_ . | a .
-:r‘?‘r'l‘ii:?‘;:l'f='

 

THE PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONALLY
INVOLVED AND ORGANIZATIONALLY
UNINVOLVED STUDENTS TOWARDS
THE STATE OF THE ORGANIZATION

OF A SMALL COLLEGE

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
HARRY ELDON PIKE
1971

 

M'nuam ,. .

If f"? 37‘. «152. y
thus-l1? A13~Cfllg4 {‘1 53$:le

1 University
. :c - -

    
   

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The.Perceptions of Organizationally Involved and
Organizationally Uninvolved Students Towards the
State of the Organization of a Small College

presented by

Harry Eldon Pike

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for 7

Ph. D. degree in Higher Education

 

   
 

Major professor

Date 5/21/71

 

0-7639

 

  
 
   
     
 

  

E: amomc av ‘3

NOAH & WHY I
BOOK BINDERY INC
LIBRARY BINDERS

srmnseom ulcmsan
lb. , ’J

  

 

L_.
I
.5

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONALLY INVOLVED AND
ORGANIZATIONALLY UNINVOLVED STUDENTS TOWARDS THE
STATE OF THE ORGANIZATION OF A SMALL COLLEGE

BY

Harry Eldon Pike

This study was designed to assess significant
agreements and/or disagreements in the perceptions of the
state of the organization of Lake Superior State College
within and between two groups of students. One of the two
groups consisted of 85 students who had no organizational
involvement with the institution beyond their classroom
contacts. The other group of 85 students were organization-
ally involved, that is, they occupied one or more behavior-
al "settings" within the institution, either as employees,
members of all-campus governance committees, or partici-
pants in some branch of student government.

Likert's Profile of Organizational Characteristics
questionnaire, as developed for use by students in col-
leges, was used to measure perceptions of the organiza-
tional climate of Lake Superior State College. This

instrument identifies six organizational variables common

Harry Eldon Pike

to all organizations, and ranging along an authoritarian-

 

participative, or heavily bureaucratic-mildly bureaucratic

 

continuum. The variables tested were: 1) Leadership
Process, 2) Character of Motivational Forces, 3) Charac-
ter of Communications Process, 4) Interaction-Influence
Process, 5) Character of Decision-Making Process, and 6)
Character of Goal-Setting Process.

The participants were asked to rank Lake Superior
State College on each variable along the continuum. In-
dividual scores were calculated for each variable, and
mean scores for each of the two groups on each variable
computed from that data.

The analysis of the data was done in two steps:

(1). Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance was
used to determine the extent of agreement within each of
the two student groups and to obtain a rank-ordering of
the variables within each group.

(2). A two-way analysis of variance was used to
determine the extent of agreement or disagreement existing

between the two groups.

Maiorfiguestions Asked

 

(1). Is size a factor in the perceptions of

students? Specifically, do the students at Lake Superior

Harry Eldon Pike

State College view their institution in the same manner as
students at Michigan State University's College of Educa-
tion View theirs?

(2). Does involvement with the institution affect
the perceptions students hold of its organization? Speci-
fically, do students who occupy behavioral settings with-
in the school tend to view it more favorably and as less

bureaucratic in nature?

Findings

(1). Significant agreement existed within each
of the groups on the definitions and the ordering of each
of the six variables.

(2). There existed no significant difference
between the two groups in their perceptions of the organ-
izational climate of the college. Both groups, regard-
less of their degree of involvement with the organization,
represent members of the same population.

(3). Both groups saw Lake Superior State College

as bureaucratic in organization.

Conclusions

 

(1). Size does not appear to be a variable which

in itself affects student attitudes towards educational

Harry Eldon Pike

institutions. If size is a variable, it is apparently
"washed out" by the impact of other variables.

(2). It is the system of organization which is
critical in determining student attitudes. Student views
in a large bureaucratic institution will be reflected by
student views in a very small educational institution.

(3). The "neoclassical," or "human relations"
approach to modifying bureaucracy may have little or no
effect within educational institutions. Other factors,
including perhaps an unavoidable role conflict between
students and faculty, appear to be at work within schools
to offset any changes in attitudes produced by changes

within the organization itself.

Recommendations

 

(1). Lake Superior State College should reexamine
its organizational patterns in light of the student atti-
tudes determined by this study.

(2). National and local student organizations
should be encouraged by educators to fund their own pro-
grams of research as a counterbalance to the "management"-
funded research currently available.

(3). The use of the Likert scale should be ex-
tended to colleges and universities which are experimenting

with alternate methods of organization.

Harry Eldon Pike

(4). Educational institutions must be encouraged
to regard themselves as legitimate fields of study and
research. There is a nearly total lack of research on
educational institutions as organizations, in spite of the
fact that educational institutions themselves contain all

of the resources to conduct such research.

THE PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONALLY
INVOLVED AND ORGANIZATIONALLY UNINVOLVED STUDENTS
TOWARDS THE STATE OF THE ORGANIZATION OF A SMALL

COLLEGE

BY

Harry Eldon Pike

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

1971

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to thank the following people,
all of whom offered encouragement, kindness, and guidance
during the course of the completion of this study:

My wife Linda, who was especially patient and
understanding.

Dr. John H. Suehr, whose role as committee chairman
has been secondary in importance to his role as good friend
and guide.

The members of the committee--Dr. Bob Winborn,

Dr. Van Johnson and Dr. James McKee--who have offered so
much assistance and guidance during the course of the study
and beyond.

The 170 students at Lake Superior State College
who were so cooperative as the subjects of the study.

The staff of the Computer Center at Lake Superior
State College.

Dr. Joseph Bechard, who offered much encouragement
and assistance.

And finally, Dr. Wiley Brownlee, Dr. Richard Reed,
and Dr. Robert Docking, all of whom made the whole ex-

perience worthwhile.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I.

II.

III.

IV.

THE PROBLEM O O O O O O O O O 0

Introduction . . . . . . . . .
Theory . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose of the Study . . . . .

General Questions to be Answere

Significance of the Study. . .
General Assumptions. . . . . .
Definitions of Key Terms . . .
Organizational Profile . . . .

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . .

Introduction-. u . . . . . . .
The School as an Organization.
Organizational Size. . . . . .
Organizational Theory. . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . .

DESIGN OF THE STUDY. . . . . .

Source of the Data . . . .
The Sample Group . . . . .
Instrumentation. . . . .
Organizational Variables .
Treatment of the Data. . .

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . .
Analysis of the Data . . . . .

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,

AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

d

PAGE

11
13
14
16
17
20

23

23
24
32
42
55

57
57
58
63
64
70
75
75
75
83

83
83

Conclusions.
Recommendations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

APPENDIX.

iv

88
9O

94
99

TABLE

1.1

1.2

LIST OF TABLES

Participants of the Study Compared
by Academic Division . . . . . . . . . .

Demographic Characteristics of Students
Participating in this Study. . . . . . .

Organizationally Uninvolved Students . .
Organizationally Involved Students . . .
Analysis of Variance Table . . . . . . .

Mean Scores and Standard Deviations
for Groups on Each Variable. . . . . . .

PAGE

61

62

76
77

78

79

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

In a time of change and challenge, institutions of
higher education are becoming more and more aware of them-
selves; are turning their eyes inward upon their own sys-
tems of organization. Perhaps few topics have received the
attention that has been focused upon college and university
systems of governance and organization in recent years.
Much of this institutional self-analysis is the result of
pressures brought to bear in the past decade upon systems
of higher education: pressures from an increasingly org-
anized and militant faculty on the one hand and an increas-
ingly dissatisfied and militant student body on the other.

As systems of higher education have attempted to
examine themselves, they have relied heavily upon models
borrowed from the behavioral sciences, and specifically
upon theories formulated for organizations dealing in the
areas of business and industry. The findings gleaned from
the empirical research in these fields have not been tested

in educational institutions except in the most rudimentary

manner. Thus, the assumptions being used in education are
assumptions by and large formulated for other systems,
other forms of organization, and largely untested in
scholastic settings.

One, and perhaps one of the most important examples
of this general situation is the work of Rensis Likert.
While his work on organizational theory was originally not
tailored to the field of education, it has been applied by
himself and by others to systems of higher education. One
of the most recent of these applications was by Bechard1
at Michigan State University. Operating on the assumption
that educational institutions are in fact organizations,
and using the prevailing attitudes of administrators,
faculty, and students within one college at Michigan State
University, his study concluded that Likert's theory and
instrumentation did identify significant attitudes of the
various groups involved, and that it was possible to
isolate and identify existing conditions of perceptual
dissonance. Bechard found, in fact, that Michigan State

University's students, faculty, and administrators hold

 

1J. E. Bechard, The College of Education at Michigan

State University As An Organization: A Survey of the Per-
ceptions of its Students, Faculty, and Administrators,
Unpfiinshed DoctoraITDissertation, Michigan State UfiIver-
sity, 1970.

most divergent views of their organization, and that a
significant amount of dissonance existed between these
groups.

The greatest amount of perceptual dissonance ex-
isted between the views that Michigan State's students
held of their organization as compared to the views held
by the faculty or by the administration. In all cases,
the students in Bechard's study viewed their educational
organization as more repressive and more bureaucratic
than did either the faculty or the administration.

Bechard's work, however, did not attempt to dis-
criminate between student groups, other than to divide
them into graduate and undergraduate classifications. It
therefore ignored some of Likert's assumptions about or-
ganizations (see Chapter IEI). The present study will
attempt to discriminate between students, in terms of
involvement with the organization, to determine if Likert's
theoretical assumptions will still hold true.

One of the basic assumptions made by organizational,
and by educational, theorists is that organizational size
is a determining factor in the amount of satisfaction
gained by a given individual within the organization.
Indeed, as will be discussed in Chapter Two, it is gener-
ally assumed that smallness, both in class and in college

size, is one answer to the problems besetting today's

schools. Newcomb,1 Barker,2 Perrucci,3 and Bales4 among
others have all stressed that, other things being equal,
a small organization will offer more support and satisfac-
tion of its members than will a large one. Likert5 remarks
that his theory does not encompass differences in organi-
zational size, and notes that the largeness or smallness
of the organization involved may affect any research done
upon it.

This study will attempt to replicate that portion
of Bechard's Michigan State Study which deals with students
in an organization similar to Michigan State in structure

but much smaller in size. It will attempt to determine if

 

1T. M. Newcomb, What Happens to Students In College?
(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1970), pp. 5-6.

2R. B. Barker and P. V. Gump, Big School, Small
School, (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1964),

p. I96.

3R. Perrucci and R. A. Mormweiler, "Organizational
Size, Complexity, and Administrative Succession in Higher
Education," The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 9, #3, 1968,
pp. 343-356.

4R. F. Bales, "Some Uniformities of Behavior in
Small Social Systems," in Swanson, G. and Newcomb, T., eds.,
Readin s In Social Psychology, (New York: Holt and Co.,
I952), p. 155.

5R. Likert, The Human Organization: Its Manage-
ment and Value, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1967), p. 97.

 

 

 

 

size is indeed a factor in the perceptions and satisfac-
tions felt by student members of an academic community,
and will add one additional dimension: it will attempt to
determine if students active and participating within an
educational organization differ significantly in their
views of it than do students who are merely organizational
"clients:" that is, students whose only contact with the
institution is in a consumer role within the classroom

setting.

THEORY

Educators have long been concerned, in one manner
or another, with the question of the optimal size for ed-
ucational units of organizations. While educational psy-
chologists have stressed the advantages of the small
classroom, college administrators have often devoted their
energies to enlarging their institutions. Since the
current era of campus unrest began in the early 1960's,
the suggestion has been widespread in educational circles
that one solution to the problems facing the colleges lay
in decentralization, in breaking up the large college
into a number of smaller units that could allow opportuni—
ties for all members of the academic community to interact

and be heard.

In addition to legitimizing the role of the small college,
such thinking has given birth to the "cluster," or resi-
dential college; typically a small subunit within a much
larger university. Gaffl notes that the cluster college,
because it is by definition small, can create a closer
community, offer more personalized instruction, and foster
warmer faculty-student relations than can a large univer-
sity. He observes that "educators in college after college
have come to the conclusion that they must organize the
campus so that it will seem smaller as it grows larger."
The same thinking, and the same attempts at a
structural solution, has been utilized in some large
secondary schools. Ramsey,2 in surveying the nation's
secondary schools, calls them modern, sprawling institu-
tions running the risk of becoming faceless factories that
cannot remain sensitive to individual human beings, and
recommends a decentralization pattern for these schools
much like the cluster college concept in colleges and

universities.

 

1J. G. Gaff, The Cluster College, (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 197OI, p. 10.

2R. D. Ramsey, O. M. Henson and H. L. Hula
The Schools-Within-A;§chool Program, (New York: Parker
Publishing Company, Inc., 1967).

 

 

Newcomb,l while studying the effects of college
upon students, moved close to most organizational theorists
when he summed up the hypothetical ills that befall mem-
bers of large educational institutions:

(1) Many diverse sub-populations will have little or
no contact with one another; (2) Many procedures will
become bureaucratic and impersonal, and will lead
students (and also faculty) to feel that they are
anonymous cogs in a huge machine; (3) Opportunities
for individual participation in the life of the in-
stitution become increasingly limited--there are, so
to speak, far fewer niches than there are people to
fill them; (4) Academic life tends to become divorced
from the "real" life of the student, who may never see
either the teacher or the other members of his class
between assigned hours of meeting.

Chickering,2 in the course of commenting upon the
undesirability of largeness for organizations engaged in
the educational enterprise, makes much the same observa-
tions;

As the number of persons increases in relation to a
given task or setting six things occur: (1) A
smaller proportion of the total inhabitants actively
participate. (2) The activities and responsibilities
of those who do participate become less varied and
more specialized. (3) Persons with marginal ability
are left out, deprived of chances to develop further
the skills they lack. (4) Evaluation shifts from
how well a person's abilities fit the requirements
for a given position, to how good one person is com-
pared to another; distinctions are made on an

 

lT. Newcomb, op. cit. p. 6.

2A. Chickering, Education and Identity, (San Fran-
cisco: Josey-Bass, Inc.,TI969), p. 188.

increasingly fine basis. (5) A hierarchy of prestige
and power develops. (6) Rules and conduct considered
appropriate become formalized and rigid.

The types of organizations sketched above by Chick-

ering and Newcomb would be those described by Rensis Likert

. . . 1 . . .
as authoritarian. Likert has conceptualized organizations

 

as being four types, the first three of which are authori-
tarian in varying degrees. These systems he has labeled
exploitative, benevolent, and consultative, in descending
order of authoritarianism. The fourth, and non-authori-
tarian, system Likert calls the participative. For
labeling purposes, and again in descending order of
authoritarianism, Likert has labeled his systems System 1,
2, 3, and 4. He places them along a continuum for pur-
poses of organizational analysis, and characterizes the
amount of unilateral control exercised by individuals
within the organization by its place along the continuum.
An organization which, after diagnosis, would be
placed along the System 4 portion of the continuum would
be one, according to Likert, which places emphasis on
effective group functioning, a supportive ego-building
climate for its members, and cooperative relationships.
It will have high performance aspirations, shared by all

its members, and will effectively use groups as its basic

 

1R. Likert, New Patterns of Management, (New York:

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1961).

