community educational administration that professional Opinion and practitioner Opinion does differ lIbid.’ pp. 45-46. 81 greatly in some cases and not so great in others. In the discussion that follows, these views will be presented. To reiterate, a statement made by Clyde Campbell in an earlier edition of the Community School Journal. Campbell stated that: Before Frank Manley created the position of community education coordinator (community school director), programs had tended to start out grandiosely and gradually fade into oblivion. It is easy to see why such deterioration occurred. Selected staff members tried to administer community programs on an overload basis. These peOple often lacked the energy to execute a daytime prOgram and an evening program in addition. Manley made the community education co- ordinator's position into a profession in its own right. Today these carefully prepared young men not only administer evening activities and Sponsor community councils and block clubs, they also func- tion skillfully and productively with many other individuals and groups on numerous kinds of assignments.1 Van Voorhees suggested that the following things came out of the April, 1971 symposium on the research needed in community education. Van Voorhees suggested that: It was the contention of Task Force II that com- munity educators must seek answers to questions about appropriate and best community involvement models, school and agency working relationshipsé long-range goals, and administrative structure. The broad area that Van Voorhees suggested above sets up a basis for this study because this study is concerned 1Clyde Campbell, ”Contributions of the Mott Foundation to the Community Education Movement," Phi Delta Kappan, LIV, NO. 3 (November, 1972), 196. 21bid., p. 204. 82 with a changing "administrative structure." The item in Task Force III that was most related to this study was concerned with the administration of community education, the relationship of community education to the process of change in the Flint system. In the area of the delegation of responsibility and authority, Moore foresees problems with administrators who do not value flexibility and Openness. Moore states: The insecure administrator who depends upon status authority and a "tight ship" operation will be very uncomfortable with this approach.1 Moore further describes the pattern that the emerging local administrator should fit. Moore suggested: With increased delegation of authority and responsi- bility to local administrators, with "sharing" by local groups representing the power structure, job descriptions will be very difficult. A different kind of personality, background and preparation will be required.2 Ernest O. Melby describes some conditions that have gotten into the way of change. He.suggested that not the administrators or the teachers are at fault, but the administrative pattern. Melby suggested that: One is to look at existing administration and ask what change need to be made in order to 3 free people to carry on community education? Melby suggested that a starting point should be: l 2 Ibid., p. 170. Ibid., p. 170. 31bid., p. 171. 83 It may be helpful to examine the basic assumptions on which present educational administration rests. The first thing to be noted is that the principles of separation of planning and performance, borrowed from industry and the military, is basic to educa- tional administration. This means that planning is done by the central administration and performance by subordinates.1 Melby suggested that we look and scrutinize the basic units of education. Melby stated: It is from the nature of these units that we should begin to outline roles for teachers, principals, supervisors, superintendents, and board members. But this has not been one method for role determina- tion. We have too often started with a structure. From the structure we have gone to the board, from the board to the superintendent, from the superin- tendent to middle management, then to the principal, to the teacher, and finally to the child.2 Melby defines the roles Of the superintendents, principals, and board members. For the purposes of this study we need only to list the role of the principal. Melby suggested that: The roles of the principal is similar to that of the superintendent, except that the area he covers is smaller. In general, he needs the same qualities of personality and leadership. Everyday, he is involved in leadership in a learning program. He is engaged in mobilizing the community's re- sources and in interpreting the program to the community. He is an Operating administrator in the best educational sense.3 It appears that a direct mention of the community school director's role was left out Of this presentation. How- ever, Melby stated: l 2 Ibid., p. 171. Ibid., p. 171. 3Ibid., p. 172. 84 Actually, it may well be that the dominant factor in leadership in community education is personal. Melby describes what kind of man he thinks a "Community Education Man," should be. He classified them into nine characteristics. Melby stated: 1. He is compassionate. He respects himself and others and feels involved with mankind. 2. He has a high estimate of human potential, believing all can learn and achieve, if they have adequate opportunity. 3. He is keenly aware of both the potential and limitations of schools and other learning environments. 4. He is fully aware of the educational riches in the community and spends continuous effort in mobilizing them. 5. He is first of all a learner, a good listener, a constant reader, a seeker after educative experience. 6. He is accessible; his door is open when people leave after a conference with him they are glad they came. 7. He is one of the first persons peOple think of when they are in trouble. 8. He is reluctant to take credit for accomplishments and slow to blame others for failure. 9. He can show confidence, optimism and enthusiasm even when most others have lost faith and confidence.2 Betty Desbler and John L. Erlich suggested that the principal should have the following role: While the principal is reSponsible for carrying out the policies and procedures decided by the regional boards and local school community council, his role must be to contribute to their formulation, not to enunciate them. A trained community education specialist such as the school community agent or the community school director can give the technical assistance so vital to both citizens and school staff.3 l 2 Ibid., p. 172. Ibid., p. 172. 31bid., p. 175. 85 In looking at the emerging models, Gerald Martin suggested that: A system may move toward employment of building directors (community education coordinators) serving either elementary, middle, or secondary schools--individually or collectively. These directors (coordinators) can be professional educators, lay peOple, or even representatives of other community institutions.1 James D. Logsdon put it well when he suggested that: While the administrator retains responsibility for establishing a climate for community education, he must delegate responsibility for bringing it into being.2 Logsdon is simply saying that the community educator cannot do his job by himself. It appears that he is also saying that the leadership ability of a community educa- tor is measured in terms of how much cooperation the leader can solicit. According to Harold E. Moore, there are three basic community organizational structures for community education. He calls them "alternative structures." The Flint Board of Education is in a process of moving from the second one to the first category as listed by Moore. Moore suggested that: 1. An all-inclusive organizational and administra- tive structure which accepts the broad definition of community education and incorporates the l 2 Ibid., p. 187. Ibid., p. 198. 86 Operation of the overall learning program for the total community. 2. A two-headed organization Operating under a superintendent of schools. One of the heads, usually an assistant superintendent, administers that portion of the program normally required of all children from K-lZ. The other head, perhaps also an assistant superintendent, ad- ministers the district-Operated "Optional" aSpects of the program that have been developed to meet a wide variety of community needs. 3. A combination of the first two alternatives, it is usually an organizational and administrative structure at the central district level primarily geared to administering the required prOgram but with Specialized personnel at the school building level to administer both the required and Optional programs.l Another model that was adOpted by Louisville in 1967 had a community school director, referred to as the assistant principal coordinator,and a clerk. The recreation depart- ment supplied personnel such as a recreation director and an assistant director. There were specialists in the areas of music, art, and drama that were furnished by the recreation department. The assistant principal coordinator only had "earned credibility“ with the recreation staff, but for organizational realities the recreation staff had their allegiance to the recreation supervisor. There was a C.A.C. component that dealt with community involvement and were not answerable to the board Of education or the recreation department, but was answerable only to the federal government and city hall. 11bid., p. 168. 87 William Kromer, in discussing the organizational structure of Hazel Park in Detroit, stated that: This continuing in-service has greatly modified the role of principals. Elementary principals, in particular, have increasingly accepted reSponsi- bility for joining with others to plan and program for the welfare of all residents of the attendance area. Glynn Richard, a representative of teachers from the Michigan Educational Association stated that "The heart oftflmeprogram is illustrated by a visit of a teacher or building principal to the home of a student."2 In a conference with William Kromer, he explained that the success of the program depended on the administrators taking the lead in visiting children's homes first them- selves. This prompted the teachers to want to become involved.3 Building principals established home visitation schedules for themselves and were deputized as city clerks to assist citizens who had not regis- tered to vote. Teachers were encouraged to volunteer for home visitations. Within a three month period last fall, there were 1,419 home visitations--403 by principals, 384 by community school agents, and 632 by classroom teachers.4 lWilliam Kromer, from conference with and unpub— lished paper entitled "The Hazel Park Story," November 9, 1972, p. 2. 2Glynn Richard, "Home Visitation in Hazel Park," Michigan Educational Journal, April 1, 1968, p. 20. 3Kromer, 923 cit., p. 3. 4Richard, op, cit., p. 22. 88 One of the roles Of the principal is to develOp an outreach program according to the Hazel Park Schools. In an unpublished statement by the Hazel Parks Schools, Hazel Park Schools stated: "This outreach took the form of thousands of visits by principals, teachers and com- munity school agents to homes, agencies and businesses.‘ Hazel Park solicited the services of William Kromer and other personnel from O.E.O., Title I, Mott Foundation, and district funds. These personnel unwent a massive continuing in-service program. Webb stated: This continuing in-service has greatly modified the role of the principals. Elementary principals, in particular, have increasingly accepted reSponsi- bility for joining with others to plan and program for the welfare of all residents Of the attendance area.2 This statement was made earlier by Kromer, who at the time was serving under Superintendent Webb as community school director in the Hazel Park Schools. Webb stated further that: Outreach into the community by the school staff sparked involvement by the alienated and maximized the limited resources to such an extent that Hazel Park citizens enjoyed advantages not common to some of the more advantaged neighboring districts. 1Wilfred Webb, "The Hazel Park Story" (unpub- lished material by Hazel Park Schools), p. l. 2 3 Ibid., p. 2. Ibid., p. 3. l 89 The rationale for such an "outreach" program can be found in the rationale that was stated by Hazel Park Schools. Hazel Park Schools stated that: . . . real communication involves perception of emotional overtones which in turn is dependent upon face to face contact, aspirations are heightened by involvement in direct rather than vicarious experiences, and channels of human communication serve best which are "opened" before there is a ”crisis overload."l In summary, we are about to embark upon the analysis of an embryonic idea cast from the mold of the mortuary stage of a dual system. A system whose philo- SOphers believed that could coexist with separate but equal goals, administration, and curriculum independence. In the chapter that has just been completed, an examina- tion of the philOSOpherS of the old and new were pre- sented. The question is, "How can a dual system that has Operated for 34 years preserve the best of both systems, and remain a viable system?" The answer to this question is not the major concern of this study but hOpefully this study will be helpful in the develOpment of this evolu- tionary process. In the chapters that follow the data will be pre- sented that was observed during the evolutionary process of this merged system. The leaders of these two merged 1"An Administrator's Guide to Vitalizing Commu- nity Education Through Personal Communication," Hazel Park's--Vitalizing the Communitnychool Philosophy (un- published), p. l. 90 systems are the principal and the community school direc- tor. They are undertaking this task in the Spirit of co- operation; though in many Of the interviews the inter- viewees take the position that they are students of the idea like the writer, but fortunately they were willing to share their knowledge and experience with the writer. For this the writer is grateful. In the preceding discussion a review of selected literature dealt with the following topics: theory and supportive research; the socio-psychological cultural implications of role and role conflict; and the changing role of the principal and community school director in the reorganization and merger of K-12 and community education in the schools of Flint. In the chapter that follows (Chapter III), the writer will discuss the design of the study which consists of the following: Site and sample, the instrument, personal data, procedure, hypotheses to be tested, and treatment of the data. CHAPTER III THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY Generally, the less the organization alienates its personnel, the more efficient it is. --Amitai Etzioni To secure permission to do this study the writer applied to the superintendent of the Flint Community Schools in a formal letter on September 24, 1972. A reSponse was received on September 28, 1972 from the superintendent advising me to apply to the Director of Elementary Community Education. Permission to do the study and permission to do a simultaneous internship was granted by Anne Gregory on October 18, 1972. The volun- tary participation and COOperation of the principals and community school directors enabled this study to cover the entire Flint Community School Elementary District. No Flint Elementary Schools were excluded from partici- pation in the study. The internship experience facilitated the Oppor- tunity for the investigator to visit and talk with each principal and community school director in the elementary 91 92 schools at least two times. Specifically, the intern- ship consists of writing job descriptions for principals and community school directors so that they are inter- related for the district. Input gained from the prin- cipals and community school directors hopefully will have some influence on the final draft of these job descriptions. The Site and Sample The sample of this study included the entire pop- ulation of the elementary principals and community school directors in the inner—city of Flint, Michigan. There are 44 elementary principals and 42 community school directors in the elementary schools of Flint, Michigan. Because of the special nature of two of the schools, teachers who played the role of community school director