 

decision-making units, rather than relying upon man-to-man,
superior-to-subordinate, methods of making its decisions.
The assumption is made, by Likert as well as by
educational theorists, that sheer size is a factor in
determining how an organization will operate. Likert notes
that "before discussing the influence of (other) conditions,
it will be well to point out that other factors, such as
variations in the size of the departments...can also
affect the relationships found in a particular study.
Size tends to adversely affect the intervening and end-
result variables. The larger the department, the less
favorable the attitudes and the poorer the performance."1
In the same observation, Likert observes that any
study done on organizations of differing size will prob-
ably reflect the influence of differences in size more
than it will reflect the true relationships actually
existing between the variables involved.
Should this statement be true, it would appear to
rule out the usefulness of Likert's conceptual scheme as
a tool for any comparative analysis of educational insti-
tutions, or even as a tool for comparing departments with-

in a college or university, should they be of varying sizes.

 

1R. Likert, op. cit, p. 97.

10

And yet, as a few observers of American education
have pointed out, there is nothing in the research on ed-
ucational organizations to support the theory that size is
in fact a variable affecting educational institutions in
any way. Eurich1 notes that arguments in this regard
always place the burden of proof on those who equate large
size with ineffective teaching or organization, when in
fact the available research evidence indicates that the
procedure should be reversed.

It would appear, therefore, that arguments such as
that presented by Kerr for the decentralization of our
colleges may tend to rest on completely unproven theoreti-
cal assumptions, logical though they might appear on the
surface. Kerr holds that
1;/ Greater involvement is possible only if we bring gov-

ernance down to where the faculty and students are,
that is, if we decentralize governance to small units
of the campus. A college of letters and science that
has 16,000 students and 1,000 faculty is not likely to
have meaningful involvement; subunits of 500 students
and fifty faculty members can.2

Bechard,3 using Likert's Profile of Organizational

Characteristics to measure the organizational climate of

 

1A. C. Enrich, Reforming American Education, (New
York: Harper and Row, 1969).

‘C. Kerr, The Uses of the University, (Cambridge;
Harvard University Press, 1964).

3J. Bechard, op. cit.

11

the College of Education at Michigan State University,
found that the nature of the College was bureaucratic, that
both students and, to a lesser extent, faculty, viewed
their participation in the organization as being at a low
level, and that the administrative group was significantly
out of touch with the organizational life of the college.
Further, both students and faculty viewed the organization
as being strongly hierarchical in nature. The College of
Education, in other words, appears to fit the pattern
claimed by Kerr and others for large, traditionally organ-
ized institutions.

Two questions may be posed: does a difference in
organizational size and structure in fact make a difference
in educational institutions, at least insofar as they are
perceived by their members, and is Likert's Profile of
Organizational Characteristics capable of discriminating

such differences if they do exist?

Purpose of the Study

 

The general purpose of this study is to explore
three questions: (1) is Likert's instrumentation an
accurate tool, as Bechard's Michigan State Study would
indicate, for diagnosing the organizational climate of an
educational institution as it is perceived by a portion of

its membership, (2) is size a factor in the perception

12

students hold of their organization, and (3) does involve-

ment with the organization cause, as the work of numerous

organizational theorists would indicate, a difference in

the perceptions students hold of their educational insti-

tution?

1.

In detail, the purpose of this study shall be to:
Survey the perceptions of a randomly selected group
of students at Lake Superior State College regard-
ing the state of the organization in terms of their
experience. This group shall include students who
occupy no position, either formal or informal,
within the organization.

Survey the perceptions of a randomly selected group
of students at Lake Superior State College regard-
ing the state of the organization in terms of their
experience. This group shall include students who
occupy behavioral "settings" (see Chapter II)
within the college, who are a part of its formal

or informal structure.

Determine the shared perceptions of the present
state of the organization at Lake Superior State
College held by the two groups of students identi-
fied in (l) and (2) above.

Determine areas of perceptual dissonance about the
state of the organization as identified by the two

groups of students identified in (l) and (2) above.

13

Compare the date gathered above to Bechard's
Michigan State findings in an attempt to gauge the
effects of size and involvement upon student atti-
tudes towards educational organizations.

Seek answers to a series of questions, stated else-
where under "Questions To Be Answered," relevant

to the data gathered.

Genera1_guestions to be Answered

Questions this study will attempt to answer include:

1.

Is there a substantial agreement among two groups

of students, differentiated by their degree of
involvement with the institution, as to their per-
ceptions of the state of the organization of Lake
Superior State College?

Is there a substantial disagreement among two groups
of students, differentiated by their degree of in-
volvement with the institution, as to their per-
ceptions of the state of the organization of Lake
Superior State College?

Are the perceptions of Lake Superior State College
students similar to those of Michigan State students
regarding the state of their respective organiza-
tions, irrespective of differences in size between

the two organizations?

14

Significance of the Study

 

The study is significant in several respects.
First, it attempts to apply Likert's approach of system-
atic organizational diagnosis to an entire college, rather
than to a subunit of a college as was done in Bechard's
work.

Students, faculty, and administrators who study or
serve within a given academic area or unit are still part
of a larger organization, the college itself in all its
many parts. The student, for example, must deal with an
organization made up not just of the faculty and adminis-
tration in his major academic area, but one made up of
faculty from other disciplines, of student service per-
sonnel, of librarians, of dormitory supervisors, to name
but a few. All of these persons and more comprise the
organization from the student's viewpoint.

Few faculty deal only with students and peers from
within their own departments. Today's systems of faculty
governance, of broadly based committee structures, and
cross-disciplinary course offerings makes rare the faculty
member who does not interact with those outside of his
immediate department or area. Administrators, especially
those who deal in the allocation of resources, must also
attempt to view the organization as a whole, rather than

as a series of isolated subparts.

15

All of these groups, faced as they are with an in-
creasing demand for change, are in need of baseline data
on the current state of their organization. Without such
data, change can only be random and essentially direction-
less. This study may further validate Likert's methodology
as a means of gathering such baseline data.

Secondly, the study seeks to provide information
on the question of organizational size. As is noted in
Chapter II, organizational theorists and behavioral
scientists, including Likert himself, almost universally
make the assumption that organizational size and member
satisfaction are related. That is, the smaller the size,
the greater the member satisfaction. It may equally be
true, however, that size is not a factor at all. A totally
autocratic, but very small organization, whatever opportu-
nities it provides for member-to-member interaction may be
just as prone to dissatisfaction and dissonance as might
an autocratic large organization. In other words, the
method of organization may be as, or even more, important
than the size of the organization.

Since Lake Superior State College is organized
along the same lines as is Michigan State University, and
since Lake Superior State College is in fact perhaps more
centralized than is Michigan State University, it is hoped
that the study will provide some insight as to the relative

effects of organizational size and organizational behavior.

16

Assumptions Underlying This Study

 

As Bechard notes, a study effort is in essence an

argument. Both sides in any argument must accept certain

basic assumptions if their dialogue is to bear fruit. The

following assumptions underlie this study and are central

to it:

1.

Educational institutions are organizations with
organizational characteristics that can be isolated
and identified.

As organizations with identifiable characteristics,
educational institutions may be valid subjects for
study using general organizational theory.

The instrument designed by Rensis Likert is a valid
tool for diagnosing educational institutions. This
assumption, while certainly open to challenge, is
central to the study since no completely reliable
tool for diagnosing educational institutions exists
at this time.

Different organizational structures will produce
different psychological and sociological climates
for the participants.

Effective and ineffective organizations may be
identified in behavioral terms.

Once identified, ineffectual organizations can be

changed to provide more member satisfaction and to

achieve a greater proportion of organizational goals.

17

Definitions of Key Terms

 

An Organization--A social system, with a formal or

 

informal hierarchy, which contains a plurality of parts
interacting in various degrees to achieve specific objec-
tives.

State of an Organization--The current status of an

 

organization with respect to such items as leadership be-
havior, member motivation, communications and decision-
making processes, and member satisfaction. The term is
also used to indicate the congruence of perceptions re-
garding a given organization.

Characteristics of an Organization--The sum total

 

of the organizational processes that would serve to cate-
gorize the organization by placing it on a continuum
ranging from "open" systems to "closed" systems.
Superior--For the purpose of this study, an assump-
tion of the existence of hierarchical levels within the
overall organization of Lake Superior State College. The
term refers to members of the organization who occupy a
higher position on the hierarchical ladder than the respond-
ent. Thus, for the student, the term would indicate
faculty, dormitory supervisors, department and division
chairmen, student services personnel, and members of the
central administration such as the president and vice-

presidents of the college.

18

Subordinate--Refers to members of the organization

 

who occupy a position lower to or equal to that of the
respondent.

Academic matters--Includes course content, instruc-

 

tional plans and methods, and policies covering teacher
behavior within the classroom.

Non-academic matters--Includes student behavior,

 

discipline, student activities, counseling, and other non-
academic services provided the student by the college.

Leadership Process-—As defined by Likert, the ex-

 

tent to which persons in leadership positions are able to
create climates of trust and confidence with subordinates,
the degree to which they exhibit supportive forms of be-
havior, and the degree to which they seek and apply the
ideas and Opinions of subordinates. Also includes the
extent to which subordinates feel free to discuss import-
ant matters about their jobs with their superiors, and the
degree to which subordinates have trust and confidence in
superiors.

Interaction Forces--As defined by Likert, the

 

character, amount, and direction of interaction involved in
the flow of information within an organization. Includes
accuracy of communications, willingness to share informa-
tion, adequacy of upward, downward, and lateral communi-
cations, and the extent to which communications are
accepted and clearly perceived by others within the organ-

ization.

19

Motivational Forces—-As defined by Likert, the

 

physical, economical, psychological, or sociological
pressures present within an organization that influence
task performance. Includes the amount of responsibility
felt by each member of the organization for achieving or-
ganizational goals, the kinds of attitudes developed
towards the organization and towards other members of the
organization, and the extent to which underlying motives
like physical security, economic needs, status, ego motives,
affiliation, and achievement are utilized.

Organizational Size--The total number of partici-

 

pants within the organization.

Decision-making Process--As defined by Likert, the

 

manner in which an organization seeks alternatives, estab-
lishes priorities, and sets courses of action. An organi-
zation would be "Open" in this regard if subordinates are
fully involved in decision-making, if full information is
available for decision-making at the level in the hierarchy
where the decision must be made, and if the overall pattern
of decision-making involves teamwork between superior and
subordinate.

Goal-Setting Process--After Likert, the procedures

 

used by an organization to establish its purposes and ob-
jectives. An organization is "open" in this regard if
goals are not set by administrative fiat, but by a partici-

pative process involving all levels of the organization.

20

Organizational Profile of
Lake Superior State ColIege

 

 

Lake Superior State College currently enrolls 1348
full time students, the largest full time enrollment in the
school's history. They are spread throughout five academic
divisions, the largest of which contains 450 students. The

academic divisions and their enrollments are listed below:

 

 

Academic Division No. of Students
Applied Science 221
Arts and Letters 76
Business Administration 240
Natural Sciences 296
Social Sciences 450

The five academic divisions contain ninety-five
faculty members, organized into fifteen departments, each
with its own chairman. College administrative personnel
include~its president, a vice-president for academic
affairs, a vice-president for business affairs, the dean
of students, registrar, dean of admissions, and director
of auxiliary enterprises.

Governance of the college rests with three councils
and seventeen committees. The councils include the Academic
Affairs Council, the Administrative Council, and the
Student Affairs Council, while the committees range from
Campus Planning to Student-Faculty Relations. Each council

and committee is made up of administrators, faculty and

21

students, with a total of forty-four committee positions
reserved for students. Any student is eligible to serve

on a committee which interests him, applying for committee
appointment through the Student Senate, the student govern-
ing body of the college.

The Student Senate consists of twenty members, four
from each academic division, and four permanent officers:
the President of the Student Body, a Vice-President for
Student Affairs, a Vice-President for Student Social Life,
and a Vice-President for Finance. These latter officers are
elected annually by the entire student body.

Seven students, elected annually, form the Student
judiciary, chief disciplinary body on Lake Superior State
College's campus. There are currently thirty-eight
recognized clubs and special interest organizations on
campus, with a collective membership totalling some 490
students. Thus, in Barker'slterminology, a large number of
"settings" are available for each individual on campus. A
"setting" is defined as having two major components, be-
havior and objects with which behavior is transacted, and
as having fairly well established boundaries within which
behavior may be transacted, either with other persons or
with objects.

It is equally important to note that no governing

body or committee on the college campus can make decisions

 

1R. G. Barker and P. V. Gump, Op. cit.

22

or policy; this power is reserved to the chief adminis-
trative officer on campus and to the Board of Control.
Committees, while perhaps providing involvement in terms

of real power, can only issue recommendations.

Overview

The problem has been identified in Chapter I and
the supporting theories touched upon. Lake Superior State
College and its organizational system has been described.
Chapter II presents a review of relevant literature.
Chapter III features the research design, instrumentation,
and techniques used in the study. Chapter IV includes the
findings of the study. Chapter V features a summary of

the findings and makes recommendations based upon them.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

 

There is as yet little research on educational
institutions as organizations, and such research as does
exist is often contradictory in its conclusion. Indeed,
the existing body of research appears to rest on several
conflicting basic assumptions. There is serious dispute
within the field of education as to whether or not schools,
be they elementary, secondary, or college level, can be
studied as can other organizations. Since this dispute is
central to any discussion of the manner in which schools
are organized and studied, it will be examined in the first
section of this chapter.

It has already been noted that size is widely
considered to be an important variable in determining a
number of factors about a given organization. In general,
the assumption appears to be that "small is good" and "big
is bad." Much of the existing theory on organization
would appear to support this point of view, although there
is lacking even a basic agreement on the definition of the

terms "big" and "small," especially as the terms apply to

23

24

educational institutions. This disagreement will be sur-
veyed in the second section of this chapter, and the exist-
ing research on organizational size and its effects noted.

The third section shall examine those elements of
existing organizational theory relevant to this study. It
will concentrate on types of organizational structures and
their presumed effects upon those individuals who function
within the organization. Central to this discussion will
be an examination of the theory of Rensis Likert, upon

whose work the research conducted for this study was based.