in their reSpectivebuilding are included in this study. One school was an elementary school for the mentally retarded stu- dents, therefore the board could not justify the employ- ment of a full-time director. Another school was a school for the physically handicapped children, therefore a full- time director could not be employed for that school. For the reasons mentioned above, two teachers at the respective schools were substituted for community school directors. The setting of this study is located in Flint, Michigan. The population of the metropolitan area of Flint is 496,658. The population of the metropolitan area is 93 divided into urban, other urban, and rural areas. The areas are divided up as follows: Urban--349,94l (a) City--l93,3l7 (b) Other urban--156,624 Rural--l46,717 The pOpulation changed from 1960-1970 by 3,623 inhabi- tants, a percentage of 1.8 percent. The Flint city limits cover 29.9 square miles. The valuation (1971 state equalized) Flint School District according to the Flint Board of Education was 955,525,750. The city government consists of nine wards and a council- man from each ward elected at large; three members are elected every two years for six-year terms. The school population in K-12 (including Adult High School) 1971 estimated was 45,700 students. There were 26,457 elemen- tary children enrolled in the Flint schools in 1972. The racial composition of the schools was 53% white, 44% black, 2% Spanish, less than 1% American Indian and oriental. The Flint school system has 4 senior high schools, 8 junior high schools, 1 middle school, 43 elementary schools, 137 primary units, 46 mobile units, and l skill center. The sample for this study will consist of the principals and community school directors of the 44 elementary schools so as to provide for a district-wide 94 study. These subjects run the plants of the Flint schools on a day and night basis based on the community school concept of a lighted building and total community involvement. We Shall not proceed further into the study with- out making you aware Of the newness of the administration or the new concept of a legitimatized subordinate relation— ship of the principal and community school director. While being aware of this limitation as a researcher, we find that personnel changes in rapid succession or large magnitude are not atypical of urban school systems today. This is a "nuisance variable" and personnel changes cannot be controlled by the researcher.1 Table 3.1 shows the number of principals and community school directors used in this study. The table also includes the number of male or female community school directors. TABLE 3.1.--Data on the Sex of the Principals and the Community School Directors. Principal Community School Director Male Female ‘ Male Female 27 17 44 0 1 Mary Ellen McSweeney, Statistics Lecture, Michi- gan State University, January 8, 1973. 95 Table 3.2 shows the number of years the princi- pals and community school directors have been in their reSpective positions. TABLE 3.2.--Data on the Number of Years Serving as Principal or Community School Director. Community School Number of Years Principal . Director 0- l 6 8 l- 4 13 26 5- 9 l4 7 10-14 6 1 15-19 3 0 20-24 2 0 Total 44 42 Median 7.5 2.5 Mean 8.48 4.5 The Instrument This study utilized the data from three instru- ments to analyze the perceptions of the elementary prin- cipals and community school directors. The instruments were: (1) Responsibility, Authority, Delegation Scale; (2) Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire; and (3) Job Satisfaction and Job EXpectations Questionnaire. Reseonsibility, Authority, Delegation Scale T e Responsibility, Authority, Delegation Scale is commonly referred to as the RAD scale. The Responsibility, Authority, Delegation Scale is a scale that measures the responsibility, authority, and delegation Of super-ordinates and subordinates in different kinds of organizations and institutions. The Responsibility, Authority, Delegation Scale 96 yields six sub-scales referred to as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Sub-scales l and 4 combine to yield a responsibility score. Sub-scales 2 and 5 combine to yield an authority score. Sub-scales 3 and 6 combine to yield a delegation score. These three variables, reSponsibility, authority and delegation, will be used as the basic variables of the study and the variables of the other instruments will be correlated and analyzed with reSpect to responsi- bility, authority, and delegation. A high score indicates a high degree of esti- mated responsibility, authority or delegation. The instrument does not intend to establish norms of behavior, or make a judgment of good or bad. The basic intent is to record one's percep- tion with reSpect to the variables, responsibility, authority and delegation. Stogdill reports the following reliability coefficients for school principals out of 73 subjects. Variable Reliability Coefficients a Responsibility .88 (b) Authority .811 (c) Delegation .78 StOgdill is careful to state that he is aware of the complexity of administrative behavior. This instru- ment, however, will provide a body of information. In this study, using this instrument, the vari- ables: responsibility, authority, and delegation may be defined as follows: 1. Responsibility_-- the score R (Responsibility) is the sum of the four items checked in Scales 1 and 4 divided by four (16 items). 1Ralph M. StOgdill, The RAD Scales Manual (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State UniVerSity,'1957), p. 2. 97 2. Authority -- the score A (Authority) is the sum of the four items checked in Scales 2 and 5 divided by four (16 items). 3. Delegation -- the score D (Delegation) is the sum of the four items checked in Scales 3 and 6 divided by four (16 items). For further reference see Appendix A. The scoring key indicates that there are eight items having scale values from eight to one, arranged in descending order. StOgdill states: Scoring Key Item Number Scale Value m~uoum¢>wh0h4 Hrouabtnoxch In summary, the RAD Scale measures how the indi- vidual perceives his responsibility, authority, and dele- gation. A correlation of his subordinates would indicate harmony or dissonance based on a significant or insigni- ficant statistic when analyzed. Ibid., p. 4. 98 The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, commonly referred to as (LBDQ), is an instrument that measures the perception of one leader in the formal organ- ization by another leader in formal organization or by himself. The pronoun (I) may be substituted for (He), if one uses the instrument to measure himself. In this study the emphasis was on the super- ordinate and subordinate relationship between the elemen— tary principal and the community school director. Both groups were given the same instrument for uniformity; however, the elementary principals were instructed to describe themselves and the community school directors were instructed to describe their principal. The re- spondent describes his behavior or the behavior of his super-ordinates by five adverbs: always, Often, occasion- ally, seldom, and never. This study is restricted to administrators at the building level only, and does not pretend to reflect the relationship between central office administrators and building administrators. The original Leader Behavior Description Question- naire was developed by Shartle, Hemphill and Coons. Halpin and Winer later identified Specific variables in the instrument that they referred to as the consideration 99 dimension and the initiating structure dimension. Halpinl states: Consideration -- refers to behavior indicative of friendship, mutual trust, respect, and warmth in relationship between the leader and members of the group (15 items). Initiating Structure —- refers to the leadership behavior in delineating the relationship between himself and the members of his group and in endeavoring to establish well defined patterns of organization channels of communication and ways of getting the job done (15 items).2 There are 40 items on the questionnaire; only 30 items are scored for the purpose of controlling the experi- mental conditions that would replicate the original standardization conditions. Halpin states that: The estimated reliability by the Split-half method is .83 for the initiating structure scores, and .92 for the consideration scores when corrected for attenuation. The LBDQ has been used for research purposes in industrial, military and educational settings. Halpin has used the instrument in a study of 50 school superintendents, and has used the instrument to compare aircraft commanders to school administrators. Dow used a form of the instrument to study principals and teachers in the Grand Rapids schools. There are ten items that have not been scored (see Appendix A). They are 5, 10, 15, 19, 25, 30, 33, 1Andrew W. Halpin, "Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire," p. l. 2 3 Ibid., p. 1. Ibid., p. l. 100 36, 37, and 40 and are not scored on either dimension (to replicate original standardization conditions). There are certain items in the questionnaire that are scored in reverse. They are indicated by an asterisk (see Appendix A). The sequence of the items of the dimensions are pre- sented on the questionnaire in random order. Each item on the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire is keyed to only one or no dimension Of the leadership scale. The responses are indicated based on the frequency which a respondent may describe the behavior using the following adverbs: always, often, occasionally, seldom, and never. Most of the items are scored as follows: A B C D E 4 3 2 l 0 There are three items scored in reverse. Items 12, 18, and 20 are scored in reverse as follows: A B C D E l 2 3 4 0 In summary, the LBDQ in this study attempts to describe the behavior of the elementary principal as described by himself and the community school director to discover statistical significant harmony or disso- nance in the administrator's perceptions. 101 The Job Satisfaction and Job Expectations Questionnaire The Job Satisfaction and Job Expectations Ques- tionnaire are two separate scales. The Job Expectations is further subdivided into Six sub-scales. They are: work advancement, friends, pay, freedom, family, and job security. Some of the variables above suggest what Etzioni called non-economic rewards and sanctions when he was re- ferring to the Hawthorne Studies. For example, the vari- able on friends and family attitudes if they are Signifi- cant others should effect the work production according to the Hawthorne Studies as reported by Etzioni. Also, accord- ing to Etzioni, the pay variable and the "non-economic" variable such as friends and family may not be compatible or correlated. Job satisfaction, according to Etzioni or his quoted studies, may be a function of pay, or non- economic rewards, or one, both, or neither.1 The study may suggest some information relative to this question. The Job Satisfaction Scale The Job Satisfaction Scale measures satisfaction with school, administration, and recognition. The Job Satisfaction is counted as one variable even though it has three parts. lEmitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 34. 102 The Job Expectations Scale The Job Expectations Scale measures expectations concerning work advancement, friends' attitudes, pay, freedom on the job, family attitudes, and job security. Modification of the Job Satisfaction and JOb Expectations Questionnaire Upon the recommendation and assistance of Stogdill, the instrument was modified to make it more compatible with the pOpulation studied. The revisions were: 1. Item "Administrator's" was substituted for the item "Management's.“ 2. Item "Personnel" was substituted for item ”Employees." 3. Item "School" was substituted for item "Company." 4. Item "Principal's" was substituted for "Manage- ment's" in question (7) of satisfaction scale. 5. Item ”Principal" was substituted for "Supervisor" in question (9) under satisfaction scale. 6. Item "Subordinates" was substituted for "Workers" in question (10) under satisfaction scale. 7. Item "School" was substituted for "Company" in questions (2, 3, 13) under the expectation scale. 103 There are twelve items in the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire and they are scored as follows: VG = 5, G = 4, F = 3, P = 2, VP = l. The meanings Of the symbols are as follows: VG = Very Good G = Good F = Fair P = Poor VP = Very Poor This value judgment is made by the respondent about himself. An explanation of the variables that are measured on the instrument are found below. Satisfaction-~is related to the school management (administration) and recognition of the personnel work in the school environment. Workf-is the perception of the task and roles that he performs. Advancement--is the perception Of the person's expectations for advancing in his present position. Friends--is the perception of how the person perceives his friends' attitudes toward his position. Pay-~is his perception of what the person expects in terms of remuneration for his employment. Freedom--is his perception of how involved he is in decision making. Family--is his perception of how his family views his position. 104 Job Securitye-is his perception of his security in his present position. The relationship of the satisfaction variable and the expectation variable is explained by Stogdill in a note in the manual of the Job Satisfaction and Job Expectations Questionnaire. Stogdill states: Employee satisfaction with company is related to a form of supervisory leadership that lets employees know what to eXpect, and also is related to group loyalty to company.1 According to Stogdill there should be a relation- ship between the LBDQ and the Job Satisfaction with freedom on the job, and the consideration variable of the LBDQ. Stogdill states " . . . employee satisfaction with freedom on the job is related to supervisory con- siderations and ratings of drive and freedom."2 Personal Data The personal data that was relevant to this study was obtained from observation and research records. Specific ages are not reported to protect the anonymity of the applicants. Age ranges were reported in five-year intervals, number of years in service was reported in 1Ralph M. Stogdill, Job Satisfaction and Job Expectatiggg Manual (Columbus, Ohio: Piogramer Re- search in LeaderShip and Organization, College of Administrative Science, The Ohio State University, 1965), p. 3. 21bid.’ p. 4. 105 five-year intervals, sex was reported from observation. The variables considered were as follows: 1. Sex 2. Age 3. Level of experience 4. Administrative position Below is a table of age groupings of the principals and community school directors reported in intervals of five years (Table 3.3). TABLE 3.3.--Ages of Principals and Community School Directors Reported in Five-Year Intervals. Ages Principal Community School Director 20-24 0 8 25-29 0 18 30-34 3 12 35-39 8 1 40-44 7 2 45-49 8 3 50-54 9 0 55-59 7 0 60-64 _:2 _Q Total 44 44 Source: Bob Revis, Director of Research, Flint Board of Education, December 14, 1972. Following is a table of number of years in service in the respective position (Table 3.4). 106 TABLE 3.4.--Number of Years in Service in the Respective Position. Number of Community School Years Pr1nc1pa1 Director New this year 6 8 l- 4 13 28 5- 9 l4 7 10-14 6 1 15-19 3 0 20-24 _2 _2 Total 44 44 Source: Bob Revis, Director of Research, Flint Board of Education, December 14, 1972. Procedure A formal request was made to Peter Clancy, Super- intendent Of Flint Community Schools on September 24, 1972 to do the study in the 44 elementary schools. A copy of the correspondence is listed in Appendix B. Clancy referred the writer to Anne Gregory, Director of Elementary Community Education. A formal request was made to Mrs. Gregory on October 5, 1972 for permission to do the study along with a concurrent internship. Per- mission was granted by Mrs. Gregory on October 18, 1972. A request was made to Ralph M. Stogdill on September 24, 1972 for permission to use and duplicate c0pies of three instruments, namely, ReSponsibility, Authority, and Delegation Questionnaire; Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire; and Job Satisfaction and Job 107 Expectations Questionnaire. Permission to use and dupli- cate the instrument was granted on October 6, 1972. The internship and subsequent data gathering for the study commenced on November 6, 1972. The first instru- ments and interviews took place on November 6, 1972. Ex- tensive interviews and interaction with all elementary principals and community school directors took place during the Six-week internship. A letter of explanation accompanied each instru- ment, along with a personal interview with each principal and community school director. Questions were answered relative to the taking of the instrument and its use. Hypotheses to be Tested In order to approach the problem of the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to the variables: responsibility, authority, delegation, initiating structure, consideration, school management and recognition, work, advancement, friends, pay, freedom, family, and job security, it became necessary to set forth the following hypotheses. These hypotheses are stated in the null form according to the research procedures. Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to the variable reSponsibility. Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between the perceptions Of principals Hypothesis Hypothesis #1 co Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis 108 and community school directors with respect to the variable authority. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to the variable delegation. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to the variable initiating structure. There is no Significant difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to the variable consideration. There is no Significant difference between the perceptions Of principals and community school directors with respect to the variable school management and recognition. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to the variable work. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to the variable advancement. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to the variable friends. 109 Hypothesis 10: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with reSpect to the variable pay. Hypothesis 11: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to the variable freedom. Hypothesis 12: There is no Significant difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to the variable family. Hypothesis 13: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to the variable job security. Treatment of the Data Based on a series of conferences with Lezotte, it was decided that the most apprOpriate statistic for the treatment of the data was the multi-variate analysis of the data. Data was collected on nineteen variables relat- ing to responsibility, authority, delegation, leadership behavior, job expectations, and job satisfaction. Only thirteen of the variables were selected for analysis based on the fact that they were most related to the study. It was decided not to use the data on the sex of the subjects because females were only included in the principals' pOpulation and not in the community school directors' population. The numbers (1) and (2) represented the prin- cipal and community school director respectively. 110 The (N) for the study was 84, and the degree of freedom for the hypotheses is equal to l, and the degree of freedom for the error is equal to 82. The choice of an alpha level was .05 based on tradition and instruction gained from research courses. The analysis Of the data in this study will be found in Chapter IV. Below is a table of the results of how many instruments were sent and returned (Table 3.5). Also included in this table is the percentage of questionnaire returns. There were four respondents that did not return their questionnaires. Two of these had extended illnesses, the other non-respondents were too busy to complete the questionnaires. TABLE 3.5.—-Summary of Questionnaires Sent and Returned. Grou Number Number Return p Sent Returned Percentage Principals 44 42 95.4 Community School Directors 44 42 95.4 Total 88 84 95.4 Summary In summary, this chapter made an attempt to pre- sent the design, methodology, and procedures used to develop this study. The sample of this study included all 111 principals and community school directors in the community schools in Flint on the elementary level. The instruments employed were the Responsibility, Authority and Delegation Scale; the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire; and the Job Satisfaction and Job Expectations Question- naire. In the chapter that follows, Chapter IV, the analysis of the data will be presented using the multi- variate analysis statistic. One will discover in Chapter V that conclusions, recommendations and areas for further study will be presented. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The writer will present the results of the analysis of the data in this chapter. Each hypothesis will be re- stated as a null or test hypothesis. The hypotheses were tested by using the "Jeremy Finn Multi-variate Analysis of Variance Routine," at the Michigan State University Computer Center. The "Jeremy Finn Multi-variate Analysis of Variance Routine," is a multivariate analysis of vari- ance statistics. The determination of significance of the difference was determined by an alpha level of .05. Multivariate statistical analysis is defined by Tatsuoka as: . . . that branch of statistics which is devoted to the study of multivariate (or multidimensional) distributions and samples from these distributions. The rationale for employing such a statistic on this study is found in the following quote by Tatsuoka. Tatsuoka stated that: lMaurice M. Tatsuoka, Multivariate Analysis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971), piil. 112 113 Multivariate analysis is concerned with a group (or several groups) of individuals, each of whom possesses values or scores on two or more variables such as tests or other measures. We are interested in studying the interrelations among these variables in looking for possible group differences in terms Of these variables, and in drawing inferences relevant to these variables concerning the pOpulationS from which the sample groups were chosen. In this study we are concerned with two groups, the principals and community school directors, and thirteen variables associated with these people in their roles. This appears to justify the application of this statistic to the data under concern.‘ This statistic bears two kinds Of significance tests associated with the canonical corre- lation analysis. Tatsuoka stated that: The first is an overall test to decide whether there is any significant linear relationship between the two sets of variables. If overall significance is found, we would then want to know how man Of the canonical-variable pairs are significant. In this study the variance of canonical variate was 1 = 50.5058, and there was 100 percent of canonical variation. Therefore, differences were indicated and the task was to find out how many of the canonical-variate pairs were significant. Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to the variable responsibility. Ibid., p. 1. 21bid., pp. 186-87. 114 The overall F-ratio for the multivariate test of this hypothesis is 4.5820 which is significant at the .0001 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Re- sults of the multivariate analysis test for Hypothesis 1 are presented in Table 4.2. The mean scores of the prin- cipals and community school directors on Table 4.21 indi- cate that no Significant differences exist between prin- cipals and community school directors on reSponsibility. Table 4.1 gives data on all thirteen variables of the study. In the discussion that follows each variable will be analyzed separately following the presentation 3 of Table 4.1. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no dif- ference between the perceptions of the principal and community school directors with respect to responsibility. As a result, the null hypothesis is not rejected. ' Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the prin- cipals and community school directors with respect to the variable authority. The evidence for this hypothesis is found in Table 4.3. It is concluded then that there is a signifi- cant difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to authority. 115 TABLE 4.l.--Mu1tivariate Analysis of Variance-~For all Variables: Responsibility, Authority, Dele- gation, Initiating Structure, Consideration, School Management and Recognition, Work, Advancement, Friends, Pay, Freedom, Family, Job Security. a F-Ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean vectors 4.5820 D.F. = 13 and 70.0000 P less than 0.0001 Variable 3:2:828 Univagiate PTHESS l. ReSponsibility 385.7143 2.3874 0.1262 2. Authority 1876.2976 15.1636 0.0003 3. Delegation 4968.0476 24.7871 0.0001. 4. Initiating Structure 243.4405 2.5647 0.1132 5. Consideration 236.6786 2.4375 0.1224 6. School Management and Recognition 10.7143 0.1108 0.7401 7. Work 5.2500 0.3975 0.5302 8. Advancement 9.3333 0.6908 0.4084 9. Friends 4.2976 0.3800 0.5393 10. Pay 1.4405 0.1500 0.6996 11. Freedom 12.1905 1.0274 0.3138 12. Family 3.0476 0.2224 0.6385 13. Job Security 37.3333 2.9055 0.0921 Degrees of Freedom for Error Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 82 l 116 TABLE 4.2.--Multivariate Analysis of Variance-- Responsibility. F-Ratio for multivariate test of equality Of mean vectors 4.5820 d.f. = 13 and 70 P less than 0.0001 . Between . . Variable Mean SQ Univariate F P Less Than ReSponsibility 385.7143 2.3874 0.1262 Degree of freedom for hypothesis = 1 Degree of freedom for error = 82 TABLE 4.21.—-Mean Scores of Perceptions of Principals and Community School Directors on the Variables Responsibility, Authority, Delegation and Initiating Structure. Responsi- bility Dele- Initiating Group gation Structure Authority Principals 57.76190 59.28571 56.59524 46.64286 Community School Directors 53.47619 49.8333 41.21429 43.23810 117 TABLE 4.3.—-Mu1tivariate Analysis of Variance-~Authority. F-Ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean vectors 4.5820 d.f. = 13 and 70 P Less than 0.0001 BEtWEBI‘I Mean SQ Univariate F P Less Than Variable Authority 1876.2976 15.1636 0.0003 Mean scores for authority may be found in Table 1.1. Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the prin- cipals and community school directors with respect to the variable delegation. The evidence for this hypothesis is found in Table 4.4. It may be concluded then, that there is a significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with reSpect to delegation. TABLE 4.4.--Mu1tivariate Analysis of Variance-~Delegation. F-Ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean vectors 4.5820 d.f. = 13 and 70 P less than 0.0001 V . bl Between Univariate P Less aria e Mean SQ F Than Delegation 4968.0476 24.7871 0.0001 Mean scores for delegation may be found in Table 4.21. 118 Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the prin- cipals and community school directors with respect to the variable initiating structure. Results of the multi-variate analysis test for Hypothesis 4 are presented in Table 4.5. The mean scores of the principals and the community school directors in Table 4.21 indicate no Significant differences exist between the principal and community school directors on initiating structure. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is no difference between the perceptions Of the principals and community school directors with reSpect to initiating structure. As a result the null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 4.5.--Multivariate Analysis Of Variance--Initiating Structure. F-Ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean vectors 4.5820 d.f. = 13 and 70 P less than 0.0001 Variable Between Univariate P Less Mean SQ F Than Initiating Structure 243.4405 2,5547 0.1132 Mean scores for initiating structure may be found in Table 4.21. 119 Hypothesis 5 Hypothesis 5: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the prin— cipals and community school directors with respect to the variable consideration. Results of the multivariate analysis test for Hypothesis 5 are presented in Table 4.6. The mean scores of the principals and community school directors in Table 4.21 indicate no significant differences exist between the principals and community school directors with respect_ to consideration. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is no difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to consideration. As a result, the null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 4.6.--Multivariate Analysis of Variance-- Consideration. F-Ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean vectors 4.5820 d.f. = 13 and 70 P less than 0.0001 Between Univariate P Less variable Mean so F Than Consideration 236.6786 2.4375 0.1224 120 Table 4.61 will deal with mean scores of five of the variables. They are: consideration, schOol manage- ment and recognition, work, advancement, friends. TABLE 4.6l.--Mean Scores of Perceptions of Principals and Community School Directors on the Variables Consideration, School Management and Recoqnition, Work, Advancement, and Friends. School Group Consider- Mngmnt. Work Advance- Friends ation and ment Recognition Principals 43.61905 49.00000 15.07143 12.76190 13.64286 Community School Directors 40.26190 49.71429 15.57143 13.42857 14.09524 Hypothesis 6 Hypothesis 6: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable school management and recognition. Results of the multivariate analysis test for Hypothesis 6 are presented in Table 4.7. The mean scores of the principals and community school directors in Table 4.61 indicate no significant differences exist between the principals and community school directors with respect to school management and recognition. 121 Therefore, it may be concluded that there is no significant difference between the perceptions Of the principals and community school directors with respect to school management and recognition. As a result, the null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 4.7.--Mu1tivariate Analysis of Variance--School Management and Recognition. F-Ratio for multivariate test of equality Of mean vectors 4.5280 d.f. = 13 and 70 P less than 0.0001 . Between Univariate P Less Variable Mean SQ F Than School Manage- ment and Recognition 10.7143 0.1108 0.7401 Mean scores may be found in Table 4.61. Hypothesis 7 Hypothesis 7: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the prin- cipals and community school directors with reSpect to the variable work. Results of the multivariate analysis test for Hypothesis 7 are presented in Table 4.8. The mean scores of the principals and community school directors in Table 4.61 indicate no significant differences exist 122 between the principals and community school directors with respect to their perception of work. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is no difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to their percep- tions of work. As a result, the null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 4.8.-~Multivariate Analysis of Variance--Work. F-Ratio for multivariate test of equality Of mean vectors 4.5820 d.f. = 13 and 70 P less than 0.0001 Variable Between Univariate P Less Mean SQ F Than Work 5.2500 0.3975 0,5302 Mean scores may be found in Table 4.61. Hypothesis 8 Hypothesis 8: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the prin- cipals and community school directors with reSpect to the variable advancement. Results of the multivariate analysis test for Hypothesis 8 are presented in Table 4.9. The mean scores of the principals and community school directors in Table 4.61 indicate no significant differences exist 123 between the principals and community school directors with reSpect to advancement. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is no difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to their percep- tions of advancement. As a result, the null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 4.9.