The School As An Organization

 

Most organizational theorists do not distinguish
between kinds or types of organizations in their theoreti-
cal constructions. The assumption is often made that or-
ganizational theory applies to all organizations, and its
constructs are thus generally stated in absolute terms:
one encounters frequently the phrases "all" organizations,
"any" organization, or merely the all-inclusive "organi-
zations."

This assumption has been recognized and defended in
some detail. Likert and Katz note that:

One of the basic concepts underlying our work is that
no matter how varied the task, the same fundamental

principles are applicable to the effective organization
of human activity. Everytime we want to get a group of

25

people to do something and we organize them to do the
job, certain fundamental principles are applicable.

To Rubenstein,2 the most exciting and potentially
powerful aspect of organizational theory is the similarity
among individual organizations and between kinds or types
of organizations. He observes that "the remarkable thing
is that there are so many similarities among organizations—-
so many characteristics and behaviors that are strikingly'
similar in essence, if not in detail."

Some of the most famous of educational theorists
have accepted this point of view. Callahan3 quotes John
Dewey as saying that there is not, nor cannot be, any such
thing as an independent "science of education." Instead,
as Callahan reflects Dewey's View, material drawn from
other sciences must furnish the content of any approach to
the organizational problems of education.

Kembrough feels that the current state of educa-

tional organizational theory can be ascribed to the relative

 

lR. Likert and D. Katz, "Supervisory Practices
and Organizational Structures As They Affect Employee
Productivity and Morale" in Executive Personality and Job
Success, (New York: PersonnéIOSeriesV¥l20, American
Management Association, 1948), p. 14.

2A. H. Rubenstein, "The Nature of Organizational
Theory," in Rubenstein, Haberstroh, and Chadwick, Some
Theories of Organization, (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey
Press, 1966), p. 11.

3R. E. Callahan, Education and the Cult of

Efficiency, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1962).

 

26

lateness of its development:

The notion of formal study usually implies the exist-
ence of a systematized body of knowledge to be studied
and learned. But in educational administration this
body of knowledge has not yet been clearly defined...
educational administration finds it possible to borrow
bodies of knowledge from other specializations such as
public and business administration, each of which has
a longer history of dealing with the problem of direct-
ing the affairs of men. To the extent that all forms
of administration hive common elements, such knowledge
is interchangeable.

One of the first and most famous instruments for
diagnosing the organizational climate of schools was de-
ve10ped by Halpin and Croft. Their work was not however
motivated by a belief in the uniqueness of schools as or-
ganizations, but rather by a belief that schools were
interchangeable, for research purposes, with many other
types of organizations. They state that:

A fourth impetus was our interest in organizational
climate as such, whether in a school, in a hospital,

a military unit, or a business corporation. Fortu-
itous circumstances made it convenient for us to begin
the study of organizational climate with schools. We
surmise that, if we had started instead with business
corporations, we would have identified a similar set
of sub-tests and a similar array of climates.

The authors later acknowledged some deficiencies in

their instrument, deficiencies worth noting in light of

the later development of the Likert instrumentation.

 

1R. Kembrough, Political Power and Educational
Decision-Making, (New York: RandchNally Inc., 1964) p. 92

2A. W. Halpin, Theory and Research In Administra-
tion, (New York: The McMillen Company, 1966Yfip. 132.

27

Halpin and Croft, in common with Likert, do not allow or
suggest any criterion for checking a school's effective-
ness. In addition, their instrument does not consider the
impact of groups upon their formal and informal leaders,
and the authors concluded that data gathered with it could
not be used for change, for a frontal attack upon any
symptoms of organizational illness besetting a school.

As early as 1935, some educational theorists had
begun to evidence concern over the link between organiza-
tional and educational theory. Good1 listed in that year
two questions as demanding immediate study by those in-
terested in educational institutions: (1) the relation-
ship of education to unworthy interests in business and
politics, and (2) the limitations upon the application
of principles of business and industrial management to the
problems of educational administration (Can a school be
Operated like a factory?).

The same questions have been echoed in the years
since. Halpin2 complained in 1966 that

we have found ourselves drawing heavily upon insights
into administration derived from other disciplines.

At the same time we are appalled by the poverty of
theory within our own field and dismayed by the extent

to which our own research has been anchored to 'naked
empiricism'.

 

1C. v. Good, The Methodology of Educational Re-

search, (New York: AppIeton-Century-Croft, Inc., 1935):
p. 833.

 

2
A. W. Halpin, op. cit. p. 3.

28

More direct criticisms have been set forth.
Downey and Enns1 charge that

education differs organizationally and processually
from other institutions, and hence those who have
attempted to draw upon the organizational models of
other institutions, such as the factory system or
political bureaucracy, as the inspiration for educa-
tional administration, operate under erroneous assump-
tions.

In addition to holding that the model is false,
some observers of the educational scene believe that re-
1iance upon it is the source of most of education's
problems.

The plausibility of radical challenge to automatiza-
tion and computerization in edpcation remains remote...
as long as (our belief) carries its own heavy burden
of influence--namely, that the best organization of
education is to be found in models of business, with
directors and managers properly in command, and with
the rest of the personnel of education largely subject
to their orders. The line-staff structure of educa-
tion is a major source of current student and faculty
revolt. Behind this revolt is an awakening...th§t the
analogy with business models is blatantly false.
This issue dividing those who attempt to apply institu-
tional theory to education is far from being resolved:
indeed, while it has been perceived for at least thirty-
five years, it has yet to be clearly stated and made the

subject of a concerted program of investigation.

 

1L. W. Downey and F. Enns, The Social Sciences
and Educational Administration, (Canada: University of
AIberta Press, 1963), p. 37.

2T. Bromeld, "Illusions and Disillusions in
American Education," Phi Delta Kgppon, pp. 202-207, Vol.
L, #4, December 1968.

 

29

Some investigators have approached the problem by
attempting to identify the similarities and the differences
held by business and educational organizations. Grass1
notes that the two types of organizations are similar in
that they divide authority among competing power groups,
that they most often both utilize a staff-line concept of
management, and that both contain formal and informal
structures, clearly defined roles, and formal and inform-
ally defined norms.

On the other hand, there are in Grass' view, at
least seven differences which distinguish the two kinds of
organizations:

1. In schools, unlike industry, the career line is
limited, and based usually on seniority rather than
on merit.

2. There is little real specialization in schools.

3. Power in schools is contended for by competing
professional organizations.

4. The objects that schools process, the students,
can in themselves become a threat to the organi-

zation.

 

N. Grass, "The Use and Abuse of Sociological In-
quiry In Training Programs for Educational Administrators,”
in L. W. Downey and F. Enns The Social Sciences and
Educational Administration, (Canada: University of Alberta
Press, 1963).

 

30

5. Financial control in schools often resides with one
group, while decisions regarding expenditures must
be made by another.

6. The boundaries governing a school's activities are
not often clearly defined, and are therefore both
open to attack and difficult to defend.

7. It is very difficult to achieve system-wide coordi~
nation in school systems. If such coordination is
achieved, it very often causes more problems than
it solves.

Other authors have also viewed education and in-
dustry as essentially different types of activities, but
for varying reasons. Bidwelll argues that schools differ
from the classic bureaucratic structure in the looseness
of articulation which exists between subunits and in the
lack of highly specialized teaching careers within the
overall teaching profession. No bureaucratic teaching
career exists.

Further, in Bidwell's view, the intrinsic nature of
teaching, the need for warm personal relationships, runs

counter to bureaucratic principles of organization.

 

1C. E. Bidwell, "The School As A Formal Organiza-

tion," in March, J. G., ed., Handbook of Organizations,
(Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1965): pp. 972-1022.

31

Efforts to bureaucracize the educational process have
forced teachers into a tight-knit fighting group, an effect
not anticipated by administrators.

Londonl notes much the same result when he argues
that teachers cannot effectively control their conditions
of work. He holds that administrators, once absorbed into
a bureaucratic hierarchy, can no longer retain an under-
standing of teachers' problems: hence the need for strong
teachers' unions.

However true these views may be, educational ad-
ministrative theorists still argue for a structure heavily
bureaucratic. Thus, Douglass2 points out the advantages
of using a committee structure in schools, a committee
structure based on business and military models. He
observes that such a structure must be essentially manipu-
lative, since "participation may lead to undesirable con-
clusions, to controversy and disagreement, making the lot
of the leader difficult." He also stresses the need for
strict role definition, enforced if necessary by the
governing board.

Differences have been identified, but the central

issue dividing those who must view schools as organizations

 

lJ. London, "The Development of a Grievance Pro-

cedure in the Public Schools," Educational Administration
and Supervision, Vol. 43, No. 1, Jan. 1957. pp. 1-18.

2H. R. Douglass, Modern Administration of Second-
ary Schools, (Boston: Ginn and Company, 1954), p. 16.

 

 

32

is far from being resolved. General organizational theory
may be capable of being applied to educational systems with-
out modification, but doubts have been raised as long ago

as thirty-five years, and the issue has yet to be clearly
stated and made the subject of a concerted program of

identification.

Ogganizational Size

 

There has long been presumed to be a direct rela-
tionship between the size of an organization and the atti-
tudes toward it of its members. In general it is presumed
that, the larger the organization, the greater the chance
of alienation from it, or even outright hostility towards
it, on the part of its members.

This relationship generally rests on the presumed
existence of two variables: the opportunities in a given
organization for face-to-face contact with other members
of an organization, and the opportunities available for
participation for each member of the organization.

Theodore M. Newcomb, who has extensively studied
the impact of colleges upon students, sums up the operation
of these variables in an educational setting:

The sheer size of a college or university affects

many of the processes through which students are most
likely to experience change. The larger the institu-
tion, the more probable it is that all of the following
will occur: (1) Many diverse subpopulations will have

little or no contact with each other; (2) Many pro-
ceedings will become bureaucratic and impersonal, and

33

will lead students (and also faculty) to feel that they
are anonymous cogs in a huge machine; (3) opportunities
for individual participation in the life of the insti-
tution become increasingly 1imited--there are, so to
speak, far fewer niches than there are people to fill
them...

Opportunities for participation, the concept of
niches, or "settings" has been explored by several educa-
tional theorists. Gump and Barker2 explored the opportuni-
ties available students in schools of various sizes. They
defined "settings" as "a place where a student can satisfy
a number of personal motives; where they can achieve
multiple satisfactions; a setting contains opportunities."

Defining a "small" school as one containing less
than 150 students, Barker and Gump found that small schools
offer students up to twenty times the number of settings
as does a larger school. Students in these schools,
according to their report, have or exhibit greater effort,
undertake more difficult or important tasks, display more
responsibility, show more frequent occurrences of success
and failure, and hold a greater functional self-identity.

Barker and Gump found that as schools became
larger, the settings they offered inevitably became more

heavily populated. Students began to feel less needed,

became superfluous and redundant.

 

1T. Newcomb, op. cit, p. 6.

2R. G. Barker, 10C. Cit, p. 25.

34

Chickering,l discussing the same concept of "set-
ting," observes that limited opportunities for involvement
probably interfere with the educational purpose of the
school. He holds that when students are superfluous they
"don't develop much. The basic point is that when a student
is superfluous in a given situation, the less he is apt to
be affected by it or to develop in the ways the setting
was designed to foster."

Chickering2 holds that small schools have the fol-
lowing consequences for students:

1. They experience twice as many pressures to
participate, or to meet the expectations of the school, as
do students in small schools. In addition, students who
are marginal academically receive up to five times as much
pressure to participate as they do in large schools.

2. Evaluation of students in small schools tends
to be based on their contributions, while evaluation of
students in large schools tends to be based on comparisions
with one another.

3. Students in small schools tend to develop
relatively limited competence in a wide variety of areas,
while those in large schools tend to develop greater compe-

tence in a limited number of areas.

 

1A. Chickering, op. cit., p. 186.
21bid. p. 190.

35

While the concept of settings would appear to be a
useful one for diagnostic purposes, little or no research
exists which tests the relationship of size or involvement
in settings to student development and attitudes.
Chickering observes that

to the best of my knowledge, there has been no research
that has attempted to study relationships between
student attitudes and college size...this, I can only
hypothesize that redundancy has implications for the
development of competence, the development of identity,
the freeing of interpersogal relationships, and the
development of integrity.

This lack of research has not prevented an almost
universal condemnation of sheer size in our organizations,
especially our educational organizations. Indeed, many

observers have held that size has been the dominant factor

in the past decade of student unrest. S. L. Halleck,2 in

offering a series of observations about student unrest,
sums up the thrust of these observers by noting that

a third hypothesis favorable to students is offered by
those who believe that student unrest is an appropriate
response to the deterioration of the quality of life in
America. Students are among the first to sense the
painful anonymity associated with bigness. This is a
particularly serious problem on overcrowded campuses
where students are painfully isolated from their
teachers and other adults. A sense of student-faculty
intimacy and a sense of scholarly community are sorely
lacking on any of our large campuses.

 

lA. Chickering, op. ci ., p. 191.

25. L. Halleck, "Twelve Hypothesis of Student
Unrest," in Smith, K. G., ed., Stress and Campus Response,
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. 1968), p. 124.

 

36

Research in the functioning of small groups would
appear to support the thesis that a relationship exists
between group size and morale, or a sense of belonging.

A. Paul Hare1 gave groups of varying size a hypothetical
emergency to solve. He found that the smaller the group,
the greater the degree of concensus reached regarding a
solution. Further, the larger the group, the greater the
amount of discord.

Launor Carter2 and his associates, working with
groups varying from four to eight members found no differ-
ence in problem-solving abilities between groups, but
observed that the smaller groups offered much greater
participation for each member. Anderson and Workov,3
examining employee morale in hospitals through an analysis
of turnover rates, found that middle-size institutions
(1,000 to 4,999 employees) had lower turnover rates than
did institutions of over 5,000 employees or under 1,000

employees. They theorize that turnover is not a function

 

1A. P. Hare, "Interaction and Consensus in Differ-
ent Sized Groups," American Sociological Review, Vol. 17,
1952, pp. 261-267.

2C. F. Carter, "Evaluating the Performance of
Individuals as Members of Small Groups," in Kemp, C. G.,
Perspectives on the Group Process, (Boston: Houghton
MIfflin Co., 1964) PP:—361-365.

3T. R. Anderson and S. Workov, "Organizational
Size and Functional Complexity: A Study of Administration
in Hospitals," American Sociological Review, 26, Feb., 1961,
pp. 23-28.

 

 

 

37

of morale in the very small hospital but tends to be
higher because of the lack of protection a small organiza-
tion could offer its employees.

Schellenberg,1 investigating student satisfaction
with classroom groupings of various sizes, found that a
systematic pattern developed which varied inversely with
group size. Satisfaction in the experience decreased as
the size of the groups increased, no matter what criterion
of student satisfaction was used.