-—Multivariate Analysis of Variance--Advancement. F-Ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean vectors 4.5820 d.f. = 13 and 70 P less than 0.0001 Variable Between Univariate P Less Mean SQ F Than Advancement 9.3333 0.6908 0,4034 Mean scores may be found in Table 4.61. Hypothesis 9 Hypothesis 9: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable friends. Results of the multivariate analysis test for Hypothesis 9 are presented in Table 4.10. The mean scores of the principals and community school directors in Table 4.61 indicate no significant differences exist 124 between the principals and community school directors with respect to friends' perception Of their work. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is no difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with reSpect to friends' per- ception of their work. AS a result, the null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 4.10.--Multivariate Analysis of Variance-—Friends. F-Ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean vectors 4.5820 d.f. = 13 and 70 P less than 0.0001 . Between Univariate P Less Variable Mean SQ F Than Friends 4.2976 0.3800 0.5393 Mean scores may be found in Table 4.61. Hypothesis 10 Hypothesis 10: There is no Significant difference between the perceptions of the prin- cipals and community school directors with reSpect to the variable pay. Results of the multivariate analysis test for Hypothesis 10 are presented in Table 4.11. The mean scores of the principals and community school directors in Table 4.61 indicate no significant differences exist 125 between the principals and community school directors with respect to pay. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is no difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to pay. As a result, the null hypothesis was rejected. TABLE 4.11.--Multivariate Analysis of Variance--Pay. F-Ratio for multivariate test of equality Of mean vectors 4.5820 d.f. = 13 and 70 P less than 0.0001 . Between Univariate P Less Variable Mean SQ F Than Pay 1.4405 0.1500 0.6996 Table 4.111 will deal with mean scores of four of the variables. They are: pay, freedom, family, and job security. TABLE 4.111.-—Mean Scores of Perceptions of Principals and Community School Directors on the Variables Pay, Freedom, Family and Job Security. Job Group Pay Freedom Family Security Principals 12.47619 14.33333 14.07143 12.89052 Community School Directors 12.21429 15.09524 13.69048 14.14286 126 Hypothesis ll Hypothesis 11: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the prin- cipals and community school directors with respect to the variable freedom. Results of the multivariate analysis test for Hypothesis 11 are presented in Table 4.12. The mean scores Of the principals and community school directors in Table 4.111 indicate no significant differences exist between the principals and community school directors with respect to freedom. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is no difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to freedom. As a result, the null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 4.12.--Multivariate Analysis of Variance--Freedom. F-Ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean vectors 4.5820 d.f. = 13 and 70 P less than 0.0001 V r' ble Between Univariate P Less a *a Mean SQ F Than Freedom 12.1905 1.0274 0.3138 Mean scores may be found in Table 4.111. 127 Hypothesis 12 Hypothesis 12: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the prin- cipals and community school directors with reSpect to the variable family. Results of the multivariate analysis test for Hypothesis 12 are presented in Table 4.13. The mean scores of the principals and community school directors in Table 4.111 indicate no significant differences exist between the principals and community school directors with respect to family's perception of the job. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is no difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to family's per- ception of the job. As a result, the null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 4.13.--Multivariate Analysis of Variance--Family. F-Ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean vectors 4.5820 d.f. = 13 and 70 P less than 0.0001 Variable Between Univariate P Less Mean SQ F Than Family 3.0476 0.2224 0,5335 Mean scores may be found in Table 4.111. 128 Hypothesis 13 Hypothesis 13: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the prin- cipals and community school directors with respect to the variable job security. Results of the multivariate analysis test for Hypothesis 13 are presented in Table 4.14. The mean scores of the principals and community school directors in Table 4.111 indicate no Significant differences exist between the principals and community school directors with reSpect to perceptions of job security. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is no difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with respect to perception of job security. As a result, the null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 4.14.-~Mu1tivariate Analysis of Variance-~Job Security. F-Ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean vectors 4.5820 d.f. = 13 and 70 P less than 0.0001 Variable Between Univariate P Less Mean SQ F Than Job Security 37.3333 2.9055 0.0921 Mean scores may be found in Table\4.lll. 129 The technique employed above on multivariate analysis of variance was programmed by Jeremy Finn at the State University of Buffalo. In Finn's technique mean scores are reported in rows and columns. A COpy of the table may be seen in Table 4.15. Again, one may observe that significance at the .05 level was obtained for authority and responsibility. The variables delegation and authority also had large signi- ficant F-ratios. These two variables were obtained from the ReSponsibility, Authority and Delegation Scales. The only variable that was not significant on this scale was the variable responsibility. In essence, the data suggest that the principals and community school directors' per- ceptions do not agree Significantly with respect to re- sponsibility. The data suggest that the principals and community school directors differ significantly with respect to their perceptions of authority and delegation. Summary In summary, based on the data of this study, the evidence suggests that the writer may make the following inferences from the analysis of the data: 1. There is no Significant difference between the perceptions of principals and community school directors with reSpect to the variable responsibility. 130 .muouomuflo Hoonom apas2850088 .mammflocwumc ommvH.aa mvomo.ma v~mmo.ma mmvam.~a «ammo.va hmm~¢.ma m4asm.ma 4..O.m.o ammom.ma maako.va mmmmm.va maosv.ma ommvo.ma omamn.~a measo.ma .mammaoaanm wufluoomm non >HHEmm Eoommum >mm mocmaum pomswucm>pa xuos mmaak.mv omaom.ov oammm.mv vaHN.Hv mmmmm.mv mam~4.mm ...O.m.o ooooo.av momao.nv om~vm.ov ammmm.mm Hamm~.mm omaoa.sm .nanmaoaana coauacmouom pad ououosuum uswEmmmcmz Hoonom cowumumoncOU mcwumwuwcH cowummmaoo huauozus< aufiaflnwmcommmm mmaodflum> mum mcsdaou maaou who msom III: mono: Haoo .uuooomuao Hoonom suaaaaaou pas mannaoaana mo manoom can: Has no wands poaanaoo mamsanaa npuan8>auaaz-u.ma.a mamaa 131 There is a significant difference between the perception of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable authority. There is a significant difference between the perceptions Of the principals and community school directors with reSpect to the variable delegation. There is no significant difference between the perceptions Of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable initiating structure. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable considera- tion. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable school management and reCOgnition. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with reSpect to the variable work. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable advancement. 132 9. There is no significant difference between the perceptions Of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable friends. 10. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable pay. 11. There is no Significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable freedom. 12. There is no significant difference between the perceptions Of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable family. 13. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the principals and community school directors with respect to the variable job security. This chapter has presented the data obtained from a multivariate analysis Of variance on two groups. The groups were principals and community school directors. Thirteen variables were tested and analyzed. The next chapter (Chapter V) will deal with the summary, conclu- sions, recommendations, implications, and areas for further study. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDY Summary This study examined the perceptions of the prin- cipals and community school directors' role with respect to responsibility, authority, and delegation by utilizing the Responsibility, Authority and Delegation Scales; the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire; and the Job Satisfaction and Job Expectations Questionnaire. To this end the writer sought to determine if significant differ- ences exist between principals and community school direc- tors with respect to thirteen different variables that were included in the RAD, LBDQ, and Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. The variables that were examined on the ReSponsibility, Authority, and Delegation Scales were: reSponsibility, authority and delegation. The variables that were examined on the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire were: initiating structure and considera- tion. The variables that were examined on the Job 133 134 Satisfaction and Job Expectations Questionnaire were: school management and recognition, work, advancement, friends, pay, freedom, family and job security. In essence, the basic question was--if the principal and community school director have been Operating virtually different suborganizations, and they are thruSt into a unitary organization, do significant differences exist with re- Spect to responsibility, authority and delegation when they are in a super-ordinate and subordinate relationship? The principal was defined as the super-ordinate and the community school director was defined as the subordinate by the superintendent. Does this change involve signifi- cant differences in worker job satisfaction and expecta- tions? Does this change involve Significant differences in initiating structure and consideration? This study consisted of a sample that represented the entire population of principals and community school directors in the elementary community schools of Flint, Michigan. There are two exceptions to the statements above: (1) one school was an experimental school for ex- ceptional children, therefore, a teacher who acted in the capacity of community school director was substituted for a director; (2) one school was a school for thementally retarded, and a teacher was substituted for a full-time director in that school. There were a total Of forty-four principals and forty-four community school directors that 135 were originally involved in the study. Forty-two prin- cipals and forty-two community school directors reSponded to the instrument in the study. The data was analyzed by employing the multivariate analysis statistic (programmed by Jeremy Finn). The decision rule employed a significant confidence level of .05. Supportive information was Obtained by interviews with the principals and community school directors. Selected relevant literature was discussed in Chapter II which included definitions of principals and community school directors role by authority; the changing role Of the principal and community school director in the reorganization and merger of the K-12 and community edu- cation program in the schools of Flint; related studies; current comments on the role of the principal and community school director from practitioners and community education professors; how administrative scholars view the problem; a general overview of role conflict; the sociological researcher's view of role conflict; psychological implica- tions of role conflict; and the anthropological approach to role and role conflict. Chapter III consisted of the site and sample. The instruments and their modifications are presented in Chapter III. Personal data on the subjects of the study are presented in this chapter. The procedure for con- ducting the study was explained and described. This 136 chapter is terminated by a statement of the hypothesis related to the thirteen variables under study. Chapter IV consisted of the presentation of observed data obtained from the study. The rationale for the employment of the multivariate analysis was discussed in this chapter with the accompanying analysis and pre- sentation of data in the form of data and stated hypo- theses related thereto. The hypotheses are tested individually and statistical tests based on procedural statistical decision rules were employed to reach a deci- sion of significance of each hypothesis. The summary of this chapter was concluded by a statement of each hypo- thesis and the resulting significant decisions based on F-ratios and p-values. Conclusion This study is based on the assumptions that the instruments; RAD, LBDQ, and JS and JE will provide re- searchable data to provide some understanding of role perceptions of principals and community school directors. The assumption about the RAD appears to be justified because Stogdill reports in Chapter III of this study that the reliability coefficients for the reSponsibility, authority, and delegation were: responsibility (.88); authority (.81); and delegation (.78) for the school principals for which the instrument was standardized. 137 Another factor that appears to support the assumption is that in the scale manual Halpin1 suggested that the Leadership Description Behavior Questionnaire is an instrument used to measure the perceptions of one leader in the formal organization to another leader in the formal organization or by himself. The assumption also appears to be supported by the statements of StOgdill that the Job Satisfaction and Job Expectations Question- naire measures specific variables related to this study. This assumption may be satisfied in general because the instruments described above may measure perception in the areas of responsibility, authority, delegation, leadership behavior, job satisfaction and job expectations according to the research findings of Halpin and Stogdill. Assumption 2 in the study states that the re- spondents are aware of the major change in the organ- izational structure and how it affects them. This assumption seems to be satisfied by the following public statements and interviews with the principals and com- munity school directors. The Flint Journal reported a statement by Cenko, President of the Flint Board of Education in May, 1972 as having said that the K-12 program is interrelated with the community education program. In August, 1972 in a conference with Pete Clancy, lHalpin, op. cit., p. 2. 