Golembiewski sums up a number of small group
studies by observing that certain relations appear to exist
between the sizes of human groupings and the communication
pattern within those groupings. He notes that as size
increases:

The most active participator in a group becomes in-
creasingly differentiated from other group members in
terms of initiation and reception of verbal communi-
cations. Other group members become increasingly un-
differentiated from each other in terms of initiation
and reception of verbal communication. Other restraints
growing with less freedom of group interaction are
greater dissatisfaction, greater pressure of time

limits, greater tendency for groups to break up into
factions, and the like.

 

1J. A. Schellenberg, "Group Size as a Factor in
Success of Academic Discussion Groups," in Kemp, C. G.,
Perspectives on the Grgpp Process, (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1964), pp. 96-101.

2Robert T. Golembiewski, "The Small Grogp,"
(University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London: 1962),
p. 146.

 

Slaterl found groups of 4 to 6 members to be the
most satisfying to their membership, with groups larger
than six encouraging too much aggressiveness, impulsiveness,
competitiveness and inconsiderateness in their members.

He further observed that groups larger than six tended to
break up into cliques, or to become overcentralized.

Thomas and Fink,2 after surveying the research done
on group size through 1960, concluded that as the size of
a given group increases "there will be decreasing group
cohesiveness and increasing organization and division of
labor in the group, along with the development of cliques
and possibly of factions."

While satisfaction appears to increase as the size
of a group decreases, some researchers have suggested that
this effect is unrelated to the effectiveness of the group.
It has already been noted that the size of today's schools
is often cited as a cause of student dissatisfaction. Yet,
contrary to a widely held belief in education, some re-
search suggests that there is no direct relationship be-

tween group, or class, size and rate of learning. Hoover

 

' 1Philip E. Slater, "Contrasting Correlates of
Group Size, Sociometry, (June 1968), pp. 129-139

2Edwin J. Thomas and Clinton F. Fink, "Effects of
Group Size," in Hare, Paul A., Borgatta, E. F., and Bales,
R. F. eds., "Small Groups: Studies in Social Interaction,"
(New York: AIfred A. Knopf, 1967), pp. 525-534.

 

39

and his associates1 studied learning groups in colleges,
groups that ranged in size from small discussion groups of
ten students or less through classes of thirty to giant
lecture groups of more than two hundred students. They
found the giant lecture group to be as effective a learning
medium as the other sized groups, and concluded that size
in not a factor in determining how well students learn
material. The authors concluded that the teacher may be
the critical factor in how well students learn, rather than
the size of their learning groups. Should this be so, it
would suggest that the concepts of settings, of student
redundancy applies not to the classroom but to extra-cur-
ricular activities only, and that it is in large part the
happenings outside of the classroom that influence student
attitudes towards their institution.

The student is redundant in the large lecture.
Bales,2 in looking at small social systems, sums up the
changes that occur in work groups as they expand in size:

As groups increase in size, a larger and larger relative
proportion of the activity tends to be addressed to

 

1K. H. Hoover, V. H. Boumann and S. Schaffer,

"The Influence of Class-size Variations on Cognitive and
Affective Learning of College Freshmen", The Journal of
Experimental Education, Vol. 38, No. 3, Spring 1970.

pp. 39¥43.

2R. F. Bales, "Some Uniformities of Behavior in
Small Social Systems", in Swanson, G., Newcomb, T., Readings
in Social Psychology, (New York: Holt and Co., 1952),
pp. 1465159.

 

 

40

the top man, and a smaller and smaller relative pro-
portion to other members...the communication pattern
tends to centralize around a leader through whom flows
most of the communication.

Caplowflin attempting to structure categories of
organizational size, used the concept of interaction pos-
sibilities as his criteria, feeling that interaction
patterning is independent of other classifications. Thus,
he defines "small groups" as primary groups, in which
every member interacts individually with every other mem-
ber. Using his classification system, most colleges and
universities would be either "large groups," in which no
member can know each of the others, but in which one or
more members can at least be recognized by each of the
other members, or "giant groups," in which only through
mass communication devices can any one member either com-
municate with, or be recognized by, most of the other
members. Caplow sets a lower size limit of ten thousand
persons on such a group, while the large group has a lower
size limit of approximately one thousand persons.

Gross,2 in a study of goal congruence in American

colleges and universities, surveyed over 15,000 faculty

 

lT. Caplow, "Organizational Size," Administrative
Scienceyguarterly, , Vol. 11, No. 2, 1967, pp. 484-505.

 

 

2E. Gross, "Universities as Organizations: A
Research Approach," American Sociological Review, Vol. 33,
NO. 4' 1968' pp. 518-544.

 

41

and administrators. In interpreting his findings, he
reached the conclusion that size may be an important vari-
able in determining individual perceptions, but that it

is "washed out" by other variables. He holds that if the
impact of these other variables, which he does not specify,
are examined the impact of size as an independent organi-
zational variable would disappear. This is essentially
the argument used by Hoover and his associates when they
claim that it is the teacher, and not the class size, that
affects learning.

Clearly, size, in spite of the importance attached
to it as a factor in educational efficiency and satisfac-
tion, has not been legitimately installed in the pantheon
of variables which may have an effect upon educational
institutions. While some research, and some common sense,
would appear to support the importance of size as a vari-
able, there has been little or no systematic research
done which would verify this importance. It may even be,
as some investigators have suggested, that size disappears
as an important factor under the impact of other aspects

or organizational life and functioning.

42

The Organizational Theory of Rensis Likert

Scottl defines three branches of organizational

theory; the classical, the neoclassical, and the modern.
The classical, in Scott's definition, includes the classi-
cal bureaucracy of Max Weber, while the neoclassical in-
corporates the body of theory called "human relations,"
and the modern spans systems theory and analysis.

He defines the human relations school as that
which incorporates research and theory from the behavior-
al sciences and focuses on the informal organization,
ignored by classical bureaucratic theory. According to
Scott, the major interests of human relations school, in
addition to production, are human needs and interests,
aspects of social control, communications theory, and
leadership techniques.

These interests are not included in older theories
of bureaucracy. The major definition of classical bu-
reaucracy is that of Max Weber2 and it is Weber's defini-
tion that is most often cited when the term is used:

1. Organization tasks are distributed among the
various positions as official duties. Implied is

 

1W. R. Scott, "Organization Theory: An Overview
and an Appraisal" in Davis and Scott, Readings ipHuman
Relations, 2nd edition, (New York: McGraw Hill Book
Company, 1964), pp. 112-135.

2H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills ets., From Max
fisher: Essays in Sociology, (New York: OfoYH—UfiIversity
Press, 1946), pp. 196-204.

 

 

43

a clear cut division of labor among positions which
makes possible a high degree of specialization.
Specialization, in turn, promotes expertness among
the staff, both directly and by enabling the or-
ganization to hire employees on the basis of their
technical qualifications.

The positions of offices are organized into a
hierarchical authority structure. In the usual case
this hierarchy takes on the shape of a pyramid
wherein each official is responsible for his sub-
ordinate's decisions and actions as well as his

own to the superior above him in the pyramid and
wherein each official has authority over the
officials under him. The scope of authority of
superiors over subordinates is clearly established.

A formally established system of rules and regula-
tions governs official decisions and actions. In
principle, the operations of these general regula-
tions insure the uniformity of operations and,
together with the authority structure, make possible
the coordination of the various activities. They
also provide for continuity in operations regard-
less of changes in personnel, thus promoting a
stability lacking, as we have seen, in charismatic
movements.

Officials are expected to assume an impersonal
orientation in their contacts with clients and
with other officials. Clients are to be treated

as cases, the officials being expected to disre-
gard all personal considerations and to maintain
complete emotional detachment, and subordinates

are to be treated in a similar impersonal fashion.
The social distance between hierarchical levels and
that between officials and their clients is intended
to foster such formality. Impersonal detachment

is designed to prevent the personal feelings of
officials from distorting their rational judgement
in carrying out their duties.

Employment by the organization constitutes a
career for officials. Typically an official is a
full-time employee and looks forward to a life-
long career in the agency. Employment is based

on the technical qualifications of the candidate
rather than on political, family, or other connec-
tions. Usually, such qualifications are tested by
examination or by certificates that demonstrate
the candidate's educational attainment--college

44

degrees, for example. Such educational qualifica-
tions create a certain amount of homogeneity among
officials, since relatively few persons of working
class origins have college degrees, although their
number is increasing. Officials are appointed to
positions, not elected, and thus are dependent upon
superiors in the organization rather than on a body
of constituents. After a trial period, officials
gain tenure of position and are protected against
arbitrary dismissal. Remuneration is in the form
of a salary, and pensions are provided after
retirement. Career advancements are according to
seniority or to achievement, or both.

Most observers of college and university organiza-.
tion would accept Weber's definition as accurate when ap-
plied to the system of organization practiced in those
setting. Wallis offers this explanation for the widespread
use of the bureaucratic model in education:

The great advantage of a centralized organization is
that it is predictable and reliable. It can be con-
trolled and directed. It can assume responsibility for
bringing about a prescribed result. Correspondingly,

a centralized organization has little ability to adapt,
and none to adapt quickly. The great advantage of a
decentralized organization is its adaptability, both
in the sense of speed and in the sense of making many
simultaneous adjustments to details of infinite and
unanticipated variety. Correspondingly, a decentral-
ized organization is not well suited for agcepting
reSponsibility for prescribed performance.

Educational organizations have not viewed them-
selves in the past, of course, as organizations which
needed to adapt quickly, and they have long assumed the

responsibility for achieving given levels of performance.

 

1W. A. Wallis, "Centripetal and Centrifugal
Forces in University Organization" in Morrison, R. 3.,
ed., The Contemporapy University: U. S. A. (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company 1966), pp. 40-41.

45

They have, until recently, been unapologetic about their

bureaucratization, unapologetic to the point that some
authors have argued that students must be considered as

products. Charters1 argues that:

While it may appear to violate humanistic conceptions
of the educative process, our view of the pupil as
"material" to be "processed" provides a useful starting
point for analyzing the work structure of the school...
he moves through a sequence of work processes, each
presumably helping to shape him in accordance with an
envisioned outcome--the educational goals of the
school. We find in error the position of some ob-
servers who decry the school's inclination to "take
over from business and the military" the line-and-
staff pattern of administrative organization. The
authority structure was not arbitrarily imported into
the school. If a similarity exists, it is due to the
similarity of organization problems with which the
enterprises must cope.

Some research has been done on the effects of
bureaucratic forms of organization in educational systems
upon the feelings and practices of those working within
such systems. Lippitt2 found that the structure of the
school appeared to have an effect upon its ability to adopt
new practices. He found that teachers in schools with

bureaucratic communication systems, systems extending from

 

1W. W. Charters, "An Approach to the Formal Or-
ganization of the School," in Griffeths, D. E., ed.,
Behavorial Science and Educational Administration, (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1964), pp. 243:261.

2R. Lippitt, "The Teacher as Innovator, Seeker,
and Sharer of New Practices," in Miller, R., ed.,
Perspectives on Educational Change, (New York: Appleton-
Century Crofts, 1967).

 

46

the top of the hierarchy downward, tended to be adaptive
in their behavior, while teachers in schools with diffuse
communication patterns tended to be innovative.

Williams1 investigated the effects of bureaucratic
school organization on perceived decision-making, and
found that the greater the degree of bureaucracy the higher
the organizational level at which decisions are perceived
as being made. In the most bureaucratic schools, teachers
perceived the board of trustees as being the major decision-
making group in educational matters.

Moeller and Charters2 used a Likert scale to
measure the sense of power held by teachers in a variety
of school systems. Contrary to their expectations, they
found that teachers in highly bureaucratic systems felt
more powerful, in their ability to influence events which
affected them, than did teachers in less bureaucratic
systems. The authors were unable to explain their findings,
but speculated that their results might be the result of
selective hiring practices or to the social class origins

of the teachers.

 

13. 0. Williams, A Study to_Determine the Relation-
ship Between Bureaucracy 15 School Systems andIDecision-
Making Practices as Perceived by Teachers, Pringipals, and
Other Professional Personnel, Unpublished Ed. D., Auburn
University, 1967.

2G. H. Moller and W. W. Charters, "Relation of
Bureaucrazation to Sense of Power Among Teachers,” Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10, no. 4, March 1966.

 

 

 

 

 

47

If there are, as Charters argues, advantages to
this form of organization for educational institutions,
some observers have noted that the price paid for these
advantages is too high in human terms. Mertonl holds that
the behavior of members within a bureaucratic organization
becomes highly predictable, made so by the reduction of
personalized relationships, the increased internalization
of rules, and the decreased search for alternatives.

Hall holds that:

The deformation of a school system most likely to come
to mind is the hardening of authority: hardened auth-
ority becomes tyranny...in the extreme case, those in
authority abuse their power and rights. This is the
case where bureaucracy shades into tyranny.

There are less obvious patterns that deserve equal
scrutiny. An equally common development is one where
the top dignatory or official develops a paternalistic
orientation towards his subordinates. A third pattern
of bureaucratic deformation can be thought of as
moving in the opposite direction. In this case, those
in subordinate positions try to level out differences
between themselves and their superiors to the point
where they act as equals...it is a matter of fact the
pattern idealized by most of the members of the
classical professions.2

‘ 3
Gouldner sees the same sorts of consequences for
superior subordinate relations within the bureaucratic

organization, consequences reflected in increasing tensions

 

1R. K. Merton, "The Unanticipated Consequences of
Purposive Social Action," American Sociological Review, 1,
1936, 894-904.

20. Hall, "The Social Context of Conflict," in
Lutz Kleinman, and Evans, Grievances and Their Resolution,
(Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publi-
shers, Inc., 1967).

3A. W. Goldner, Patters of Industrial Bureaucragy,
(Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1954).

 

 

 

48

and corresponding ever-increasing authoritarianism on the
part of superiors. Sullivan's1 interpersonal theory of
psychiatry reflects Gouldner's point of View. He views
most human behavior as the result of the individual's
search for relief from tensions induced by conforming to
authority.

This type of view, coupled with recent research in
the field, have strengthened the neoclassical, or human
relations, approach to educational administration.

Likert has summed up the movement away from clas-
sical bureaucratic structure thusly: "the trend in
America, generally in communities, is toward giving the
individual greater freedom and initiative. There are
fewer direct, unexplained orders in our schools and homes,
and youngsters are participating increasingly in decisions
which affect them"2

Much of the theoretical work on which this move-

ment is based has been done by Likert himself. Hickson3

lists Likert, along with Chris Argyris and Douglas McGregor,

 

1H. S. Sullivan, "Tensions, Interpersonal and
International," in H. Cantrel, ed., Tensions That Cause
Wars, (Urbana: University of Illinoi§ Press, 1950), p. 5.

2

 

R. Likert, New Patterns of Management, p. l.

 

3D. J. Hickson, "A Convergence in Organizational
Theory," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. II, No. 11,
Sept. 1966?

 

49

as one of the three major structural critics of organiza-
tion the neoclassical theoretical school has produced.
Likert's work rests on several basic assumptions
about the nature of an effective organization, one which,
in his terms, is effective only if it meets both organi-
zational goals and individual ego needs. Such an organi-
zation provides an interaction system satisfying to
peOple while maintaining impressive performance character-
istics. According to Likert, it has the following charac-
teristics:

1. an overlapping form of organization and communica-
tion pattern. The key to this form of communica-
tion is the "linking pin" function, a system of
upwards, downwards, and lateral communication.

2. a supportive, ego-building atmosphere, one in
which persons feel valued and respected and in
which confidence and trust grow.

3. a staff that has not only appropriate attitudes and
skills for the functions for which they are respon-
sible, but also adequate interpersonal and group
process skills, and a maximum degree of accurate
sensitivity to the reactions of others.

4. a minimum level of stability in personnel assign-
ments, enabling members to know the members of other
work groups and units, thus establishing a high

level of confidence and trust.

5. an availability of accurate, current measurements

which reflect the current state of the organization.1

 

1R. Likert, "A Motivational Approach to a Modified
Theory of Organization and Management," in Haire, M., ed.,
Modern‘Organizational Theory, (New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1959), pp. 184-217.

 

50

Likert objects strongly to the downward-only communication
flow pattern of classical bureaucracy. His "linking pin"
function rests in the assumption that superiors will only
be viewed as effective leaders by their subordinates if
they can exert influence on their superiors. He holds
that close, cross-organization links across the top levels
of the organizational hierarchy are especially critical,
since a communications failure at that level has the
greatest potential for harm. Likert believes that "...an
organization is strengthened by having staff groups and
ad hoc committees provide multiple overlapping groups
through which linking functions are performed and the
organization bound together."1
Likert feels that supportive relationships within
an organization are primarily a function of the behavior
of superiors in the organizational hierarchy.
The leadership and other processes of the organization
must be such as to insure a maximum probability that
in all organization, each member, in the light of his
background, values, desires, and expectations, will
view the experience as supportive and one which builds
and maintains his sense of personaliworth and import-
ance.
These processes are achieved by superiors who are

friendly and helpful, rather than threatening. Such a

superior has confidence in people and high levels of

 

1R. Likert, New Patterns of Management, p. 114.

 

2R. Likert, The Human Organization, p. 47.

51

expectations for them. He never behaves in a hostile
manner, and actively trains his subordinates for the next
job level in the system, while coaching and assisting
sub-standard subordinates.l
In addition to their effect upon the interpersonal

relationships within the organization, superiors, in
Likert's view, have a strong impact upon the performance
aspirations of their subordinates. He believes that a
superior must himself hold high performance goals and a
contagious enthusiasm for them if the organization is to
reach a high level of performance.2

To achieve and maintain high performance, it is neces-

sary that the subordinates, as well as the superiors

of an organization, have high performance goals and

have their work well-organized.

Subordinates are unlikely to set high performance goals

for themselves and organize their work well if their

superiors do not have such aspirations...a superior

with high performance goals and excellent job organi-

zation is much more likely to have subordinates who

set high goals for themselves when he uses group

methods of supervision and applies the principle of

supportivs relationships effectively than when he

does not.

Finally, Likert's effective organization places a

high premium on group decision-making. Under this system,

all problems which involve a given group are dealt with by

that group. In Likert's View, group goal-setting results

 

l'R. Likert, New Patterns of Management, p. 101.

21bid, p. 8.

3“R. Likert, The Human Organization, p. 63.

 

52

in a high individual commitment to those goals, but does
not involve the relinquishing of the superior's responsi-
bility. He remains responsible for the actions and
decisions of the group.

Likert's insistence on constant measurement as
criteria for a healthy organization has resulted in the
develOpment of the so-called "Likert scales." The scale
used to measure the nature of a given management system
has led Likert to develop a system of organizational clas-
sification which ranges along a continuum from "System 1"
to System 4." A System 1 organization is labeled "Ex-
ploitive Authoritative," and reflects the characteristics
of classical bureaucracy. "System 2" and "System 3,"
"Benevolent Authoritative" and "Consultative," represent
variations on the bureaucratic pattern, while "System 4,"
"Participative Group," represents an organization function-
ing according to Likert's ideal.

It is Likert's claim that the scale and classifi-
cation system can be used "as a reliable instrument to
measure the nature of the management system of any organi-
zation in which there is at least a minimum level of control
or coordination; i.e., it is not laissez-faire in charac-
1

ter."

Some research would at least appear to suggest

 

lIbid, p. 122.

53

that Likert's theoretical assumptions hold true in educa-
tional systems. Silverman surveyed teachers in New York
State to determine what aspects of their principal's be-
havior most affected teacher morale. He found that
teachers ranked lack of supportive behavior and failure to
inspire trust as the main contributors to low morale.
Williams cites the failure of school systems to
move toward the Likert ideal as a prime course of teacher
militancy:
It has become painfully clear, however, that the at-
tainment by teachers of adequate democratic partici-
pation in school affairs has fallen short of its mark.
The achievement of a satisfactory level of democratic
sharing in decision-making by a participant group is
seldom characterized by that groups assuming an in-
creasingly aggressive almost disobedient, posture
toward those charged with the responsibility for policy
determinatiog. Yet in public education such seems to
be the case.
Lippitt found, in research designed to determine
the characteristics of innovative teachers, that the most
common variable appears to be a principal who exhibits

supportive behavior.3

Thompson, in investigating the common structural

 

lMo Silverman, "Principals--What Are You Doing to
Teacher Morale," Educational Administration and Supervision,
Vol. 43, No. 4, April 1957, pp. 2044211.

2R. C. Williams, "Teacher Personality Factors as

Related to Membership in Teacher Organization," The Hi h
School Journal, Vol. LI, No. 4, Jan. 1968, pp. 165-172.

 

3R. Lippitt, op cit., p. 197.

54

elements of innovative organizations, isolated a list of
similarities close resembling Likert's model. The common
\elements included (1) a general structural looseness,
\(2) free communication in all directions, high rate of
interpersonal communication, multiple-group membership,
and high level of supportive behavior by superiors.1
Goldman and Heald examined 657 teachers to deter-
mine their perceptions of the most critical variables
creating the organizational climate within the school.
Two behavioral qualities received the most emphasis from
teachers; the perceived level of social support and the
perceived level of staff involvement. Of the two, the
former was judged the most important quality by teachers.
The authors speculate that this may be due to a
general insecurity on the part of teachers as a group. If
so, they predict that a highly supportive atmosphere must
be produced before any change can be introduced which
would bring about greater teacher involvement in decision-
making.2

___A.

1V. A. Thompson, "Bureaucracy and Innovation,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 1, June
U65, pp. 1.20.

2H. Goldman and J. Heald, "Teacher Expectations
of Administrative Behavior," Educational Administration
Quarterly, Vol. IV, No. 3, Autumn 1968, pp. 29-40.

 

 

 

55

Lender and Gunn also investigated causes of low
teacher morale. The prime variables identified in their
study were lack of feedback as to performance and lack of
receptivity on the part of the principal to any frank

appraisal by the staff.1

Summary

The school and its relationship to other organiza-
tions has been examined. The View that all organizations
have similarities which extend from organization to organ-
ization and across types of organizations was explored,
as was the existing state of organizational theory as it
applies to education.

An alternative View, which holds that organiza-
tional theory is not adequate for educational forms of
organization was examined. Central to this vieWpoint is
the assumption that educational institutions possess
unique qualities which require a separate set of theoreti-
cal constructs.

The effects of size upon schools and students was
reviewed. The general view that small size is desirable
from a number of vieWpoints was surveyed, along with
research from small groups illustrating the effects of

group size upon production and morale.

 

1I. H. Lender and H. Mavaunn; Secondary School

Administration, (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. MerrilI Books,
Inc.,91963), p. 139.

 

 

56

The fact that little or no research exists which
systematically explores the effects Of size upon educa-
tional institutions was noted, and views surveyed which
indicate that size is not perhaps after all an important
variable in educational organization.

In the final section, the classical definition of
bureaucracy was set down, and its Operation within school
systems noted. Alternate forms Of organization were noted,
and one Of them, the theoretical construct Of Rensis Likert,
upon whose measurement techniques this work rests, explored
in detail. Research was introduced indicating that Likert's

constructs may have validity within educational settings.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Source Of the Data

 

Data for the study were gathered from two groups
Of individuals on the Lake Superior State College Campus.
The two groups are:

l. Organizationally uninvolved students. In-
cluded in this group is a random sample Of eighty-five
students who attend Lake Superior State College on a full-
time basis but who belong to no student organization, take
no part in campus governance, or who are not employed in
any capacity by Lake Superior State College. These
students, in other words, have a contact with the college
limited only to the classroom.

2. Organizationally involved students. Included
in this group are students who belong to some campus or-
ganization, hold some Office in student government, are
involved in campus governance, or are employed in some
capacity by Lake Superior State College. They have, in
other words, an involvement with the college which extends
in some manner beyond their classroom contacts.

Students in both groups were randomly selected

from a population which included only full-time students.

57

58

The college defines such students as those taking ten
academic credit hours or more per quarter. The focus of
the study is on the perceptions of these individuals as
they view the organization Of the college. Therefore,
first-year students were excluded from the study on the
assumption that they would not have had sufficient time
to become acquainted with the organizational process and
practices of the institution.

The instrument used to gather data for the study was
the student questionnaire designed by Dr. Rensis Likert, Di-
rector Of the Institute for Social Research at the University
of Michigan, and first used by Dr. Joseph Bechard in his pi-
lot study at Michigan State University. Since Bechard's
study was the first application Of this instrument, statis-

tical data from other institutions is not available.

The Sample Group

 

A total Of six hundred and sixty-seven students was
eligible under the criteria designed for this study. That is,
they were both full-time students carrying ten or more hours
and had been on the Lake Superior State College campus for a
period of time at least one year or longer.

From this total eligible student population, two
lists Of student names were compiled. One contained organi-
zationally involved students, the other organizationally
uninvolved students. Data for compiling these lists was
drawn from the membership lists Of student organizations,

from the college payroll, from lists of campus committees

 

 

59

and their members, from the membership of the student judi-
cial group, and from the membership of the governing bodies
of student organizations on campus. The two lists were thus
mutually exclusive.

Divided in this manner, the list Of organizationally
uninvolved students contained four hundred and eighteen stu-
dents, while the list Of organizationally involved students
contained two hundred and forty-nine names. Eighty-five
students were drawn randomly from both lists to comprise the
sample for the study.

Selection was determined by the Lake Superior State
College computer, programmed for random selection from both

lists. Hardyck's and Petrinovich's Table Of Random Numbers

 

was used as the basis for the random selection process.1

Application Of the student questionnaire was done

 

through the Lake Superior State College Counseling Center
during pre-scheduling activities for the Spring 1971 academic
quarter. While slight variation in the size Of the sample
groups would not have affected the analysis, attrition was
not allowed in either group and students who elected not to
return to school, and thus did not go through the pre-schedu-
ling process, were replaced with students randomly selected
from the original lists. Thus both groups were held at

eighty-five members. Seven students from the original

 

1C. D. Hardyck and L. F. Petrinovich, Introduction

to Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, (PhiIadelphia:
W. B. Saunders Company, 1969), pp. 257-261.

 

60

selection Of eighty-five organizationally uninvolved students
elected not to return to school and were thus replaced, while
two organizationally involved students elected not to return
to school and had to be replaced.

The student questionnaire was coded to identify the
two sample groups, but students were not otherwise identified
by name. As each student came to the Counseling Center for
his regular pre-scheduling interview, he or she was given the

appropriate copy of the student questionnaire and, after a

 

brief explanation Of the Operation of the Likert scale, asked
to complete the form in the Testing Room Of the Counseling
Center. Since the Center has for seven years conducted an
attitude survey of students at approximately the same time

Of the year, this procedure occasioned little or nO curiosity
on the part Of the sample subjects.

By including all eligible students and randomly se-
lecting the sample of students, it is possible to make
statements concerning the perceptions Of Lake Superior State
College held by the members of each population. Since no
respondent had less than one year's acquaintance with the
college, it is presumed that each had adequate time to form
impressions of the organization and its Operation, thus
adding to the validity Of the findings.

Additional demographic data for each Of the two

sample groups are found in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 which follow.

61

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1.1 Participants of this Study Categorized
by Academic Division
Academic Number of
Division Full-time students
1. Division Of
Social Sciences 41
2. Division of
Applied Science 19
3. Division of
Natural Science 52
4. Division of
Arths and Letters 37
5. Division Of
Business 21
6. Division Of

Continuing Education

 

TOTALS

170

62

Table 2.2 Demographic Characteristics of Students
Participating in this Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Under 25 A 26-30 31-35 35+
a. Age 159 10 1
Male Female
b. Sex 116 54
Employed Not Employed
C. NO. of
students
employed 32 138
by LSSC
Institutional Payroll Work-Study
d. Type of
Employment 8 24
B.A. B.S.

 

e. Type Of
degree work- 99 71
ing toward

 

Sophomore Junior Senior
F. Class 112 43 15

 

 

63

Instrumentation

 

Each questionnaire is a graphic rating scale on
which each respondent is asked tO rate Lake Superior State
College on each of six organizational variables. The
variables are identified by Likert, and supported by other
scholars in the field, as being essential processes present
in all organizations. These organizational variables are:
(1) Leadership processes, (2) Character Of motivational
forces, (3) Character Of communication processes, (4)
Character of interaction-influence processes, (5) Character
of decision-making processes, and (6) Character Of goal-
setting processes (See definition of key terms, pp. 17-
20).

Likert has identified the characteristic elements
which make up each variable. Following Bechard,l each
item on the questionnaire has been assigned to one or more
Of the characteristic elements, and these elements in turn
have been assigned to one or more of the six organizational
variables.

A list of each organizational variable follows,
with the characteristic elements and items listed which

contribute to each.

 

13. E. Bechard, Op cit., pp. 83-100.

64

The Organizational Variables Used in this Study
and the Characteristic elements and items

from the Questionnaire Assigned
to each Variable

Listed below are the six organizational variables

considered in this study, and the characteristic elements

and the number of the items assigned to each variable.

Scores on each variable were computed for each student

group as described in Treatment Of the Data, found else-

 

where in this chapter. See also Definition Of Key Terms,

found in Chapter I, pp. 17-20.

1. Leadership Process Variable

 

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

extent to which subordinates feel that
superiors have trust and confidence in them.
EEEEE‘ #22, #23

extent to which subordinates have confidence

and trust in superiors.

Items: #24, #25

extent to which subordinates perceive the

behavior Of superiors as friendly and sup-

portive.
Item: #1

extent to which subordinates try to behave in
a friendly and supportive manner toward
superiors.