138 Superintendent, Clancy stated that "The community school director will be assigned directly under the direction of the principal." In a speech to Mott Interns on September 25, 1972, Clancy illustrated what he referred to as the "old model" versus the "reorganization model." This reorganization model, said Clancy, "would place the community school director in a direct line position under the principal," which infers that the principal becomes the superordinate and the community school director the subordinate. A diagram of this model is reported under changing roles in the review of literature section in Chapter II. In the interviews with principals and com- munity school directors, they were aware of the organ- izational change; but were not clear on how to implement the change. Consensus was reached undisputedly with the principals regarding the superordinate-subordinate re- lationships between principal and community school director. All principals were agreed upon the fact that for the first time the community school directors were under their complete jurisdiction as a subordinate. The delegation of responsibility and authority in terms of degrees and quantity differed from principal to princi- pal. Consensus leaned in favor of the community school director being reSponsible for community school programs and advisory councils. In one school the community school director's role was defined by the principal as 139 an assistant principal, and a nameplate bearing this title was mounted over his office door. The above state- ments appear to satisfy the assumption that the principals and community school directors were aware of a change in their organizational roles. Assumption 3 states that transplantable paradigms can be identified in the Flint school system. This assumption appears to be satisfied by evidence that some individual schools in the Flint school system has adhered to the accountability model put out by the superinten- dent's office on September 25, 1972, entitled Bulletin- VSl-NO. 3,52, a copy of which is found in Appendix C. As an example witness, the Oak School, where the writer did a six-week internship. At Oak School the community school director is in charge of a team, and is delegated the responsibility and authority for that team's Operation; but being finally accountable to the principal. The team for which the community school director is reSponsible consists of an assistant community school director, school social worker, home school counselor, housing counselor, early childhood home and parent teaching director for preschool children, and an assistant director for pre— school home teaching. This, in turn, is coordinated by the principal; whose task it is to relate the program as directly as possible to the homes of children in the K-6 program. The goals of the program are to provide children 140 with improved preparation for school when they begin their K-6 program, and to provide enrichment and assistance to parents and children already enrolled in the K-6 program. An example of another model is found at Selby School where the community school director is subordinate to the principal. This model consists of a community school director that teaches a half day. The community school director teaches classes in the regular K-6 pro— gram in physical education in the evening. After school the director is responsible for the enrichment program for parents and students enrolled in the K-6 program. The principal and community school director have a shared responsibility for the advisory council. Sometimes the principal participates in the role of the community school director at night, and the community school director participates in the regular administrative duties of the principal during the day. In these activities the com- munity school director works with the K-6 teachers and the curriculum. The roles at night are jointly adminis- tered on occasions. An example of another model is found at King School where the Principal has designated that the com- munity school director be an assistant principal. This model concurs with the original wishes Of the superin- tendent when he suggested that the community school director will become an assistant principal. The 141 principal expressed a desire to the Superintendent Clancy that her administrative structure provide for the possi- bility of her Sharing the duties of the community school director at night, and he sharing her duties in the day- time activities. The extent of this involvement is not structured, but the philoSOphy is there. The above statements appear to justify the assump- tion that paradigms may be identified that are of a trans- plantable nature. This study, however, does provide some possibly useful data in terms of what to expect in the implementation of models such as these. To be more Specific, based on the hypotheses of this study, Specific information was gained with respect to how the two heads of the "two-headed organizations" react to a change to a unitary organization where the principal becomes the superordinate and the community school director the sub- ordinate. The question is how do the two heads perceive reSponsibility, authority, delegation, leadership behavior, job satisfaction and job expectations. Hypothesis 2--Variable "authority" had a statis- tically significant difference. The writer would like to interpret these results in terms of Max Weber's defi- nition of authority. Weber stated that: Legitimation--to refer to the acceptance of the exercise of power because it is in line with values held by the subjects; 142 Authority to refer to the combination of the two--i.e., to power that is viewed as legitimate. 1 Therefore, it appears that it may be inferred from a significant difference in the variable authority that the principal and community school director relationship has not been viewed by one or both as legitimate. The rami- fications of this condition may be profound in the school setting. It may manifest itself in lack of commitment to joint or unilateral decisions; role conflict; supervision of teachers' conflicts; curriculum decision conflicts; conflicts with the role of the principal and community director in dealing with parents and children; and most importantly in the role of the community school director in the community. A significant difference in this variable may reduce the efficiency of the organization. Since the evidence of the data suggests that there is no consensual base on the variable authority, administrative communications are threatened. When administrative communications are threatened, personnel problems may occur in the ranks. Because of this threat to communica- tions, other subordinates are not clear on the lines of authority at the top administrative level. Students are quick to note conflict between personnel, and this may lead to frustration within the student body. Etzioni, 9p, cit., p. 51. 143 Hypothesis 3--Variable "delegation" had a statis- tically significant difference. The writer would like to suggest that based on the data that delegation of power or authority in the administrative ranks is crucial. What role each will play in the organization is a critical issue. The data indicates that there is conflict in this area. Problems arising out of this conflict may take the form of how the responsibility is delegated, and to what extent. Whereas, the data suggested that there was no conflict in responsibility, there is a question of commit- ment to carry out the responsibility. It appears from this condition that the "instrumental functions," of the organization will be carried out, but the "effective functions," will go lacking for lack of commitment. In an atmosphere of change many anxieties build up from inherent ambiguity which may have led to acceptance of responsibility, but the questioning of authority and delegation. It appeared from the interviews that the community school directors were clear on what their in- strumental duties were, but were not clear on how much authority they had in implementation of programs. They were clear to a minimum extent on the extent of their involvement in the K-6 program. Their involvement varied in quantity and quality from building to building. This condition may be desirable because it allows for crea- tivity from building to building. It may not be desirable 144 if it perpetuates frustration in the personnel. The question arose with some community school directors if they are delegated additional responsibilities, such as day activities, what time will they have time for their own creations. Here, it appears is a conflict that re- sults from authority and delegation. Other problems resulting from delegation are the role Of the community school director as a liaison between the community when his delegated responsibility makes him more a part of the institution. Some feel that the detachment in part from the institution enhances their community communica- tion. In sum, it appears that the principals and com- munity school directors have evident conflict in the areas of authority and delegation. These problems appear to manifest themselves in the areas cited above. Hypothesis l--Variable "responsibility? did not have statistically significant differences. Through interviews the principals and community school directors appear to regard responsibility as a matter of course, accepted behavior with regard to the "instrumental func- tions," of the organization. This type Of attitude appeared to get in the way of many to begin Operating at the "effective level." 145 Hypotheses 4 and 5--Variables "Leadership Behavior." The variables under leadership behavior did not yield significant differences. This appears to infer that the principals and community school directors agree on the description of leadership behavior, that is, the principals behave the way the community school directors describe them as behaving. Hypothesis 6--Variable "job satisfaction" did not yield significant differences; therefore, it may be con- cluded that principals and community school directors appear to agree on school management and recognition procedures. Hypotheses 5, 6, 7, 8i_9J 10, ll, 12, and 13-- Variables "job expectations" did not yield statistically significant results. From the organization's point Of view, this may be viewed as positive because these variables relate to job expectations. Nonsignificant results appear to indicate that the expectations of both groups are not in conflict. Implications and Explanations How may the findings in Hypothesis 2 be ex- plained? Through interviews with the principals and >community school directors, it appears that authority is a crucial issue. During the previous administration 146 and organization, the authority of the community school director in his domain was considerably different. In his new role the community school director is a sub- ordinate and not a quasi-colleague as he was before; this appears to cause some conflict. The principals accus— tomed to being concerned about the K-6 program, and though they relish the notion of having the authority over the community school director they appear not to relish the thought of the added time spent in taking part in the night-time activities. What are the implications for community educa- tion? While this still appears to be a viable alternative for the "two headed monster" organization, it does pre— sent problems in the transitional stages. It may present problems in the long run also. A replicatory study might be to examine the same variables periodically over time to test if the same results are evident. For systems which plan to use the reorganization plan, attention must be placed on the relationships of the authority of ithe principal and community school director in the organ- ization. Another study might be, "does declaratory re- organization effect authority when the preparatory time is increased." What are the effects of this conflict on staff personnel or children? Does the community pre- fer a community school director whose detachment from the school is more like the previous organization or the 147 existing one? Which organization is more efficient in producing learning in children? These are implications that appear to warrant merit. Time may solve some of the problems, but con- tinuous research would be feasible to bring about desir- able lasting outcomes. How may the findings in Hypothesis 3 be ex- plained? The variable delegation yielded a statistically significant result. How authority is delegated has some interesting socio-psychological manifestations. Conflicts in delegation may breed insecurity in the personnel of the organization. It may result in disloyalty and reduce efficiency. A commitment to the task delegated might result in minimum effort to complete the task and reduce creativity. How does this effect community education? Com- munity education is an area that thrives on creativity. A conflict in authority threatens this creativity. A conflict in authority threatens this creativity. To be sure, delegation is an integral part of the organization's function, but conflict in this area is not healthy. It becomes a matter of what activities are delegated to the community school director, for example, lunchroom duty, discipline, and various other types of alienating activity may get in the way of the community school directors' relationship with the community and the students. As was 148 indicated in the interviews, the delegation of K-6 in- creased responsibility reduces time for community work. However, on the positive side most interviewees agreed that the most salient point of the reorganization plan is that it permits people to understand who they are to report to and who is responsible. The problem appears to be how, and to what extent. How may the findings in Hypothesis 1 be explained? Hypothesis 1 relates to responsibility. Responsibility per se does not appear to be a problem. The data gives evidence that the principal and community school director agree on the responsibility. ReSponsibility seems to be more related to the instrumental activities of the organ- ization. For example, the principal concedes that he is head of the school and can delegate authority to the community school director. The community school director concedes that the principal is the head of the school. The community school director may, however, differ on how the authority is delegated or allocated. What effect does this have on community educa- tion? This could be supportive to community education because the principal and community school director agree on who is responsible for what. It may also mean that they agree on joint responsibility. How may the findings of Hypotheses IV and V be explained? Since many of the directors were much younger 149 and were upwardly mobile, they were concerned about re- sponsibility to their superiors in the most acceptable terms. The superiors indicated, through interviews, that they felt extremely good about their relationship with their directors and the way they behaved. Agreement on the behavior of the two groups of administrators appears to be important to community educators because conflict in this area could get in the way and produce role conflict. How may the findings in Hypothesis 6 be ex- plained? Both principals and community school directors are paid well, as well as both received numerous non- economic rewards. Most directors have been promoted within the last four to five years, most are upwardly mobile and job satisfaction appears to be no problem as observed from the interviews. From organizational point of view non-significance in this area appears to be healthy, because a satisfied employee should be an efficient employee. It appears that community education could profit from satisfied employees. Satisfaction here appears to mean satisfaction with position, and not necessarily satisfaction with the functioning of the position. How may the findings in hypotheses 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ll, 12, and 13 be explained? Again, the community school director, for the most part, are upwardly mobile 150 and the fact that most have been promoted recently sug— gests that their expectations have received immediate reward and reinforcement recently, which suggests also possibly high expectations. The apparent relationship of high expectations on performance suggests that this variable warrants additional study in depth to determine whether these high expectations continue over time. The results of this study indicates promise for community education because community education thrives on personnel which have high expectations of their jobs. Agreement on ex- pectations by principal and community school directors appears to be positive for the organization. In sum, there is a proliferation of literature in community education that suggests that the "two headed monster” is not a viable organizational structure. The structure prOposed by the Flint Board as an alternative appears to have promise. However, the data from this study suggest that there are limitations in establishing a unitary system. The limitations are the lack of a consensual base on the variables authority and delega- tion on the part of principals and community school directors. It appears that these problems cannot be ignored by a chief administrator who plans tO transplant the paradigm (transplant means to use the Flint model in another school district). It may well be that in 151 the planning stages of the transplant, the recipient may wish to provide for a mechanism to deal with these anticipated problems. However, the study has revealed many rewarding aspects of the new paradigm, though they are in the embryonic stages they Show much promise. In this unified system, in many cases according to interviews, the principal and community school director have found it helpful to mutually work with community concerns, home school counselors, pre-school programs, and programs that are K-6 and community education related to provide for better articulation of the whole educative process. When a community sees the principal and community school director working harmoniously and mutually for their best interest and the interest of their students, according to the interviews, the problems of the school are minimal. To quote a statement from Charles Stewart Mott, "What I am worth is what I am doing for other peOple."1 Recommendations The results of this study indicate that there are significant differences between the perceptions of the principal and community school director with respect 1Lawrence R. Gustin, Journal Automotive Editor, "Charles Stewart Mott Dies," The Flint Journal, Flint, Michigan, February 18, 1973, p. 1. 152 to authority and delegation. This study indicates that there are no significant differences in responsibility. There were no significant differences in initiating structure and consideration. Also, the data indicated that there were no significant differences on the dimen- sions of job satisfaction and job expectations. Based on the data, the writer sets forth the following recommendations: 1. That the chief administrator re-examine the goals of the organization in order to evaluate the utilization of the data. Two major con- siderations must be taken into account. (a) Is change the major goal of the organization? (b) Is it desirable to have the two administra— tors differing or having the same percep- tions? If the goal of the organization is to bring about change only; then the present state of affairs is acceptable. If the goal of the organization is to promote change while pre- serving harmony, then the process should be employed to ameliorate differences. It appears that this may be accomplished through inservice training Of administrators; providing periodic Opportunities for the two groups to be together away from the task environment; reorganization 153 of administrators so that more compatible admin- istrators will be together; reducing ambiguity in roles through a clarification of roles or having the two groups mutually define roles. That studies be conducted to analyze why there is a difference in authority and delegation to further delineate cause and effect relationships in the problem. That studies be conducted to ascertain the effects . of the problems on the organization. That studies be conducted to ascertain the effects of the problem on the curriculum. That studies be conducted to ascertain the effects of the problems on subordinate staff morale. That studies be conducted to ascertain the effects of the problem on student morale. That a "consensual base" be established for the health of an organization and to offset the tendency of organizations in dynamic change to tend toward atrOphy. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Bales, Robert F. Small Groups. New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, 1965. Barrett, Jon H. Individual Goals and Organizational Objgctives. Ann Arbor, MiCh.: University of Michigan, 1970. Campbell, Roald F.; Cunningham, Luvern L; McPhee, Roderick F.; and Nystrand, Raphael O. The Organ- ization and Control of American Schools. 2fid ed. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. MerriIl Publishing Company, 1970. Etzioni, Emitai. Modern Organizations. New Jersey: Prentice-HaII, Inc., 1964. Faber, Charles, and Shearrou, Gilbert F. Elementary School Administration Theory and Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1970. Fendrock, John J. Goals in Conflict. New York: American Management Association, Inc., 1969. Gross, Neal, and Herriott, Robert E. Staff Leadership in Public Schools: A Sociological Inquiry. New York: JOhh Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965. ; Ward, Mason 5.; and McEachern, Alexander W. Ex loration in Hole Analysis. New York: John WiEey and Sons, Inc., 1958. Haas, J. Eugene. Role Conception and Group Consensus. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of BusinessiResearch, College of Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State University, 1964. 154 155 Halpin, Andrew W. Administrative Theory in Education. Chicago: Midwest AdministratiOn Center, University of Chicago, 1958. . Manual for the Leader Behavior Descri tion Questionnaire. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State UniverSity. . Theory and Research in Administration. New York: The MacMilIan Company, 1967. Hoebel, E. Adamson. Anthropology: The Study of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972. Homans, George C. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World,i1950. Honigman, John J. Understanding Culture. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. Jackson, J. A. Role. London: Cambridge at the University Press, 1972. Jennings, Eugene Emerson. Routes to the Executive Suite. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971. Kluckhohn, Clyde, and Murray, Henry A. Personality in Nature, Society and Culture. New York: Aifred A. KnOpf, 1971. McCleary, Lloyd E., and Hencley, Stephen P. Secondar School Administration. New York: Dodd, Mead, and COmpany, 1965? Parsons, Talcott. American Sociology, New York: Basic Books, 1968. . Social_Structure and Personality. New York: The Free Press, 1965. . The Social System. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1951. ; Bales, Robert F.; and Shils, Edward A. Workin Pa ers in the Theory of Action. Glencoe, III.: The Free Press, 1953. Perlman, Helen Harris. Persona. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1968. 156 Runkel, Philip J., and McGrath, Joseph E. Research on Human Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart ‘—-— and’Winston, Inc., 1972. Selltiz, Claire; Jahoda, Marie; Deutsch, Morton; and Cook, Stuart W. Research Methods in Social Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and' Winston, 1959. Stogdill, Ralph M. Job Satisfaction and Job Egpectations Manual. Colhfihus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1965. . Leadership and RolgyEgpectation. Columbus, Ohio: The Bureau ofiBusiness Research, College of Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State University, 1956. . The RAD Scales Manual. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State UniverSity, 1957. Tatsuoka, Maurice. Multivariate Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971. Thompson, James D. Or anizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill BOOE Company,1967. Wallace, Anthony F. C. Culture and Personality. New York: Random House, 1970. Warr, Peter B., and Knapper, Christopher. The Perception of People and Events. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1968. Znaniecki, Florian. Social Relations and Social Roles. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1965. Periodicals Barlett, Lynn M. A Statement of Basic Philosophy Rggarding Public Education:"The Importance Of the Community to EducatiOn. (Lahsing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Public Instruction, 1960), p. 2. Beegle, Bernard B. "Don't Do It--De1egate It!" Su er- visory Management, XV, No. 4 (April, 1970 , . 157 Benedict, Burton. "Family Forms and Economic Development." Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, XXIV, No. l (Spring,1968), 3. Benton, Lewis R. ”The Many Faces of Conflict: How Differences of Opinion." Supervisory Management, XV, No. 3 (March, 1970), 7. Brumbaugh, Robert B. "Authenticity and Theories of Administrative Behavior." Sociological Abstracts, XX, No. IV (July, 1972), 39. Campbell, Clyde. ”Contributions of the Mott Foundation to the Community Education Movement." Phi Delta Kappan, LIV, No. 3 (November, 1972), 196. . "High Quality Leadership." The Community School, X, No. 11 (July, 1972), 2. Connor, John. "Staffing of the Community School." Worcester Community Schools Mean . . . People. Worcester, Mass.: Worcester Puhlic'SChools, 1972, p. 13. Derr, C. Brooklyn. "Conflict Resolution in Organizations: Views from the Field of Educational Administra- tion." Public Administration Review, XXXII, No. 5 (Sept./Oct., 1972), 495. Drabrick, Lawrence. "Social Position as a Factor in Perception of Role Performance." Sociological Abstracts, XX, No. V (August, l972),'1060. Dunkin, Michael J. "The Nature and Resolution of Con— flict Among Male Primary School Teachers." Sociology of Education, XLV, NO. l (1972), Epstein, Irwin. "Professional Role Orientations and Conflict Strategies." Sociological Abstracts, XX, No. I-II (February-April,il972), 9. GerHardt, Uta. "Role Conflict and the Class Structure." Sociology and Social Research, LV, No. 3. Gustin, Lawrence R. "Charles Stewart Mott Dies." The Flint Journal! February 18, 1973, p. l. 158 Harrison, Roger. ”Understanding Your Organization's Character." Harvard Business Review, L, No. 3 (May-June,’l972i, 121. Jackson, Ronald; Spitzer, Steve; and Ballentine. "Cog- nition and the Acquisition of Professional Identity.” Sociological Abstracts, XX, No. III (May, 1972), 26. Klinger, Eric, and McNelly, Frederick W., Jr. "Fantasy Need Achievement and Performance: A Role Analysis." Psychological Review, LXXVI, No. 6 (November, 1969). Lauer, Robert H., and Boardman, Linda. ”Role—Taking: Theory Typology, and Propositions." Sociolo and Social Research, LV, No. 2 (January, 197gi, 139. Levison, Robert E. "Are You Afraid to DevelOp Talented Subordinates." Supervisory Management, XVII, No. 3 (March, 1972), 12. Lichtenstein, Parker E. "A Behavioral Approach to Phenomenological Data.” The Psychological Record, XXI, NO. 21 (Winter' 1 - o Munford, Enid. "Job Satisfaction--A New Approach Derived from an Old Theory." The Sociological Review, XVIII, No. 1 (March, 1970), 77. Peterfreund, Emanuel. "The Programming of Biological Activity Behavior, and Subjective Psychological Experience: Pathology Conflict, and Defense." Psychological Issues, VII, No. l (1971), 170. Richard, Glynn. "Home Visitation in Hazel Park." Michigan Educational Journal, reprint (April 1, 19681, 20. Viano, Emilio, and Wildemen. ”Organizational Size and Managerial Attitudes of Probation Administrators." SociolOgy and Social Research, LVI, No. 4 Wiy,1972) , 48f. Zabiholah, Sabet-SharGHI. "The Relationships Between Motivational Orientation, Role Perception, and Job Performance." Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXII, No. 3B TSEptember, 1971), B. 159 Unpublished Material Abstracted from the Table of Organization, Worcester Public Schools, Chart 3, January 1, 1970. "An Administrator's Guide to Vitalizing Community Education Through Personal Communication." Hazel Park's--Vitalizing the Community School fiilosgahy, p. I. Candoli, Superintendent of Lansing Schools. Speech to Michigan State University Mott-Interns, Lansing, Michigan, October 18, 1972. Clancy, Peter (Superintendent of Flint Public Schools). Interview, August 15, 1972. Connor, John (Superintendent, Worcester Public Schools). Speech to Mott Interns, Flint, Michigan, October 5, 1972. Crosby, Jerry David. ”A Study of the Expectancies Which Community School Directors and Related Others have Of the Community Directors' Roles in Serving Neighborhoods of Eight Inner-City Schools in the City of Flint, Michigan." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. Dow, John, Jr. "A Comparative Study of Inner-City Elementary Teachers' and Principal's Perceptions of and Role Expectations for the Leadership Behavior of Selected Inner-City Elementary Principals.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Dowdy, Homer E. (Vice President, Program Administration, Mott Foundation). Speech made to 1972 Mott Interns, Flint, Michigan, September 19, 1972. Edson, Gilmore L. "An Analysis of the Perceptions of Administrative Activity by Michigan School Superintendents and Professors of Educational Administration." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. 160 Gregory, Ann (Director of Elementary Community Schools, Flint Board of Education). General Superinten- dent's Bulletin, Vol. 51, No. 3, 82, September 25, 1972. Groulx, Harry Joseph. "A Study of the Influence of Selected Factors on the Elementary School Prin- cipal's Role in Curriculum DevelOpment as Per- ceived by Selected Elementary School Teachers and Elementary School Principals." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. Johnson, Van. Speech to Mott-Interns Seminar, Michigan State University, East Lansing, September 27, 1972. Kromer, William. ”The Hazel Park Story." (From conference with and unpublished paper, November 9, 1972), p. 2. ‘ McSweeney, Mary Ellen. Statistics Lecture, Michigan State University, January 8, 1973. Mitchell, Leonard L., Jr. "The Expressed Perceptions and Expectations of Selected Prospective Secondary School Teachers as They View the Leader Behavior of the Secondary School Prin- cipal." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Revis, Bob (Director of Research), Flint Board Of Education, December 14, 1972. Webb, Wilfred. ”The Hazel Park Story." Unpublished material by Hazel Park Schools, p. l. APPENDICES APPENDIX A INSTRUMENTS APPENDIX A INSTRUMENTS 10......4OOOOOOOROOOOOOI ZOOOOOOOSOOOOOOOAOOOOOOC 3.0.0.006000000000000000 THE RAD SCALES Ralph M. Stogdill Bureau of Business Research The Ohio State University Directions: Below are six separate scales. Two of these scales describe different degrees of responsibility. Two describe different degrees of authority, and twoidescribe different degrees of authorityideieggted to assistants. For each scale please check only two items, as follows: Double Check (l/) the single statement which most accurately describes your status and practices in carrying out your duties, and check (/) the next most descriptive statement. Double Check (//) = Most descriptive statement Check (/) = Next most descriptive statement SCALE 1 ( ) l. I am responsible for the formulation and adoption of long range plans and policies. ( ) 2. I am responsible for making decisions which define operating policies. (Check only two items in Scale 1) C0pyright 1957 161 162 My superior gives me a general idea of what he wants done. It is my job to decide how it shall be done and to see that it gets done. It is my responsibility to supervise the work performed by my assistants and subordinates. The operations of my unit are planned by my superiors. It is my responsibility to see that the plan is executed. It is my responsibility to carry out direct orders which I receive from my superior officers. My responsibilities and duties are assigned daily in the form of Specific tasks. My superior approves each task I complete before I am permitted to undertake another. SCALE 2 I have complete authority for establishing policies and goals of a general SCOpe and establishing the lines of organizational author- ity and responsibility for the attainment of these goals. I am authorized to make all decisions necessary for the implementation of long range plans. In the main I can make and carry out all deci- sions which fall within the realm of established policy without consulting my superior or Obtain- ing his approval. I have complete authority on routine matters but refer the majority of unusual items to my superior for approval. All questions of policy must be referred to my superior for his decision. I frequently refer questions to my superior before taking any action. I seldom make decisions or take action without approval from my superior. My work procedures are fully outlined and allow little freedom in making decisions. (Check only two items in each scale) 163 SCALE 3 My assistants have been granted authority to fulfill their duties in any manner they deem advisable. My assistants have full authority, except that I retain the right to approve or disapprove of decisions affecting policy making. My assistants have been authorized to make deci- sions on problems as they arise, but must keep me informed on matters of importance. My assistants have authority to handle all routine matters in day to day operations. My assistants may act in most routine matters. Many of the responsibilities of my office cannot be entrusted to assistants. My assistants have no actual authority to take action, but make recommendations regarding specific action to me. I dictate detailed orders to my subordinates which they must carry out exactly as I specify, consulting me frequently if they are in doubt. SCALE 4 I am responsible for decisions relative to changes in long term policy. I am responsible for making decisions relative to methods for effecting major changes in operations. My superior always informs me as to the tasks to be performed and I am solely responsible for deciding how to fulfill these tasks and super- vising their performance. It is my responsibility to supervise the carrying out Of orders which I receive from my superior. I am responsible for making decisions relative to routine questions. (Check only two items in each scale) ( 2. 