Items: #3, #4

5/ (e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

I“

(j)

65

extent to which subordinates try to behave in
a friendly and supportive manner toward others.
EEEE: #2

extent to which subordinates feel free to
discuss academic matters with superiors.

Item: #26

 

extent to which subordinates feel free to
discuss non-academic matters with superiors.
£323: #27

extent to which superiors ask for ideas from
subordinates concerning problems about
academic matters.

ngmg: #10, #14

extent to which superiors ask for ideas from
subordinates concerning problems about non-
academic matters.

ngmg: #11, #15

extent to which subordinates feel that
superiors are interested in their success.

Items: #5, #7

2. Motivational Forces Variable

(a)

extent to which individuals perceive that
there is COOperative teamwork within the
college.

Item: #36

L (b)

(C)

(d)

(e)

(f)

66

extent to which individuals like the college
as a place to work or go to school.

Iggm: #37

extent to which subordinates feel peers are
interested in their success.

IEEE: #6

extent to which responsibility for achieving
high performance is shared.

Item: #40

 

extent tO which involvement in decision-
making increases motivation to strive for
better performance.

Item: #35

 

extent to which individuals are involved in
the major decisions related to their work.

Item: #32

3. Communications Process Variable

(a)

(b)

extent to which subordinates feel that su-
periors know the problems faced by subordi-
nates.

ngmg: #8, #9

extent to which upward communication is
accurate.

Item: #28

 

 

(C)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

67

extent to which subordinates accept commu-
nications from superiors.

ngmg: #29, #30

extent to which subordinates feel superiors
really try to help with their problems.

£53m; #38

extent to which ideas are sought by superiors
from subordinates about academic matters.
EEEEE: #10, #14

extent to which ideas are sought by superiors
from subordinates about non-academic matters.
IEEEE‘ #11, #15

extent to which decision-making is shared by
all members Of the organization (extent to
which information is willingly shared).

Item: #32

4. Character of Interaction-Influence Process Variable

(a)

(b)

(C)

extent Of influence subordinates feel they
have in decisions related to their work.

£333: #33

extent to which interaction between members of
the college is friendly with a high degree of
confidence and trust.

ngm: #31

extent of influence subordinates feel they
should have in making decisions related to
their work.

Item: #34

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

68

extent to which the belief exists that having
an influence on decision-making makes people
work harder.

ngm; #35

extent to which members feel they can in-
fluence goals and methods and other academic
decisions.

Items: #10, #14, #31, #32, #33, #26

extent to which members feel they can in-
fluence decisions about non-academic matters.
Items: #11, #15, #31, #32, #27

extent to which members perceive the presence
Of cooperative teamwork.

ngm; #36

extent of actual influence members exercise in
major decisions related to their work.

Items: #32, #33

5. Character of Decision-MakingyVariable

 

(a)

(b)

extent to which superiors feel subordinates
should have a say about academic matters.
lpgmg: #12, #16

extent to which subordinates feel that they
should have a say about academic matters.

Items: #18, #20

(C)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(j)

69

extent to which superiors feel subordinates
should have a say about non-academic matters
that affect them.

Items: #13, #17

extent to which subordinates feel they should
have a say about non-academic matters.

ngmgz #19, #21

extent tO which subordinates feel they are
involved in major decisions affecting them.
Iggmg: #32, #33

at what level Of the organization are decisions

made.

_Items: §#33, #32

extent to which superiors are aware of the
problems at the lower levels of the organi-
zation.

ngmg: #8, #9

extent to which decision-making is shared by
all members of the organization.

£522: #32

extent to which upward communications are
accurate.

ngm: #28

extent to which ideas are sought by superiors
from subordinates about academic matters.

Items: #10, #14

70

(k) extent to which ideas are sought by superiors
from subordinates about non-academic matters.

Items: #11, #15

 

6. Goal Setting Variable

 

(a) extent to which individuals feel that the
organization cooperatively holds high per-
formance goals.

IEEE: #39

(b) extent to which individuals determine who
shall be responsible for achieving high per-
formance goals.
£52m; #40

(c) extent to which individuals feel that there
is resistance to achieving high performance
goals.

Item: #42

 

Treatment Of the Data

 

Likert identifies four general types Of organi-
zations, each with its Own identifiable characteristics,
characteristics which range along a continuum from most
bureaucratic, and, in Likert's view, least effective,
through least bureaucratic and most effective. The former
system Likert labels System 1, the latter System 4. Sys-
tems 2 and 3 represent shadings towards one end of the
continuum or the other, with System 3 a more effective

form of organization than System 2.

71

Likert's questionnaire (see Appendix) is organized
along the same continuum, and divided into twenty possible
areas of response. Five Of these possible responses are
located under each of the four organizational typologies.

Following Bechard, a value of one through twenty
was assigned to each of the twenty segments, or areas Of
response, and scores computed for each of the participants
on each item. Items (see above) were organized into
characteristic elements Of each of the six variables.

A mean element reSponse for each Of the charac-
teristic elements for each individual was computed by
adding the scores of the items Of the characteristic
elements and dividing by the number of items.

The standard deviation Of the mean element re-
sponses of the individuals were calculated to weight the
contribution of each characteristic element to the score
Of the variable for each individual.

The weighting was accomplished by dividing the
individual's mean element score by the standard deviation
of the element. The individual's score on a variable was
then the mean Of these weighted means.

The following equations represent the calculation
of the score on each variable for each individual:

Let: Xi 5 the individual's score on item i.

n = the number of items in element j.

72

N a the number of individuals.
m = the number Of characteristic elements
per variable.
Calculate the individual's mean element response

to element j:

Calculate the mean Of the element across all in-
dividuals:
2.3- = Z—j‘
N

Calculate standard deviation Of each element:

-. = 2x. -r. 2
ng (J )
N-l

Then each individual's score on a variable =

Analysis Of the data was done in two steps: First,
Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance technique was applied
to each Of the two groups to determine the extent to which
there was agreement within each group. A significant
value Of the coefficient Of concordance, W, is interpreted
as meaning that the members Of each group are applying the

same standard in ranking the variables under study. That

73

is, they are in agreement as to what it is that they are
ranking. This agreement does not necessarily mean that
the ordering Of variables is correct: it merely means
that members of each group agree as to the ordering itself.
A "W" value Of 1.0 would be perfect agreement and a value
Of 0.0 would indicate perfect disagreement.

The test Of significance of W is found by applying

the formula:

x2 = k(N-l)W with d.f. = N-l where
k = the number Of subjects within a group
N = the number Of organizational variables.

The implied null hypothesis is that the ratings
by the subjects within each group are unrelated. This
technique also yields a rank order consensus Of each
variable within each group. These results indicate the
tendency Of the group to agree on the value score of a
variable, and does not represent a value judgement.

Since the implied null hypothesis was rejected for
both groups, a two-way analysis of variance was applied to
individual scores so that inferences pertaining to the
significance of differences between group scores could be
established. In this test, the implied null hypothesis
is that both groups are drawn from the same population,
that no significant difference exists between them on the
issues in question. If the null hypothesis were rejected,
it would appear that the two groups do view the college

from differing frames of reference.

74

Through these tests, a composite picture of Lake
Superior State College as viewed by its upperclass students
was Obtained, and the findings Of the study constitute a
source of information about Lake Superior State College as
viewed by its client system. This information can become
a tool for organizational change, should the college
decide such change to be desirable.

The findings Of the study are discussed in Chapter

IV.

CHAPTER.IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Introduction

 

The statistical analysis of all data for this
study was done by the Computer Center at Lake Superior
State College. The statistical tests themselves in large
part represent the design developed by Bechard for inter-
pretation of data from the Likert scale.

Two separate techniques were used for data
analysis: (1) the Kendall Coefficient of Concordance and
(2) a two-way analysis Of variance. The findings Of each

technique are presented in tabular form.

Analysis of the Dapg

 

The first null hypothesis to be tested implies
that there is no substantial agreement within the two
groups, that the rankings of the variables within each of
the two groups is unrelated.

An examination Of Tables 2.1 and 2.2 reveals that
the implied null hypothesis is rejected at the .001 level
of significance. Thus, there appears to be strong agree-

ment Of perception within both groups about the

75

76

Hm>ms Hop. on unmoamficmam.

 

 

mumo mn> «av.hhn~x mmnz mmmH.ou3
m m m v m H xcom mo
msmoomoou
o m w m m H magmaum>
OOCOOHNCH moouom mmoooum
msfiuuom mcaxmz cowuos cowumo amCOflu mfinm
Hoow ICOflmflooo nuouCH IflCOEEOU Io>wuoz luooooq

 

 

.muooooum oo>Ho>owoo haamcowumuwcmmuo H.m manna

77

Hm>ms Hop. on ucmoamacmam.

 

 

 

 

 

 

mnmo mu> «ma.mmumx mmnz mmmH.ou3
v m m m w H xcom mo
momcmmsoo
m m w m m a manowum>
OOCOOHMCH moouom mmoooum
mswuuom mcflxmz sofluod sowumo Hmoowu masm
Hoow Icommwooo IHODCH IHCOEEOU |o>wuoz luooooq
.muomosum om>ao>cHso maamsowumnwcomuo m.~ manna

78

organization climate of Lake Superior State College.

Since there was strong within-group agreement, a
two-way analysis of variance was applied to all data. The
results of this technique show the implied null hypothesis
that both groups came from the same pOpulation is accepted

at the .05 of significance.

Table 2.3. Analysis of variance table.

 

 

 

 

 

DF S.S. M.S. F
BG 5 1099.2766 274.80 2.79*
WG 164 319.1773 129.57
TOTAL 169 1418.4499

 

*Not significant at the .005 level.

Thus, the conclusion is drawn that both the organi-
zationally involved and the organizationally uninvolved
students are members of the same pOpulation, at least so
far as viewing Lake Superior State College through six
organizational variables is concerned.

Both groups view Lake Superior State College in a
somewhat negative manner, given their rankings of the school
along Likert's continuum. The fact that one group Of
students has been involved in the machinery of campus gover-
nance does not affect their attitude towards the college,

at least as reflected through Likert's six variables.

79

 

 

mmp.o map.o ~H¢.° New.o Hmm.o Gmm.o m mucmpsum
oo>HO>CH

pom.~ kos.~ ssm.~ pu> mmuz «mm.~ s~H.m mam.~ m adapcoau
Inuficomuo

nmm.o aom.o mms.o sam.o opv.o mam.o m mncmpsum
om>Ho>CfiCD

mam.m pms.~ mao.m on> mmuz mam.~ mpm.~ om4.~ m adamcosu
Inuwcomuo

mswuumm mcflxoz OOCODHMCH coaumoa:OEEoo cofluo>wpoz mwnmnoommq moouw

Hmow Icoflmflooo noofluomnmucH

 

.oanowuo> some so mmooum How mcowumw>oo osmoooum oso mouoom com: .v.m OHQCB

80

The fact that organizationally involved students do
not differ significantly from their less involved fellows
runs counter tO the views of those theorists who see
increased involvement and communication as a means Of
improving student attitudes. It also casts some doubts
upon the role of behavioral settings as tools for improving
student attitudes towards the institution.

The results would appear to confirm Gross' prediction
that organizational size as a variable affecting attitudes
does indeed "wash out" under the pressure Of other variables,
since Bechard's Michigan State study, done in a very large
educational institution, also found somewhat negative atti-
tudes held by both graduate and undergraduate students.

The Michigan State study compared the attitudes of
both these groups, and found substantial agreement between
the two groups in their perceptions of the university.
While the concept Of involvement was not a factor in that
study, it could perhaps be assumed that graduate students,
as members Of a smaller overall pOpulation, with more
immediate and more intimate contacts with both faculty and
administration, would occupy more behavioral settings than
would undergraduates. Even if this assumption holds true,
the resulting higher degree Of involvement with the organi-
zation did not provide a degree of discrimination between

the attitudes of the two groups.

81

These findings would appear to have implications
for efforts to change the organizational patterns of colleges
and universities. Observers have Often remarked during the
past decade on the fact that it has been the smaller, more
"liberal" campuses which have borne the brunt of some of the
more severe student disruptions. The question most Often
heard is phrased something like "why do students at small
colleges, colleges which involve them heavily in the
running of the school, become so frustrated and dissatisfied
as to resort to violence?"

If size and involvement are not factors in deter-
mining student attitudes, then it may well be that these
attitudes are shaped by forces largely outside of the con-
trol of the institution.

Virtually all forms of human organization involve
systems of control and authority and some distinction
between roles held by participants within the organization.
The necessity for authority, for leadership, and the neces-
sary distinctions between persons involved in a given
organization may make negative feelings on the part of
some members virtually inevitable.

For example, the act Of being a student may in
itself be considered either as a role or as an occupation.
As a role, being a student carries with it a good deal Of
control by others, control manifested by grades, by require-

ments, by the necessity for credentials, and by the need

82

for fulfilling whatever requirements may be set by the
school. Similarly, both faculty and administration are
affected in their occupational roles by controls exerted
from both within and without the institution.

At any rate, the findings would appear to indicate
that the question is complex indeed, and that the answers
offered by organizational and educational theorists thus
far to the question Of the effects Of educational organiza-

tion have been oversimplified.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

 

This final chapter contains a summary of the ideas
examined in earlier chapters, and a summary of the research
design and findings. One possible interpretation of the
results is presented, and recommendations made in light of

the summarized findings.

Summary

This study was designed to assess significant
agreements and disagreements between two groups Of students
at Lake Superior State College regarding the organizational
climate of their school. These two groups of students were
randomly selected from two seemingly separate student pOp-
ulations. The first population contained organizationally
uninvolved students, students who occupied no behavioral
"setting" within the school, whose contact with the insti-
tution is limited primarily to the classroom.

The second Of the student populations contained
students who were involved with the institution in ways

extending beyond mere classroom contacts. Included in this

83

84

group were students who actually worked for the college,
who took part in some aspect of student government, or who
occupied positions on one of a number of administrative-
faculty-student governing committees within the college.
The concerns Of these committees ranged from curriculum to
student affairs, from the Operation of the college book-
store to student-faculty relations.

Likert's Profile of Organizational Characteristics
questionnaire, as developed for colleges, was used for
measuring the perceptions Of both groups concerning the
school's organizational climate. This was, so far as is
known, the second such use of Likert's questionnaire, the
first being Bechard's study of the organizational climate
of the College Of Education at Michigan State University.

The instrument delineates six organizational vari-
ables presumed common to all organizations along a continuum

ranging from authoritarian to participative, from highly

 

bureaucratic (in terms of Weber's classic definition of
bureaucracy) to non-bureaucratic in many elements.
Participants were asked to rank Lake Superior State
College on each variable along the continuum. Individual
scores were calculated for each variable and mean scores
for each group computed for each variable from that data.
Two steps were involved in the analysis of the
data. Kendall's Coefficient Of Concordance technique was

used to determine agreement within each group, while a

85

two-way analysis of variance was used to determine the

extent Of agreement between the two groups.