164 I execute direct orders given by my superiors. I have only my own routine tasks to account for. I am not reSponsible for making decisions. SCALE 5 I have complete authority for formulating policies of general nature and scope and for establishing lines of the entire organizational authority and responsibility. I am authorized to make decisions which put all major plans and policies into action. I refer only matters of an exceptional nature to my superior for approval. I settle most problems myself. In situations not covered by instructions, I decide whether action is to be taken and what action is to be taken. I have no authority to act in matters where policy is not clearly defined. I have authority to make decisions only as they are related to my own routine tasks. I make decisions only when given explicit authority. I follow a work schedule laid out for me by my superiors and have little authority to make changes. SCALE 6 I make decisions only when consulted in unusual circumstances, authorizing my assistants to exercise a high degree of authority and responsibility in making decisions. I have delegated full authority to my assistants, other than the rights to prescribe policy and pass upon broad procedures. (Check only two items in each scale) 165 I give my assistants a general idea of what I want done. It is their reSponsibility to decide how it shall be done and to see that it gets done. I have delegated to my assistants authority to make all routine daily decisions. I make most decisions coming within my scope of authority, although my assistants assume con- siderable reSponsibility for making decisions in routine matters where policies and procedures are well established. I supervise my assistants fairly closely in their exercise of authority. I make all important decisions coming within my scope of authority. My assistants are responsible for making decisions only in minor matters. ‘ I have not found it advisable to delegate authority to my assistants. (Check only two items in Scale 6) 166 LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE DevelOped by staff members of The Ohio State Leadership Studies Name of Leader Being Described Name of Group Which He Leads Your Name On the following pages is a list of items that may be used to describe the behavior of your supervisor. Each item describes a Specific kind of behavior, but does not ask you to judge whether the behavior is desirable or undesirable. This is not a test Of ability. It simply asks you to describe, as accurately as you can, the behavior of your supervisor. Note: The term "group," as employed in the following items, refers to a department, division, or other unit of organization which is supervised by the person being described. The term "members," refers to all the people in the unit of organization which is supervised by the person being described. Published by Bureau of Business Research College of Commerce and Administration The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio Copyright 1975 167 DIRECTIONS: 11. 12. a. READ each item carefully. b. THINK about how frequently the leader engages in the behavior described by the item. c. DECIDE whether he always, often, occasionally, seldom or never acts as described by the item. d. DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters following the item to show the answer you have selected. A = Always B = Often C = Occasionally D = Seldom E = Never He does personal favors for group members. A B C D He makes his attitudes clear to the group. A B C D He does little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group. A B C D He tries out his new ideas with the group. A B C D He acts as the real leader of the group. A B C D He is easy to understand. A B C D He rules with an iron hand. A B C D He finds time to listen to group members. A B C D He criticizes poor work. A B C D He gives advance notice of changes. A B C D He Speaks in a manner not to be questioned. A B C D He keeps to himself. A B C D 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 168 He looks out for the personal welfare of individual group members. He assigns group members to particular tasks. He is the Spokesman of the group. He schedules the work to be done. He maintains definite standards of performance. He refuses to explain his actions. He keeps the group informed. He acts without consulting the group. He backs up the members in their actions. He emphasizes the meeting of deadlines. He treats all group members as his equals. He encourages the use of uniform procedures. He gets what he asks for from his superiors. He is willing to make changes. He makes sure that his part in the organization is understood by group members. He is friendly and approachable. He asks that group members follow standard rules and regulations. He fails to take necessary action. He makes group members feel at ease when talking with them. > w 3’ :> > > » CD [11 U! CD DJ ('17 0000 O O U U U U U D! Di [’1 t1! t1! 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 169 He lets groups members know what is expected Of them. He speaks as the representative of the group. He puts suggestions made by the group into Operation. He sees tO it that group members are working up to capacity. He lets other people take away his leadership in the group. He gets his superiors to act for the welfare of the group members. He gets group approval in important matters before going ahead. He sees to it that the work of group members is coordinated. He keeps the group working together as a team. 170 Satisfaction With Organization How is your job at the present time? Do you think it is very good, good, fair, poor, or very poor? DIRECTIONS: 1. Read each of the following items that describes something about your job. ~ 2. Decide whether it is very good, good, fair, poor, or very poor. 3. Draw a circle around the symbol that best describes your job. Do thisifor each item. VG = Very Good G = Good F = Fair P = Poor VP = Very Poor 1. Administrators' interest in welfare of personnel VG G F P VP 2. This school as a place to work VG G F P VP 3. Appreciation shown here for my work VG G F P VP 4. Fair treatment of personnel by administrator VG G F P VP 5. This school's reputation in the community VG G F P VP 6. Feeling that my job is regarded as important VG G F P VP 7. Principal's planning for the future VG G F P VP 8. Communications from school to its personnel VG G F P VP 9. Credit given by my principal for doing a good job VG G F P VP 10. Principal's understanding of subordinates' problems VG G F P VP 11. My pride in working for this school VG G F P VP 12. Credit given by school for good work VG G F P VP How is your job in comparison with what you think it Is it much better than you expect, better than you expect, about the same as you expect, poorer than you expect, or much poorer than you expect? should be? 171 JOB EXPECTATIONS DIRECTIONS: 1. Read each item carefully. 2. Decide whether it says something about your job that is much better than you expect, better than you expect, about the same as you expect, poorer than you expect, or much poorer than you expect? 3. Draw a circle around one Of the five symbols to Show how well the item meets your expectations. DO this for each item. MB = Much Better than expected B = Better than expected S = Same as expected P = Poorer than expected MP = Much Poorer than expected Satisfaction with my present job My chances of getting ahead in this school My friends' Opinions about the school The amount of money I am paid Freedom to make decisions about my work My family's pride in my job Chances of keeping this job as long as I want it My happiness in my work compared to most people Satisfaction with my progress here My job compared with my friends' jobs Pay here compared to other places MB MB E E E 5 MP E E E E 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 172 Same as expected Emmwg Freedom to use my own judgment in my work What my family thinks about the school Chances of steady work Liking for the work I am doing here My chances of going as high as I want to go here My advancement compared with that of my friends Pay compared to what my work is worth Ability to plan ahead in my work Interest of my family in my work here Chances of staying on this job till retirement Interesting work to do Advancement on the basis of ability My pay compared with the pay of my friends The pay for overtime work Freedom to express my opinions to my supervisor My family's satisfaction with my advancement here Steadiness of work here compared with most places Poorer than expected Much Poorer than expected MB E 5 E 5 E E E 8 Much Better than expected Better than expected B S MP MP MP MP MP MP MP MP MP MP MP MP MP 10. 173 PERSONAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL AND COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR Should the principal work with the community council? Should the community school director work with the community council? Should they work with the council jointly or separately? Should they present different problems to the council? Should the principal work with Ad Hoc Committees such as pre-natal care, nutri- tion problems in homes, providing desirable education experiences for pre-school youngsters, establishing better working relationships between community agencies, and school functionaires such as home counselors and community school directors? Are there any boundaries placed around the community school director role as a catalytic agent? Should he engage in political activities? Should he act as a catalytic agent to get a different kind of reading program in the school? Should the principal be working with other principals on new programs in elementary education? Should the community school director serve as an assistant principal when the principal is out of the building? Should the community school directors be given rights not assigned to other staff members? What boundaries would community school directors place on their role as catalytic agents? 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 174 Yes Have community school directors ever related themselves to the instructional daytime program? ( ) Should the community school director operate under policies just as the athletic coach Operates under policies? ( ) Do community school directors and prin- cipals come into conflict over budgetary matters? ( ) How should the community school directors role fit into the daytime program? ( ) Does the principal see the community school director role as being analogous to that of the home counselor? ( ) Does the principal conceive his role to be an educational leader or an admini— strator of his school? ( ) NO ( ) APPENDIX B COMMUNICATIONS APPENDIX B COMMUNICATIONS September 24, 1972 Dr. Peter L. Clancy, Superintendent Office of the Superintendent Flint Community Schools Flint, Michigan 48506 Dear Dr. Clancy: Earlier in August, I had the pleasure of having a conference with you. At this time I discussed with you the interest I had in doing my doctoral disserta- tion study in the Flint Community Schools. I am a Mott-intern on the doctoral program at Michigan State University. I have had a conference with Mrs. Ann Gregory, as you requested, and found it to be very rewarding. I would like written permission from you to do my doctoral dissertation in the 44 elementary community schools Of Flint. You suggested that each of these schools has a community school director and a prin- cipal. My dissertation will be concerned with the analysis of leadership behavior Of the community school director and the principal. The instruments that will be used were develOped by Dr. Ralph M. Stogdill and Dr. Halpin. This study may be of assistance to your reorganization plans or other systems that plan to adopt your reorganization model. Your permission will be appreciated and I shall begin an internship with Mrs. Gregory during early November. Sincerely, AMA/{1c- Bobb M. Mitchell, Sr. 175 176 9%; Emmy W282 ADMINISTRAYION BUILDING ° 923 EAST KEARSLEY STREET 0 FLINT. MICHIGAN ‘CUOZ September 28, 1972 Mr. Bnbby M. Mitchell, Sr. AHOQ Cloverlawn Drive Flint, Michigan 48504 Dear Mr. Mitchell: Your letter Of September 24 has arrived in this Office. Regarding the written permission which you request, I believe that it should come from Mrs. Anne Gregory, Director Of Elementary Community Education, in that your primary interest deals only with elementary schools. I would further suggest that you submit your instruments for Mrs. Gregory's purview. Best Of luck on your dissertation plans and with your internship with Mrs. Gregory. Sincerely, fizfim Peter L. Clancy Superintendent of Community Education cc: Mrs. Anne Gregory 177 October 5, 1972 Mrs. Ann Gregory, Director Elementary Community Education Department of Elementary Community Education Flint Community Schools 923 East Kearsley Street Flint, Michigan 48502 Dear Mrs. Gregory: Our conference of September nineteenth was very grati- fying, and I was overwhelmed by your cordiality. I am a Mott-intern on the doctoral program at Michigan State University. Because of your unique Community Educational Organization of principals and community school directors, I would like to do my doctoral dis- sertation in the Flint Community Schools. The instru- ments will take a minimum amount of the administrator's time, and it is very easy to respond to the questions. The instruments were developed by Dr. Ralph M. StOgdill and Dr. Halpin. The authenticity of the study will be enhanced if all the administrators on the elementary level could reSpond. I would like written permission from you to do my doctoral dissertation in the 44 elementary community schools of Flint. You will receive an abstract of the results as promised. Your permission will be appreciated, and I am anxiously looking forward to an internship with you. Enclosed are copies of the instruments, as suggested by Dr. Clancy. Sincerely, W m. MMA, Bobby M. Mitchell, Sr. 178 922/ %W (yaw ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 0 923 EAST KEARSLEY STREET 0 FLINT. MICHIGAN 48802 October 18, 1972 Nb“. Bobby M. Mitchell, Sr. LU+O9 Cloverlawn Drive Flint, Mich. 48504 Dear Mr. Mitchell: In acknowledging the receipt of your letter dated October 5, 1972 IiLease be hereby advised that your request to do an internship in Oirr Office as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the doctorate degree has been granted. During this interim I will send a memo to the elementary principals Stating you will arrive to present them with the questionaire you plan to administer. In the meantime we will begin to think in terms of meaningful ex- periences for you to do while in our Office. We're looking forward to working with you. Best of luck for continued success in your program. Sincerely, ' I K , \v ‘ (1. LA JAIL L11 Mrs. Anne Gregbry, Eirtctor AGzer Elementary Community Education 179 INTER-OFFICE MEMO Flint Community Schools FROM: Office of Elementary Education TO: Elementary Principals SUBJECT: Mott Interns BobbyyM. Mitchell , a Mott Intern will be conducting a ten minute personal survey of principals in the elementary schools. He will call you for an appointment sometime next week. the questionnaire will be delivered to you and your CSD one week and picked up the next week. Thank you for your very fine support in this matter. 180 9/24/1972 Dr. Ralph M. Stogdill College of Administrative Science Division of Research #212 Hagerty Hall Ohio State University 1775 South College Road Columbus, Ohio 43210 Dear Dr. Stogdill: I was a student in your class (Bus. Adm. Anal of Organization Theory--Spring Quarter 1972), at which time I became interested in Leadership Behavior Analysis. I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University and hope to use the instruments that you gave me sample copies of in my dissertation, LBDQ, RAD, and the Job Satisfaction and Job Expectations question- naires. I am asking permission to use and duplicate COpies as is of the following instruments: LBDQ, RAD, and the Job Satisfaction and Job Expectations question- naires for use in my doctoral dissertation. It probably will become necessary for me to contact or communicate with you in the future as the study progresses. You and your class has become so important in my future and career, thanking you for your support and cooperation. Sincerely, 7,, mild/,1. Bobby M. Mitchell, Sr. 181 THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY I773 SOUTH COLLEGE IOAI: C . ‘7 1...”... owmus’ (""0 ”2'" “114-142232120 f.Lle.\lS]RA'll\'I-‘ \‘4 lI-\(I H ‘ m UH th 0| RPM Akin H'tnmvi H‘R RI MAM I: 1\ a ' ' r r ‘S'thllil' v.11 unnuvmmx ‘~' “def. C” 1'9 "I Mr. Bobby M. Mitchell, Sr. hhflv Cloverlawn Drive Flint, Michigan h850h Dear Mr. Mitchell: You have our permission to use and duplicate the LBLQ. RA“, and the Job Satisfaction and Job Expectations questionnaires in your doctoral dissertation. Good Luck in your research! Sincerely, (941,4..SMWL Ralph M. Stogdill Director and Professor of Management Sciences and _l {sycnology HMS/a2 182 October 25, 1972 Dear Principal and Community School Director: Having been an administrator myself, I can understand how busy your schedules are. Also I can understand that a questionnaire can become a nuisance. But, I beg your indulgence for a few moments; if you please, and respond to the enclosed questionnaire. The items are arranged so that a response requires minimum effort. The authenticity of the study will be enhanced if all the administrators on the elementary level would respond. A random sample would be discriminatory, therefore it would be my desire to have everyone participate. Your Principal and Community School Director organizational structure is unique within the country. History is being made by you, therefore I am hOpeful that you would be desirous of becoming a part of this written record. The study is concerned with an analysis of leadership behavior as measured by three instruments, Authority, Re- ReSponsibility, and Delegation Scale; Leadership Behavior Questionnaire; and Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. The focus of the study is on ”perceptions," (how you see your role or others' role being exhibited). Each individual is important in this study, but for the purpose of reporting data only the behavior of the respective populations will be necessary. Therefore names and schools will remain confidential and extreme caution has been taken to preserve the anonymity of individual data. The numbers that appear in the upper right-hand corner of the page are coded so that data can be correlated between principal's and community school director's scores. I shall be ever grateful to you for your cooperation. Sincerely, ‘égp4géf,fl7. )fiu2362€;' / Bobby M. Mitchell, Sr. 787-6884 BM:kc Enc. APPENDIX C AUXILIARY INFORMATION APPENDIX C AUXILIARY INFORMATION INTERNS RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Write job descriptions for Principal and Community School Director so that they are inter-related. Devise an evaluation form for ten goals given principals. Devise a recording form from all schools. Accordian folders (or some such) to divide items for each school as they are turned in. Compile abstracts from zones and community councils for the Board Members with commonalities and differences spelled out. Devise a means of reporting these items back to the schools. Communications? How do we expediently get these to the schools? Develop calendar of community council meetings. 183 184 170 Dunkin On the other hand, individuals who might be classified as "other-oriented" will be likely to attach greater signi- ficance to socially-induced forces than to own forces and, therefore, will tend to conform to the former rather than than the latter where they conflict. With reSpect to behavioral continua such as warmth or directiveness, the structure of conflicts among own and socially-induced forces can take a variety of forms. Two Of the more complex of these are Shown in Figures 1 and 2. In the first case, own forces can press toward a point on FIGURE 1 TYPE 1 STRUCTURE OF CONFLICTS Role Expectation 1 Vs Needs Vs Role Expectation 2 Behavioral Continuum the continuum which is incompatible with, and intermed- iate to, points defined by role expectations which them- selves conflict. For example, a teacher may have needs consistent with a moderate level of directiveness in his dealings with students but feel that the parents of his pupils prescribe low directiveness while the principal of his school prescribes high directiveness. Or, own forces may press the person toward a point on the continuum which is incompatible with, and beyond, any of the points defined by conflicting role expectations. (See Figure 2). For example, a teacher may have needs FIGURE 2 TYPE 2 STRUCTURE OF CONFLICTS Role Expectation 1 Vs Role Expectation 2 Vs Needs Behavioral Continuum disposing him toward high warmth in his interaction with students but may perceive pressures from his peers toward medium warmth and from his superiors toward low warmth. 185 1972-73 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPECTATIONS ITEM DATE 0? INITIATION 1. Active and Organised Community (Advisory) Council November 1, 1972 2. Further development, and where appropriate, initi- October 1, 1972 ation of the accountability modal developed by each 4 school. Includes mutually developed (principal, staff, CSD, parents) objectives and delivery systems, plus a method of evaluation. 3. Local building PARENT INFORMATION meetings to be To be completed by Friday, conducted on a grade level basis (As: material October 27 (end of American to be covered by children during the year. Should Education Week) include expectations of staff, parents, and children.) 4. Report of Achievement Growth Pattern PERSONALLY During latter part of May for to parents of all children in your school (K-6) SRA results, at any other plus, a report to upper grade students of their times as viewed as appropri- individual progress. Instruments to be used in ate for other instruments. the determination of the growth pattern: SRA Reading and Math Series (grades 1,2,4,S), SRA hading, Hath, Language Arts (grade 3), SRA Battery (grade 6) Metropolitan Reading Readiness (k69.I. 5. Development of END OF SCHOOL TAKE HOMES for pur- Week of June 4 to June 8 for pose of providing parents with suggestions and Parent Education Programs assignments for children to work with during the (grade level approach may be summer months. Development of such materials best). Parents must receive SHOULD include parent education programs to information about purpose and better insure practical usage of the materials. use of materials before they ‘Pleasa Note: A correlation between the above ax- are sent home with children. pectation (No. 4) and this one is possible. Summer programs could be developed by CSD to support material utilisation. 6. Utilisation of 8:10-8:50 a.m. planning periods for October 1, 1972 and VOLUNTEER involvement of teachers for the follow— regularly thereafter ing purposes: a. grade level meetings, and/or b. upper elementary/lower elementary meetings, and/or c. curriculum coordinator meetings for inservice d. individual teacher differentiated staffing, or team teaching planning sessions. 7. Effective Inservice Programs: planned with in- As scheduled per contractural service department for the purpose of supporting agreements, plus, individual the total community education program, or a dates and topics selected by selected part thereof. local school preference. 8. Team approach of non-teaching staff regarding Ismediataly, with continuous cosmunication and school planning (principal, CSD, maintainenca. social worker, home-school counselor, parent co- ordinator, or other appropriate source). 9. Academic Achievement Immediatal : Minimum goal of 1 month giIn for every month of attendance per child. 10. Periodic assessments (progress checks) of the 1st 6 weak Assessment: Approxi- abova listed items, plus an assessment IN cou- JUNCTION with the staff and parents involved in the development of goals as described by the hand- out, “The Relationship of Coal Development to Accountability.“ mataly week of Nov. 6, 1972 2nd 12 week Assessment: Approximately the week of Feb. 5, 1973 3rd 12 week Assessment: Approximately the week of May 7, 1973 186 THE RELATIONSHIP OF GOAL DEVELOPMENT TO ACCOUNTABILITY 1. COMMON GOALS 2. PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES 1972-73 Accountability Model 3. NEEDS ASSESSMENT as required from each school 4. DELIVERY SYSTEM ANALYSIS Related to Elementary School Expectations, Numbers 2, 7. 5. TESTING AND EVALUATION 6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT GRADE LEVEL GOALS (determined by teaching staff) Related to Elementary School Expectations, Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 9. NON-TEACHING STAFF GOALS (as determined col- lectively by Principal, CDS, Social WOrker, Home-School Counselor, or other appropriate source) PARENT GOALS (as determined by Community Council and/or other Advisory groups) Related to Elementary School Expectations, Number 8. Related to Elementary School Expectations, Number 1. The development of the accountability models will necessitate input from.basically three areas as diagrammed above. To develop and implement an effective and thorough accountability model, it is imperative that contributions from teaching staff, non-teaching staff, and parents of the community be fused in one united effort. In addition, even though evaluation is one of the criteria to be included in the model, schools should develop PERIODIC EVALUATIONS during the course of the school year to better insure that goals are being reached. The directors of elementary education will assist in Initially, a six week assessment will be the periodic evaluations. instituted with twelve week assessments to follow. 18 7 TELESCOPIC MODEL Example: Selby School Let: R = Responsibility A = Authority D = Delegation Ms = Managerial skills S = Situation R x A x D = Ms S Community School Director Director V School Role Dominance--which is defined as the role most dominant at the given place, situation and time, is determined by the managerial skills and situation of the principal and community school director respectively. 188 Cc ._. . Much—Adieu. eu>m razor .uasunoo . nun .um: m 20338 :35: a 33.?an . nan-:8 newsman as: I E cadmium using I :3 neaueosom mo oueom mooffiem .mm .580 .3 . sowueusvm Sauna: 3338 $5838 “.3083 3333 3223.8 hugs-moo Hecoauuaumcu 3mg Essen—0am acumen—man 5:008 uouoouwo nouuouwo nouuaao .0023 down: .uumd .52 E n: _ % E E E c: mouflruom museum: mayhem nodumosom cannon—nu monumunflq scaueusom museum—em Hes—acumen hug hue—5300 .3383 .5500 . umsm uumum someones homemade uouuomwo . nomad uouuuuao Econ—mam Enooom :5 3: a. A": A5 3: 15 7.3035 mEeumOmm .600 m .Euoucn n5 Sandman moon—moo nonmemsm 0.33m tuna . 9.300 . ouooo $0000» «a $3 :3 Amy .ummm .50: Am: .mo>m 804 c g mouoouwn sumaoommm any ucovcmumwuomsm mufieuum .v>oo :5 unaccoucmusmsm Hams A5 Exhibit I. Power orientation Role orientation Task orientation Person orientation Power orientation Role orientation Task orientation Person orientation Source: Interests of'psople and the organisation A. Interests of people 189 under four orientations Organisation character Security against economic, political, and psychological Opportunities for voluntary commitment to worthwhile Opportunities to pursue one's own growth and deprivation goals development independent of organisation goals LOU: LOU: IOU: At the pleasure of the Unless one is in a sufficiently Unless one is in a sufficiently autocrat high position to determine high position to determine organisation goals organisation goals High: lam: Low: Secured by law, custom, and procedure Even if, at times, one is in a high position Organisation goals are relatively rigid and activities are closely prescribed Moderate: Psychological deprivation can occur when an individual's contributions are redundant High: A major basis of the individual ' s relationship to the organisation 10M: The individual should not be in the organisation if he does not subscribe to some of its goals r-A—tr-Mt—A—nt—M High: The individual’s welfare is the major concern High: But only if the individual is capable of generating his own goals High: Organisation goals are determined by individual needs Interests of the organisation Effective response to dangerous , threatening Dealing rapidly and effectively with environmental Internal integration and coordination of effort-~if environments complexity and change necessary, at the expense of individual needs High: Moderate to low: High: The organisation tends to be perpetually ready for a fight Depends on size, pyramidal communicaticm channels are easily overloaded Effective control emanates from the top Moderate to low: The organisation is slow to mobilize to meet increases in Low: Slow to change programmed procedures, communication High: Features a carefully planned rational system threat channels are easily of work overloaded Moderate to high: High: Moderate: The organization may be slow to make decisions but produces highly constant responses flexible assignment of resources and short communication channels facilitate adaptation Integrated by common goal, but flexible, shifting structure may make coordination difficult { { { { Law: The organisation is slow to become aware of threat and slow to mobilise effort against it High: . Iut response is erratic, assign- ment of resources to problems depends greatly on individual needs and interests low: A common goal is difficult to achieve and activities may shift with individual interests Roger Harrison, “Understanding Your Organisation's Character,“ Harvard Business Review, L, No. 3 (May-June, 1972), 121. 190 FOUNDATION REPORT A. Purpose of Merger 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Bring together like services Avoid Duplication Pinpoint responsibility Decentralize Decision Making Coordinate Agency Programs B. Considerations of Organization 1) 2) 3) 4) We want 1. 2. 3. 4. Directions for future a) Goals and methods of evaluation Staff Involvement a) A must for staff reSponsibility (feel part of organization) Secretaries move from individuals to group organ- ization and pool Operation with part-time during heavy work load Housing a) Grouping for efficient Operation our people to realize and accept: Society is in a constant change With technical advances being made at rapid pace, "keeping up-to—date" is extremely important. The importance of developing an "I care attitude." A "can do" philosOphy is a must if we are to improve the quality of life in this city. Each employee must know his or her job, its function, duties and reSponsibility--and be evaluated on job performance as i- relates to these areas. 191 A SENSE OF WELFARE--a minimum standard of ”enough” in material living. How much is enough would, of course, vary from society to society and from time to time. But at any moment in any society there could exist a practical consensus on a minimum standard, by which Public Executives could be guided. Minimum wages, unemployment benefits, and legislative definitions of the poverty line are contemporary efforts to quantify ”enough.” A SENSE OF EQUITY--the individual's feeling that he or she is being treated justly, not as measured by some ultimate or universal standard, but as compared with the treatment accorded to other persons in comparable situations. A SENSE OF ACHIEVEMENT--the individual's feeling that the group of which he or she is a part in making progress in some generally accepted direction. For people in organized society, high morale seems to depend not so much on what goals peOple choose as on their shared feeling of movement toward them. A SENSE OF PARTICIPATION in deciding what those goals will be. Modern man (of whichever sex) needs to feel that he has some control over his own destiny and can in- fluence the basic decisions on which his welfare, equity, and achievement depend. Source: From a representative of Flint Board of Education.