A.number of questions were asked or implied regarding

the data:

1.

Is there a substantial agreement between the two
groups Of students as to their perceptions of the
state of the organization Of Lake Superior State
College?

Is there a substantial disagreement between the two
groups Of students as to their perceptions of the
state of the organization Of Lake Superior State
College?

Are the perceptions Of Lake Superior State College
students similar to those of Michigan State Univer-
sity students regarding the state Of their respec-
tive organizations, irrespective Of the difference
in size Of the two institutions?

Does the size of an educational institution in fact
play a part in the attitudes students hold to it, or
is the variable of size "washed out" by other, and
overriding, variables and considerations?

Does involvement with, and participation within, an
educational organization play a part in the atti-
tudes students hold towards the institution?

Does a neoclassical, or "human relations" modified

bureaucracy produce favorable attitudes towards it

86

on the part of its members?

Analysis of the data revealed a strong within-group
agreement for both groups. That is, both groups were in
agreement among themselves as to the nature and the rankings
of the variables involved. There was also significant
agreement between the two groups, thus confirming the
implied null hypothesis.

Since the two groups differed only in terms Of
their involvement with the college, the acceptance of the
null hypothesis means that this difference had no impact
upon their perception of the organization of the college.
They come, in this regard as in others, in fact from the
same pOpulation.

Several of the implied questions were examined
through the literature in the field, with substantial areas
Of disagreement found to exist among researchers and
theorists. The question of size, for example, has been
under much discussion in educational circles during the
past decade, with the assumption Often being made that
large schools are "bad" because of their size. Thus, move-
ments to decentralize campuses have sprung up throughout
both higher education and the public schools. The concept
Of "cluster" colleges, "living-learning" units, and
"schools-within-schools" all reflect this movement.

A few theorists have, however, resisted this argu-

ment, although they have been largely ignored by educators.

87

This group has argued that size pgr pg is not a relevant
variable at all, that it disappears under the impact Of
other, and more important, variables.

This argument is in one sense an extension Of
another Of the questions examined. This question, perhaps
the basic and critical question, centers on the organization
Of educational institutions. It revolves around the
apprOpriateness for education Of the organizational models
Of business and industry.

Arrayed on the one hand of this argument are those
theorists who see all organizations as theoretically and
basically the same, regardless Of their function or mission.
This group would argue that there are basic principles Of
human organization which can be applied to any and to all
organizations, including educational ones. When extended
into the educational field itself, this position holds that
the organizational pattern of business and the military is
equally apprOpriate and desirable for schools.

This position is challenged by a second group Of
theorists, much smaller in number, who argue that this
model is not apprOpriate for education, that it in fact is
harmful to the processes of teaching and learning. Most
authorities who take this position point to the affective
nature of the educational process, and claim that the
nature of the relationship between the teacher and the

student is such that a bureaucratic form of organization

88

can only interfere with the business of learning.

The nature Of bureaucracy itself was examined,
along with the major schools of organizational theory.
Identified here were the classical school, the neoclassical
school, which contains the "human relations" theorists, and
the systems analysis approach. Concentration was on the
work of Rensis Likert, identified as one Of the three
leading theorists of the neoclassical school, and his

system of classifying and diagnosing organizations.

Conclusions

 

The author draws the following conclusions from the
study:

1. Size is not a factor affecting student attitudes
towards educational institutions. Therefore, much
of the effort currently being expended in education
to decentralize campuses is misplaced, and ignores
the real issue involved.

2. Involvement, either in campus governance, student
government, or through employment by the school, is
not a factor affecting student attitudes towards
their educational institution.

3. Current theories regarding organizational structure
and its effects upon members of the organization
appear to be oversimplified. In the case of educa-

tional organizations, efforts at change based upon

89

these theories may be concentrating on factors

which actually have little or no effect upon stu-

dent attitudes.

4. Whatever their merits may be in business and
industry, the tenants of the "human relations"
theoretical school do not appear to hold true for
educational institutions.

One Observer Of the "human relations" or neoclas-
sical theorists, who include Likert, has Offered an explan-
ation for the emphasis which this approach has received in
business and education, and the author accepts this explan-
ation as a part of his conclusions. Victor Thompson1 views
the aims Of the "human relations" school as essentially
manipulative, a device designed to reinforce the legitimacy
of bureaucratic authority. Thompson cites the pressures
and challenges being brought to bear upon established
authority, and sees the propositions of the human relations
schools as attempts to reduce these pressures. They are,
in other words, a SOphisticated method of defending the

role of those at the top Of bureaucratic hierarchies.

Thompson feels that the responses of the neoclassical

school--better communications, increased participation,

retraining, and increased interpersonal contacts--rest on

 

1Thompson, V.A., Modern Organization,(New York:
Alfred A. KnOpf, 1961).

90

one basic-assumption: that assumption holds that if a
problem exists it must exist within the peOple who make up
an organization and not within the organization itself.

To admit the latter would, of course, do grave damage to
the tOp levels of the hierarchy within the organization,
further undermining its authority.

Since the problem is presumed to rest within the
peOple who make up the organization, it must be solved by
changing them, by manipulating their value systems to
conform once more with those Of the organization. Thus,
"if people just knew the facts, they'd accept our position."
To the author, this motivation would appear to be at work,
although admittedly perhaps not consciously, in many of
the efforts to increase student involvement in college

governance.

Recommendations

 

The findings Of this study suggest, as did Bechard's,
the need for further investigation into the organizational
character Of educational institutions. Specifically:

1. Lake Superior State College should reexamine its
organizational pattern in light of the student attitudes
determined by this study. Such a reexamination should not
center on standard responses to student discontent, i.e.,
more participation, better communication, but should con-

centrate on a more basic question: is there not an

91

alternative model Of organization which might better serve
the needs of a small college?

2. Thompson points out, in the study cited above, the
fact that most research done by "human relations" theorists
has been done by men who are in one way or another dependent
upon business and industry for their professional careers.
This would include college and university-based theorists
who depend upon their consulting activities for much Of
their income and reputation. Thus, even with the most
scrupulous professional standards, such research will reflect
the interests of those at the tOp of the system rather than
of those at the bottom. This fact is reflected in the
number of studies which center on those at the bottom of
the organizational hierarchy: workers, staff, and students.
An equally powerful research spotlight must be focused on
the top levels Of organization, if meaningful change is to
be brought about.

Therefore, national and local student organizations
should be encouraged to fund and to conduct their own
research programs as a countervailing force, as a means of
Obtaining a composite picture of the Operation of an educa-
tional organization, rather than the partial portraits
which now exist.

3. The critical question remains that of the best
method of organizing educational institutions. Since

Likert's instrumentation does appear to be able to

92

delineate student attitudes, its use should be extended
into further studies between types Of colleges. There are
colleges experimenting with forms of organization based on
other than bureaucratic models. Likert's instrument should
become part.of a program designed to test the effects Of
these alternate forms of organization.

Within the State of Michigan, for example, Saginaw
Valley State College is attempting such an alternate model.
A logical next research step would be to compare attitudes
at that institution with those at the more traditional
state colleges.

4. Finally, educational institutions must be encouraged
to regard themselves as legitimate fields for study and
research. One cannot help but be amazed at the paucity of
the research concerning schools as organizations, in spite
of the fact that most colleges and universities contain
both the resources to bring to bear on the problem and the
problem itself.

Those studies and research instruments which do
exist do not consider the organization 33 a problem; rather,
they concentrate on the problems gr the organization, and
there is a vast difference. The latter theoretical bias
is perpetuated by the available instrumentation. Thus,the
College Scholarship Services "Institutional Self-Study"
form is actually an instrument for measuring student atti-

tudes, and not an instrument for diagnosing the institution.

 

llal'lllll.iilll

 

 

 

93

There is a growing feeling of unease about higher
education abroad in the nation today. The work of Rogers,
Leonard, Holt, and Goodman, to list but a few authors, has
caused serious questions to be raised about the nature, the
purposes, and the values of our educational systems. A
rational response to these questions shall require that
education place the examination Of itself at the top of its
list Of priorities, rather than at the bottom as in the

past.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, T.R., and Workov, S. "Organizational Size and
Functional Complexity: A Study of Administration
in Hospitals." American Sociological Review.
VOl. 26, February,1196I.

Bales, R.F. "Some Uniformities of Behavior in Small
Social Systems." Readings in Social ngchology.
Edited by G. Swanson and T} Newcomb. New York:
Holt and Co., 1952.

Barker, R.G., and Gump, P.V. Big School Small School.
Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1964.

Bechard, J.E. The College of Education atIMichigan State
UniversityrAs Ap_Organization: A Surveyfof the
Perceptions Of Its Students, Faculty, and Admini-
strators. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
Michigan State University, 1970.

 

Bidwell, C.E. "The School As A Formal Organization."
Handbook 9f Organizations. Edited by J.G. March.
Chicago: Rand McNally ahd Co., 1965.

 

Bromeld, T. "Illusions and Disillusions in American
Education." Phi Delta Kappon. Vol. L,#4. December,
1968.

 

Callahan, R.E. Education and the Cult Of Efficienc .
Chicago: The University OfChicago Press, 1962.

Caplow, T. "Organizational Size." Administrative Science
Quarterly. VOl. ll,NO. 2, 1967.

 

Charters, W.W. "An Approach to the Formal Organization of
the School." Behavioral Science and Educational

Agministration. Edited’by D. E. Griffeths. Chicago:
The University Of Chicago Press, 1964.

 

Carter, C.F. "Evaluating the Performance Of Individuals as
Members of Small Groups." Pgrspectives on the
Group Process. Edited by G.G. Kemp. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1964.

 

94

95
Chickering, A. Education and Identiry. San Francisco:
Jossey—Bass, Inc., 1969.

Corwin, R.G. A Sociorggy_of Education. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts PubliShing Co., 1965.

 

Douglass, H.R. Modern Administration of Secondary Schools.
Boston: Ginn and Company, 1954.

 

Downey, L.W. and Enns, F. Thenggial Sciences and Educa-
tional Administration. Canada: University of
Alherta Press, 1963.

 

Eurich, A.C. Reforming American Education. New York:
Harper and Row, 1969.

Gaff, J.G. The Cluster Collegg. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, Inc.,i1970.

 

Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C.W., eds. From Max Weber: Essays
In Sociology. New York: OxfOrd University Press,
1964.

 

 

Goldman, H., and Heald, J. "Teacher Expectations of
Administrative Behavior." Educational Administrg:
tion Quarterly. Vol. IV..NO. 3, Autumn, 1968.

 

 

Golembiewski, Robert T. The Small Grqu. Chicago and
London: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.

 

Good, C.V. The Methodology of Educational Research. New
York: AppIeton-Century—Crofts, Inc., 1935.

 

Goodman, P. Compulsoreris-Education and the Community of
Scholars. New York: Random House, Inc., I966.

 

Gordon, C.W. The Social System of the High School. Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe,—1957.

 

Gouldner, A.W. Patterps of_Industrial Bureaucragy. Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1954.

 

Grass, N. "The Use and Abuse Of Sociological Inquiry in
Training Programs for Educational Administrators."
The Social Sciences and Educational Administration.
Edited by L.W.‘DOwney and F. Enns. Canada: Univer-
sity Of Alberta Press, 1963.

 

Gross, E. "Universities as Organizations: A Research
Approach." American Sociological Review. Vol. 33,
NO. 4, 1968.

 

96

Hall, 0. "The Social Context of Conflict." Grievances
and Their Resolution. Edited by Lutz, Kleihman,
and Evans. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate
Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1967.

 

Hallesk, S.L. "Twelve Hypotheses Of Student Unrest."
Strggs and Campus Response. Edited by K.G. Smith.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1968.

 

Halpin, A.W. Theory and Research in Administration. New
York: The MacMillan Company, 1966.

 

Hardyck, C.D., and Petrinovich, L.F. Introduction to
Statisticsrror the Behgyioral Sciences. Phila-
Eielphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1969.

 

 

 

Hare, A.P. "Interaction and Consensus in Different Sized
Groups." American Sociological Review. Vol. 17,
1952.

Hickson, D.J. "A Convergence in Organizational Theory."
Administrative Science Quarterly. V01. 11, No. 11,
September, 1966.

Homans, G.C. The Human Grou . New York: Harcourt, Brace
and World, Inc., I95 .

 

Hoover, K.H.; and Boumann, V.H.; and Schaffer, S. "The
Influence of Class-size Variations on Cognitive
and Affective Learning of College Freshmen."

The Journal Of Experimental Education. Vol. 38,
NO. 3, Spring, 1970}

 

Keats, John. Schoolsryithout Scholars. Cambridge, Mass.:
The Riverside Press, 1958.

Kembrough, R. Political Poygr and Educational Decision-
Making. New York: Rand McNally, Inc., 1964.

Kerr, C. The Usesrgf the Universipy. Cambridge: Harvard
UniVersity Press,l1964.

Lender, I.H., and Gunn, H.M. Secondary School Administra-
tion. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books,

Leonard, G.B. Education and Ecstagy. New York: The Dela-
carte Press, 1968.

Likert, R. Ngw Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, Inc., 196i?

Likert,

Likert,

Likert,

97

R. The Human Organization: Irnganagement and
Value. New York: McGraw-Hill BooleOmpany, 1967.

R. "A Motivational Approach to a Modified Theory
of Organization and Management." Modern Organiza-
tional Theory. Edited by M. Haire. New Yofk:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959.

 

R., and Katz, D. "Supervisory Practices and
Organizational Structure As They Affect Employee
Productivity and Morale." Ergcutive Personaliry
and Job Success. New York: Personnel Series #120,
American Management Association, 1948.

 

 

:Lippitt, R. "The Teacher as Innovator, Seeker, and Sharer

London ,

Of New Practices." Perspectives on Educational
Change. Edited by R. Miller. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1967.

J. "The Development of a Grievance Procedure in
the Public Schools." Educational Administration
and Supervision. V01. 43, No. 1, January, 1957.

 

McGregor, D.M. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York:

Merton ,

1%loller,

McGraw-Hill, 1960.

R.K. "The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive
Social Action." American Sociolqgical Review.
VOl. 1, 1936.

G.H., and Charters, W.W. "Relation Of Bureaucra-
zation to Sense of Power among Teachers." Admini-
strative Science Quarterly. Vol. 10, NO. 4,
March, 1966.

 

ISIewcomb, T.M. What Happens to Students in College? Ann

 

Arbor: University of MiEhigan, 1970.

?I>errucci, R., and Mormweiler, R.A. "Organizational Size,

Iiamsey,

Imogers,

Complexity, and Administrative Succession in
Higher Education." The Sociological Quarterly.
Vol. 9, NO. 3, 1968.

R.D.; Hensen, D.M.; and Hula, H.L. The Schools-
Within-A-School Program. New York: Parker Pub-
lishing Company, Inc., 1967.

 

 

Carl R. Freedom to Learn. Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. Merrill Co., 1969.

 

98

Rubenstein, A.H. "The Nature of Organizational Theory."
Some Theories of Organization. Edited by Ruben-
stein, Haberstroh, and Chadwick. Homewood,
Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1960.

Schellenberg, J.A. "Group Size as a Factor in the Success
Of Academic Discussion Groups." Perspectiyes on
the Grogp Process. Edited by C.G. Kemp. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1964.

 

Scott, W.R. "Organization Theory: An Overview and an
Appraisal." Readings in Human Relations. Edited
by Davis and Scott. New Yofk: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1964.

 

Silverman, M. "Principals--What Are You Doing to Teacher
Morale?" Educational Administration and Super-
vision. V01. 43, No. 4, April, 1957.

Slater, P.E. "Contrasting Correlates Of Group Size."
Sociometry. June, 1968.

 

ESullivan, H.S. "Tensions, Interpersonal and International."
Tensions That Cause Wars. Edited by H. Cantrel.
Urhana: University of Illinois Press, 1950.

Thomas, E.J., and Fink, C.F. "Effects Of Group Size."
Small Groups: Studies in Social Interaction. Edited
by Hare, Borgatta, and Bales. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1967.

flihompson, V.A. "Bureaucracy and Innovation." Administra-
tive Science Quarterly. VOl. 10, NO. 1, June, 1965.

 

Thompson, V.A. Modern Oflanization. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1961.

 

VVallis, W.A. "Centripetal and Centrifugal Forces in Univer-
sity Organization." The Contemporary University.
Edited by R.S. Morrison. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin
Company, 1966.

 

Vflilliams, J. A Study to Determine the Relationship Between
Bureaucracy and DecisiOn-Making Practices as Perceived
pereacherserrincipals, anHCOther Professional Per-
sonnel. Unpublighed Ed.D. Auhurn University, 1967.

VVilliams, R.C. "Teacher Personality Factors as Related to
Membership in Teacher Organizations." The Hi h
School Journal. Vol. 11, NO. 4, January, 1963.

“White, R.K., and Lippitt, R. Autocracy and Democracy. New
York: Harper, Row and Company, 1960.

 

APPENDIX

99

N

002
EOuH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L_____::___a_fi_:__
HHO3 >uo> Hac3 guano uo£3wfiom Ham3 uoz
L::L::LJ4___4__AJ
@wummHOuCH @OummhwufiH UmumOHOHCH @OumOHOHCH
sum> musso saunasam uoz
aJ_:__:___:sfla_s_J
ooumououcH ooummuwusH ooumououcH ooumououoH
>um> mango saunmasm uoz
fis_ _s_ _AAJ_A__ _H_TJ__
ooummumucH omumououCH ooumouousH ospmmuoucH
sum> musso saunmsam uoz
L_______1_L___s__s__4
___s__________4__J:L
_is4+_:_j__+___:s_4
msmsaa cmumo mmsaumsom samumm

umossa
__.____s_s__:_______4

u>m3ad coumo moEwuoEom haoumm

umosa<

v Emummm m Emumwm N Emumhm a Eoumam

mxuoz mmuoou Moo» Cm
doom so» mannoum on» Bocx
muommowoua woo» 0o HHo3 30m

mucmooum a mo mmmoosm

moo» CH omumoumucw Ono
muoumuumwcfieom OOOHHOO onu
awn» Hoom so» on nose 3O:

musmooum m we mmoooom
Hso> Cw ooummuwucfl mum
muowooum Monuo won» doom so»
on 2058 30: .mmoum>o on» C0

mucoooum
a mo OOOOOOO usom ca
ooumououofi mum muOmmououm
Moo» umnu doom oo» oo
cuss so: .mmouo>o on» so

mCOa»OHbmaCHEoo on» .U
mmuonfime muaooom .n

mmusoooum Honuo .m

”on o>wuuommom oso waocowuw
on on any co» co coumo 3o:

mo>wuuommsm can
aaosowum muonfioe huasomm mo
How>onon on» ma coumo 30m

100

 

 

24___m__1__

_ I4, mmuouums

OOOHHOO vasoomomlcoc .o

 

2 fl_:_

Home ummuw
>um> <

_s_:

undos< wasp
Inooflmcoo d

_:s_

undead
ucmflam C

_H_

>HHOOfiuomHm

_ IA, mmumuume oflEmoooo .m

no» mo mmwaaoo moo»
Ca :0 moom um£3 Cw o>oc anonm
mucoooum xofinu .ommuo>o on» so
.mHOOmOMOHQ on» on wow £055 30:

 

as _

::____

_ 14. mmmaua>auom ucmosum
paw mcsaaaomsp
mm zoom .muouuoa

Hoonom Daemooomlco: .b

 

2 fi________

_ 14. mmxoon
.omwosum on O» muUOnQOm
.ucoucoo mmuooo mm

noon .mumuuoe Defioomom .m

«booed
momow Moo» cm: can HON xmm
muOmmmmoHQ Hoom 0o coumo 30$

 

maucmscmum coumo mmfiwuofiom wamumm
MHO>
. _:__________s____
Haoz auo> Haoz guano umn3oEom Haoa uoz
ooz
EouH w Eoumhm m Emunhm N Eoummm H Eoumxm

_.!% mxuoz omuooo Moo» CH mono 50>
mannoum on» socx mucumuumfl
Ioweom omoaaoo on» on Hams 3o:

101

ma

ma

hH

ma

ma

va

ooz
smoH

 

fi_fi__

:___A_J__

 

 

 

 

 

als:_i:_fi_s___4:_4
Home umouo uCCOE< mans DCCOEC OCoz
sum> a numpamcoo a unusam C sasposuomum
fi__:_______:____:4
_::_::a::4si:4
ammo umonu DCCOEC mans uCCOEC OCoz
sum> a numpamcoo « unusam 4 ssamoauomum
___:_s__EL__:___j_4
fl::_:___s_:_:_j
>Hucoocmum Coumo moEHuoEom xaoumm
>Hm>
w Ewumam m Emummm N Emummm H Ewum%m

mmumuume
mooaaoo UHEOOOOCICOC .n

mmHmuUME UflEGUflOfl .M

no» mo wmmaaoo H50» Ca

Co mmom ums3 Ca o>on Oasonm
won» waCu .Omouo>o on»

C0 .muCoosum oo woo CODE 3cm

announce
omoaaoo owEmoooouCOC .n

mumuumfi OHEmomoo .o

uou mm ommaaou H50» Cw

Co mmoo umnz CH m>mn pasonm
OUCoosum waCu Coflumuumfl
ICfleom mnu mmoo wow COOS 30m

announce
omoaaoo OREOOOOOICOC .n

NMHOHHME OflEflUflUM .fl

“booed
ammo“ know on: OCo How xmo Cod»
Ionumwsflfioo on» moon Coumo 30m

102

mm

vm

mm

NN

Hm

ON

Ooz
aflflH

 

_____

_

____

____

 

_

____4

 

 

 

 

 

ammo umouo unsosa mans unsos< ocoz
aum> 4 luooflmCoo 4 unmem 4 >HHo0fluomum
__:__s_a__js____j__
ammo sumac assess mane unsosm 0:02
has 4 -3388 4 £33m C 318333
_1_:_______s__fi_j_4
Homo umouw uCCOE4 wand uCooE4 . OCoz
aum> 4 InmofimCOU 4 unmfiam 4 aaaoofluomum
_J____s___a__________L
ammo nacho MCCOE4 Odom uCCOE4 OCoz
mum> 4 lumofimCoo 4 qume 4 >HHm0fluomum
_________s_s_____s__4
_:s:_:s_j__4___sq
Homo ummuu uCCOE4 mans UCCOE4 OCOZ
muo> 4 IHOOHOCOU 4 unuflam 4 aHHmoauooum
v auumsm m suuusm N souusm a souusm

mCOauoHumfiCflEoo on»
Ca O>OC co» co umouu
OCC OOCoofimCoo Coos 30m

mmHOmmwwoum Moo»
CH O>OC so» 0o amen»
OCC OOCOoflwCOO C056 30:

moo»

Ca O>MC nuououumeflEoo
omoaaoo on» on umsHu
OCO OOCOOHMCOO CODE so:

«90% CH o>OC muommowoum usew
0o umohu OCC ousoofiwCou
none 30: .HMHOCOO CH

mmuouuoe
omoaaoo anooooolCOC .n

announce Oflsmomom .m

"cu no omoaaoo

Moo» Cw Co doom uns3

Cw o>m oHCOCm muCoosum
xCaCu so co mom Coos so:

103

Hm

on

mm

mm

mm

on

.02
EOHH

 

fi____L_H_Jfi%:_H_H_HH
booms Coons
OCo oOCoonCOU OCo OOCoon umsuumHo
m0 ooumoo COHC ICOU m0 OCCOE4 ooCHouCHoz OCo uoom
CuH3 ConmoO uHom COH3 wHHoomD oOCou COH3 >HHost
ImHa >HOCoHum Coumo «COHmmoO ImHo “ConmCO “ConmsOoHo

.o>HmCouxm

umHo ounuoooz umHo mHuqu oHuqu suo>

 

___:_n_

H_-_%_fi_|~

 

_. _

_IH_W:

H_H_
H1H_HLH_:_HE

 

ooCoHu

Imoso wHoHOCoo >HmCOHuooo

OCo >HComo .uoz moEHuoEOm COHOHmmow COH3 COHOHmmsm uoouu
NH .ooumooo4 “ooumooo4 ooon> oEom .CuHs oosoH>
m>o3H4 umOEH4 >HHoomD CooumoOO4 oEom mCoHuoOHCCEEOU

___jl_sl___:__:____

ououooo4 oOOHoOO4 ououoOOOCH ouousOOOCH

m>o3H4 umOEH4 >HHHom Coumo >HHost

 

fi____

__7:_::__H

 

ooum who>

v Eoummm

_J_____H

ooum ouHoo ooum uoz

opus sHuanHm

m Eoumam N Eoumwm H Eoumhm.

monouuofi
uonuo OCo omoHHOO uoono
mu0mmomoum H50» COHz o>on
50> 0o ConmoOmHo CODE 30:

mmHOmmomoum H30» .n

mcoHuouumHCHEoo onu .o

"Scum mCoHuoo
IHCCEEOO 3oH> :0» 0o 30m

mmuouuoe omoHHOO Ho

mmoHO mCHCHoOCOO muommowoum
Moo» ou o>Hc so» COHuoE
IHOMCH on» mH ououoooo 30m

monouuoe
omoHHOO OHEoooooICOC .n

mxuo3 woo» COHs
oouoHOOmmo mEpooum .o

"boono
muommomoum Coca 0O xHou
ou Hoom 50% 0o ooum 30m

104

mm

em

mm

mm

.02
souH

 

L__:::_H__:HH_HH4

 

 

Hooo uoouo uCDOE4 oHCo OCDOE4 oCoz
>uo> 4 nuoonCOU 4 quHHm 4 SHHOOHHOCHD
_:::_H_L:__L._:_H
Hooo poouu OCDOE4 oHCo oCoz
>Ho> 4 IHoonCoo 4 oEom mHHoOHuOoum
_L_:_4_H_H_H:_H:_H
Hooo umouo uCDOE4 oHCo oCoz
>uo> 4 uuoonCoo 4 oEom mHHoOHuOon

 

:___

0: mcHuoommC
oConHooo CH
oo>H0>CH aHHDm

v Eoumam

:_:

 

oz mcHuommom
mCOHOHooo CH
oo>H0>CH uoz

oouHDoCOU
hHHOCOHmoooo

>HHHOCHOHO «oz mCHuoomm4
uDC .oouHDm oConHOoQ CH

1:60 mHHODmD oo>H0>CH uo>oz HH4 no boz

m Eoummm N Eoumwm H Eoumwm

HT:H::H

 

A oHoC xHoE xOoCO o
ODD .hom 0C o>oC Dox NHL

muoOHOC
xuoz ou uCoz D0» oxoe
momuDOO HD0> mo uouuoe
voonCDm oCu mCHCuoOCOO
mCOHmHooo C0 oOCoDHuCH
mCH>oC mooo uCouxo DOC3 OB

mmomuDOO

HHoCu mo Houuoe uoonCDm oCu
mCHCHoOCOO mConHooo CH
o>OC oHDOCm muCoODum xCHCu
D0» 0o OOCoDHmCH CODE 30m

«momuDOO CDC»
m0 uouuofi poonCDm oCu OCH
ICHoOCOO mConHooo CH o>oC
Do» on oOCoDHwCH CODE 30m

«Do» mCHuoouwo mCon
uHooo HOnoE CH oo>H0>CH
Dom ouo uCouxo uoC3 OB

105

.Hv OCo .ov .mm mEoOH mem OCo ouoC xHoE o oOOHQ .OOCOEuowHoo m0 Ho>oH CmHC o muoomxo oCO 0C HH4

 

a __:____H_H7H______C4
muCoODum
oEom .muom
muCoo Imomoum umoz mu0mmom
uDum .mHmeom .CoEHHOCU IOHm oEom OCo
noun .CoEuHOCU uCoEuHom ooEMHOCU uCoE
uCoEuHomoo .CoHu Ion .CoHuouum lunomoa ~COHu CoHuonum
louumHCHEo4 oCe IHCHEO4 oCB louumHCHEo4 oCB IHCHEo4 oCB

 

 

 

mm fiLH_J_fiH_H_C_J___NH__
CODE >Ho> uHm o ouHDO OOCBoEom oHuuHH >Ho>
s fi__:H:_J_H___L_H__H
DH oxHH moEHu
nos: sum> DH ong nosom .uH mxHH
DH oxHH >HHODmD ImHo moEHuoEOm OH oCHHmHQ
s fi__J__:_H_H____HJ__H
xuosEooe xnosEooa xuosEooB
o>Huouomoou o>Huouomoou o>HuoHomooo
m0 OCD0E4 HoHu m0 DCDOE4 oHuuHH =mHomEHm How
Insomnsm muo> C ounuooos C sHo>HumHom cm: Num>m=
.oz
EouH v Eoumwm m Eoumam N Eoumwm H Eoummm

momoHHOO uDom MOM mHoom
oOCoEuomuom CmHC moHOC OCze

mmEoHCOHm HDom
CuH3 Dom mHoC on an» >HHooH
mHOmmomoum HD0> 0o CODE 30m

momoHHOO HDom
ouo3ou Hoom Dow 0o 30m

mEoou o no >Ho>Huouomooo xuo3
mHOmmomoum OCo muCoODum on
no :MHomEHC How CoE >Ho>o=
uH mH .CH03 omHDOO HDom CH

   

"IIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII“