IE;

5!.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF mNER 1cm
ELEMENTARYTEACHERS’ AND. ,
PRINCIPALS’ .PERCEPTIONS OF AND ROLE ~~
EXPECTATIONS FOR THE LEADERSHIP ' :
BEHAVIOR or SELECTED‘INNER-‘CITY '

ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS

Thesis {mime Degree of PE 0.
MICHEGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
JOHN DOW, JR.

1971

u LII mu; lflilflflllfll Ru l" M 1m: w m Rn; ll

50

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INNER-CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TEACHERS' AND PRINCIPALS' PERCEPTIONS OF AND ROLE
EXPECTATIONS FOR THE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR OF SELECTED

INNER-CITY ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS
presented by

John Dow, Jr.

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Educational

Ph'D° degreein
- Administration

 

Date May 27, 1971

07639

  
   
 

thum- W mar-Er
4

Midfigan State

{I UfliE’t’fSit)’

i
E
U

  

   
    

amoma av ‘3

HOAG & SUNS' ‘

  

 

IVIESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS:
PIace in book drop to
LIBRARJES remove this checkout from
”- your record. FINES wiI‘l

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped beIow.

 

 

 

 

 

”jar—WWW:
fif7/W‘l

 

ABSTRACT

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INNER-CITY ELEMENTARY
TEACHERS' AND PRINCIPALS' PERCEPTIONS OF
AND ROLE EXPECTATIONS FOR THE LEADERSHIP

BEHAVIOR OF SELECTED INNER-CITY
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS

BY

John Dow, Jr.

In this study the author sought to determine if
significant differences exist between inner-city elemen-
tary school teachers and principals with regard to their
perceptions and expectations for the leadership behavior
of inner-city elementary principals. The perceptions and
expectations of the inner-city elementary principals'
leadership behavior were measured by four dimensions of
the "Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire," (Form XII):

Initiation of Structure; Tolerance of Freedom; Role Assump-

 

tion; and Consideration.

 

The LBDQ—-Form XII was developed by Dr. Ralph M.
Stogdill and is used in obtaining descriptions of a super-
visor by the group members whom he supervises. The ques-
tionnaire, with slight modifications, also can be used by

the leader to describe his own behavior.

 

‘
u- y nhfifi
l
"d v-«ub

ran" nv4 n
Ubdbl Kg-..

"e o..,,.

'0‘ . I
. .

:z-“ in"

'*‘:--A¢H

"h-‘ F ‘1
a... Ur‘n:
:H’ I

"‘v§
I” 5
u..:_ I‘:
‘u
..
w. \
.‘.“‘I
0 ac
dt~~
«c
'g F“ :" ‘
thu-‘aaw
5.
ML
ANE
A:
V.

‘-

I)
!,

 

John Dow, Jr.

The sample for this study was from a population
of eighteen inner-city elementary schools located in
Grand Rapids, Michigan. The eighteen inner-city elemen-
tary schools in the district are administered by nine
black principals and nine white principals. In order to
reflect a representative sample of the population for
the study, twelve schools were selected by randomly
sampling six among the nine schools administered by black
principals and six among the nine schools administered by
white principals. The twelve principals and all of their
full time teaching staffs were included as participants
in this study.

Analysis of the data was done by using the multi-
variate analysis of variance test (programmed by Jeremy
Finn). Results were deemed significant at the .05 level
of confidence.

The following conclusions were made as a result

of this study:

(1) There is no significant difference between
the perceptions of inner-city elementary school teachers
and principals for the leader behavior of inner-city

elementary principals.

(2) There is a significant difference between

the expectations of inner-city elementary teachers and

 

tension:
:: perce;

“"! e ‘
4- L653:

‘4‘

Q
Latentarg-
.

n‘
J-

13.“.er- Ci tr"
Experien Ce

A: .‘
V; épk'.er- C

:€?.a':ior C:

 

 

John Dow, Jr.

principals for the leadership behavior of the principals.
Initiation of structure and consideration are the two

dimensions that contribute most to the difference.

(3) There is a significant difference between
the perceptions and expectations of inner-city elemen-
tary teachers for the leadership behavior of inner-city

elementary principals.

(4) There is no significant difference when
inner-city teachers are classified by sex and level of
experience when one tests on perceptions and expectations
of inner-city elementary teachers for the leadership

behavior of their principals.

(5) There is a significant difference between
the perceptions and expectations of inner—city elemen-
tary principals with regard to the leadership behavior

of inner-city elementary principals.

 

ir.

f1;

 

 

h
Uepa»

§

 

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INNER-CITY ELEMENTARY
TEACHERS' AND PRINCIPALS' PERCEPTIONS OF
AND ROLE EXPECTATIONS FOR THE LEADERSHIP

BEHAVIOR OF SELECTED INNER-CITY

ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS

BY

John Dow, Jr.

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

Dedicated to the greatest loves
of my life--my children, Kelli,
Jaime, and Tony; and my wife,
Gloria.

ii

 

To
henest is t

m is not

35 Challeng
;leasant a;
'5 must ex:

better qua‘i

 

 

PREFACE

To be honest is to confront the truth. To be
honest is to realize that the ultimate measure of a
man is not where he stands in moments of convenience
and moments of comfort, but where he stands in moments
of challenge and moments of controversy. However un-
pleasant and inconvenient the truth may be, I believe
we must expose and face it if we are to achieve a»

*
better quality of American life.

*

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., From a speech
delivered February, 1967, before The National Institute,
Los Angeles, California.

iii

I]

‘ '3 ‘fl '7‘;-

 

 

“Vi“ ;

.‘figfi .
o

n

'U
9-4
[A

a

and eff";

.V‘ .
Tl-

“956‘
2.11 for

cf materia

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Appreciation is expressed to the teachers and
principals of the twelve Grand Rapids Schools for time
and effort expended in completing the instruments.

Thanks go to Mr. Robert Gill and Mrs. Joann
Smith for their assistance in the typing and mailing
of materials.

The writer extends a special note of apprecia-
tion to Dr. Samuel A. Moore, committee chairman, for his
counsel, friendship, support, and critical analysis
throughout this study. Thanks go to the other members
of the committee, Dr. Howard Hickey, Dr. James McKee,
and Dr. Norman weinheimer for their willingness to serve
in this capacity.

Thanks go to Dr. Howard Teitelbum and Geoffrey
Yager for their statistical advice and assistance.

Thanks and appreciation go to Dean William B.
~Hawley, Dr. Elmer H. Vruggink, and Dr. Norman Weinheimer
for their c00perative efforts in providing the fellow-
ship for this years study.

iv

 

 

3:. Free

the earl:

:ct‘zer, M;

' I
no. atner

 

 

A special note of appreciation is extended to
Dr. Fred Vescolani for his friendship and counsel during
the early stages of the doctoral program.

To my wife, Gloria, whose encouragement and.
faith have been inapirational to me, I gratefully express
my appreciation.‘ To_my children, Kelli, Jaime, and Tony,
who were neglected by their father during the past year,
I love you.

Last, but by no means least, thanks go to my
mother, Mrs. Lynell Dow, for her financial contributions

and other magnanimous deeds during the past year.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES o o o o o 'o o o o o o o o o o o o o Viii

Chapter
I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Statement of the Problem
Assumptions . . . . . .
Definition of Terms . .
Purpose of the Study . .
Hypotheses . . . . . .
Limitations of the Study
Significance of the Study
Methodology . . . . . .
Overview of the Thesis ...

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . 20

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Leadership and Leader Behavior Defined . . 21
A Partial Theory of Leadership

appropriate for This Study . . . . . . . . 31
Historical Overview of the Study of

Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Trait Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Situational Approach . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Leadership and Leader Behavior Research

in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Leadership and Role Theory . . . . . . . 52
The Concept of Role . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Definition of Role . . . . . . . . . . 56
Leadership and Role Expectations . . . . . 59

. . . . . 61

Leadership and Role Conflict . .

vi

III. THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY 0 o o o o o o o o o o 63

The Site and Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
The Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Modification of the LBDQ--Form XII for

This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Telephone Conversation with

Dr. Ralph M. Stogdill . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Scoring of Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Personal Data Form .7. . . . . . . . . . . 79:
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Hypotheses to be Tested . . . . . . . . . . 383
Treatment of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . llS

BIBLIOGMPHY O O O O I O I O O O I O O I O O O O O 117
APPENDICES O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 125
Appendix A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 125

Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Appendix C O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 15 8

vii

 

SE

3.4

 

 

Table
3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.9

LIST OF TABLES

A Comparison of the Total Inner-City
Elementary School Population, the
Samples Used, and the Number of
Students Served . . . . . . . . . . .

Reliability Coefficients (Modified
Kuder-Richardson) for LBDQ--Form XII

Reliability Coefficients (Hoyt's
Estimate of Reliability) of the
Four Scales Taken from LBDQ--Form XII
for Inner-CityElementary Teachers
and Principals . . . . . . . . .~. .

Summation of Personal Data Obtained
from Teachers Sampled--Distribution
by sex 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O

Summation of Personal Data Obtained
from Teachers Sampled--Distribution
by Age 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Summation of Personal Data Obtained
from Teachers Sampled--Distribution
by Race 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Summation of Personal Data Obtained
from Teachers Sampled--Distribution
by Level of Experience . . . . . . .

Summation of Personal Data Obtained
from Teachers Sampled--Distribution
by Level of Experience . . . . . . .

Summation of Personal Data Obtained
from Teachers Sampled--Distribution
by Level of Experience . . . . . . .

viii

66

74

79

85

85

86

86

87

87

11‘

1"

I\ . i A
(h v Uv “.3 ”My
I
2
~11. l A/b 3 4
n v 40 I.” In.” [on

 

W‘

 

 

3.10

3.11

3.12

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.10

Summation of Information Obtained
by Color Coding Questionnaires
by School on Teachers Sampled--
Representation of Respondents by
Schools and Students Served . . . . .

Summation of Personal Data Obtained
from Principals--Distribution by

sex 0 I O O O I O I O O I O O O O O I

Summation of Personal Data Obtained
from Principals--Distribution by
Age 0 O O I O I I O I O O O O O I O O

Multivariate Analysis of Variance--
Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean Scores of Perception on Subscales
--Teachers and Principals . . . . . .

Multivariate Analysis of Variance--
Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean Scores of Expectations on
Subscales--Teachers and Principals .

Multivariate Analysis of Variance--
Teachers' Perceptions and
Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean of the Different Scores Between
Perceptions and Expectations--
TeaChers O O O O O I O O O O O O O O

Multivariate Analysis of Variance--
Level of Experience--Perception
and Expectation . . . . . . . . . . .

Multivariate Analysis of Variance--
Sex--Perception and Expectation . . .

Multivariate Analysis of Variance--
Principals--Perception and
Expectation . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Means of the Different Scores Between
Perception and Expectation--
Principals . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

88

88

89

91

92

93

94

96

97

98

100

101

102

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A nation is the product of its people and the
people are, in part, the product of the schools. An
urban school superintendent once said that ”education
will not solve all of our city's problems, but most of
them will not be solved without education."l

Conant's book, Slums and Suburbs,2 was a pop-
ular volume that focused attention on innerfcity
schools during the early sixties. His reference to
children in urban cities as "social dynamite" was.
quoted by many educators and sociologists interested
in the urban school scene at that time. Unfortunately,
Dr. Conant's label was somewhat prophetic; the fuses

burned a few years later in Watts, Detroit, Chicago,

Newark, and other urban centers throughout America.

 

1Educational Research Service, "Decentraliza—
tion and Community Involvement: A Status Report,"
Educational Research Service, No. 7 (November, 1969), 1.

2James B. Conant, Slums and Suburbs (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961).

 

l

 

For

 

 

in inner-c;

‘ Q
3. demand

Lie climaté

 

lithe £314

h~4
.::S-O?.al e

.I
Es:

~ 3
55:“?
'\ “:‘.lr
g,-‘, .3
t'kll “ '
p 7
-K
‘ 4

For the past ten years different movements
in inner-city communities have resulted in a variety
of demands and confrontations between central city
citizens and various agencies of the cities. A major
target for many of these confrontations has been the
public school system. The scope of these demands and
the climate of the urban school scene are reflected
in the following examples of titles appearing in pro-
fessional educational journals: (1) "Needed: Teachers

3 4

of Teaching," (2) "The City is the Frontier."

Statement of the Problem

The problem was to determine whether signifi-
cant differences exist between inner-city elementary
school teachers and principals with regard to their
perceptions and expectations for the leadership behavior
of inner-city elementary school principals. The study
was designed to determine if significant differences
exist between the perceived leader behavior and expected
leader behavior of inner-city elementary school princi-

pals as viewed by inner-city elementary school teachers

 

3Lawrence W. Doolittle, "Needed: Teachers of
Teaching," Educational Leadership, Vol. 24, No. 7
(April, 1967), 624-629.

4Stanley M. Elam, "The City is the Frontier,"
Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 48, No. 7 (March, 1967), 305.

 

 

4“
fl

:1 princ:

“A

die p.ir:c:

..
5'

oh.

0

vensi

5.31

Freedom , I

 

I1 .II III. ....

 

and principals. The perceptions and expectations of

the principals' leader behavior were measured by four

dimensions of the Leader Behavior Description Question-

 

naire, Form XII: Initiation of Structure, Tolerance of

Freedom, Role Assumption, and Consideration.

Assumptions

 

The following are assumptions underlying this

study:

It was assumed that inner-city elementary

school principals are leaders.

It was assumed that at the time the instru-
ments were administered the evaluations
elicited from the participants were accurate
expressions of what they believed to be true

about the dimensions being measured.

It was assumed that where behavior of a
group or an individual differed, the dif-
ferences in behavior were perceived as
different and not systematic biases or

inadequacies of the observer.

It was assumed that the instruments used to

elicit data from participants were valid and

 

 

 

 

 

I a.-. C .t 4 . .. x

C 1 F: E C D. a .1 O
r k n 3.. S I .Q r t
a .l P. C . .t C

S f .1 e t l C S S
e e e d .n . a C a e I
t .3 .3 2.. t I . o .C E
2. 3 .l a t a. .. a». c a
a v v . ab .. A n}. 2. P. L a. Q. a.
1. ~.. .1. .- .ou .1. a: a 1‘ u.

 

reliable instruments for the measurement

of those defined dimensions.

Definition of Terms

 

Clarification of certain terms used in this

study is desirable at this point.

Elementary Teacher.--An elementary school teacher

 

is defined as anyone possessing a valid teaching certif-
icate and who is responsible for teaching pupils within

grades kindergarten through sixth grade.

Elementary Principal.--An elementary principal

 

is defined as anyone who supervises an elementary school
building and is given the title of "elementary principal"
by the school system. That person is the full-time admin-
istrator of a kindergarten through sixth grade elementary

school.

Perceived Behavior.--The perceived behavior is

 

the actual leadership activities of elementary principals

as described by themselves and their teachers. Stogdill

refers to this type of behavior as "real" behavior.5

 

5Ralph M. Stogdill, "Manual for the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire, Form XII," An Experimental
Revision (Columbus, Ohio: Bureau for Bfisiness Research,
CoIIege of Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State
University, 1963).

C.
C.

S

O‘ a“
.--¥ao

§

- .
:eefilV‘ a.

b
..e

: .
Cu

2.. L

r
P.

a!

Ru

 

C.

Expected Behavior.--The expected behavior is

 

the desired leadership activities of inner-city
elementary principals as described by the elementary
principals and their teachers. Stogdill refers to this

kind of behavior as "ideal" behavior.6

Role.--A role is defined as "a set of expecta-
tions applied to an incumbent of a particular position

(principal)."7

Inner-City Elementary School.--An inner-city

 

elementary school is defined as a school which is
characterized by its serving a low socio-economic set-
ting, usually located in an older, often deteriorating
neighborhood, and quite often located near the center
of an urban area. The schools included in this study

served kindergarten through sixth grades.

Revised LBDQ, Form XII--Ideal.--The revised

 

LBDQ, Form XII--Idea1, is the name given the instru-
ment used to describe expected behavior of the elemen-

tary principals.

 

61bid.

 

7Neal Gross, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander W.
McEachern, Exploration in Role Analysis (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 19587, p. 60.

 

 

 

A.)

Revised LBDQ, Form XII--Real.--The revised

 

LBDQ, Form XII--Rea1, is the name given the instru-
ment used to describe actual or perceived behavior of

the elementary principals.

Purpose of the Study

 

The author of this study sought to determine if
significant differences exist between the perceptions
and role expectations of inner-city elementary school
teachers and principals regarding the leader behavior

of inner-city elementary school principals.

Hypotheses

 

Hypotheses were tested for acceptance, rejection,
or nonacceptance at the .05 level of significance using
multivariate analysis of variance. All of the hypotheses
were stated as null hypotheses for the purpose of statis-

tical measurement.

1. There is no significant difference between
the perceptions of inner-city elementary
school teachers and principals with regard
to the leadership behavior of inner-city

elementary principals.

2. There is no significant difference between

the expectations of inner-city elementary

school teachers and principals with regard
to the leadership behavior of inner-city

elementary principals.

There is no significant difference between
inner-city elementary teachers' perceptions
and expectations for the leadership behavior

of inner-city elementary principals.

There is no significant difference in

the perceptions and expectations of inner-
city elementary teachers in terms of levels
of experience for the leadership behavior

of inner-city elementary principals.

There is no significant difference in

the perceptions and expectations of male

and female inner-city elementary teachers
with regard to the leadership behavior of

inner-city elementary principals.

There is no significant difference between
the inner-city principals' perceptions and
expectations for the leadership behavior

of inner-city elementary principals.

 

Limitations of the Study

 

Conclusions drawn from this study are subject

to the following limitations:

1.

The study was limited to twelve inner-
city elementary schools located in

Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Each school included in this study was
administered by a principal who had com-
pleted at least one full year as princi-
pal of an inner-city elementary school

in the system.

Teachers included in the study were full
time teachers in grades kindergarten
through sixth. Their levels of teaching
experience in the schools included in
this study ranged from less than one year

to more than five years.

Although all levels of the principal-
ship could be included in such a study,
this research limits its focus to inner-
city elementary school principals and

teachers.

V‘s-
-..v i
9
.~.-f~
iiiu'ir
-a~
“-8

 

V; e 9»
nu..au .hs.

 

5. The responses of teachers were based upon
their experiences with the principal at
the buildings in which they were teaching

at the time the study was conducted.

Significance of the Study

 

In recent years new reading programs, Special
math programs, relevant materials, and considerable
rhetoric have been introduced as cures for ineffective
education in most urban elementary schools. Consider-
able research in educational administration, however,
indicate that leadership of the principal may be more
important. Spain, Drummond, and Goodlad suggest that:
The elementary school principal holds a
key position in the improvement of the profes-
sional staff. He is the knowledged and
appointed status leader . . . whether the
school becomes a challenging educational enter—
prise or a dull and dreary place for children
depends . . . upon the quality of leadership
he provides for the staff.8

Strong support for the principal's role in suc-

cessful schools is reflected by Gross and Herriott who

suggest that "as the principal, so the school."9 More

 

8Charles R. Spain, Harold D. Drummond, and John I.
Goodland, Educational Leadership in the Elementar School
(New York: Rinehart and COmpany, 1956). pp. 6 -

9Neal Gross and Robert E. Herriott, Staff Leader-
ship in Public Schools: A Sociological Inquiry(New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965), p. 2. '

 

 

 

’.~"—Vh
‘ 3t. .-‘.u..u.LI-'1.::!_"J“-ld

¥"‘ .

v‘#._I-¢r

*_.

Ifu-‘I .
'

 

 

 

specifi‘

rn

L.

“as emerc
3:121“. ll
362:1 rec:
h:ye On E

'Fvg
’“~ance

A... I
N_.‘
' “‘5,
Ir,“
.
v‘. 4;
I

 

10

specifically, Gross and Herriott suggest that the
elementary principal has a momentous opportunity to
affect the learning process when they stated:

Of all the administrative officials in the com-
plex bureaucracy that manages public school
systems in the United States, few have at their
command greater potentialities for influencing
directly the type and quality of education young
pupils receive than has the elementary school
principal. He is the school executive in closest
contact with the central functions of the school:
teaching and learning. His position of formal.
leadership provides him with the Opportunity to
motivate his staff and to improve their standards
and performance in teaching. He can offer them
valuable advice in their efforts to deal with
classroom problems.* He can make their meetings
important and stimulating educational experiences.
He can maximize the different skills of his
teachers and help them develop their competencies.
The elementary principal, in short, enjoys sub-
stantial opportunities to provide a high order

of staff leadership.10

Shuster and Wetzler indicate that "the principal
has emerged as a recognized professional leader."11
Hemphill, Griffiths, and Frederikson demonstrate their con-
cern regarding the potential that elementary principals

have on student achievement when they pinpointed the im-

portance of understanding the performance of elementary

 

loNeal Gross and Robert E. Herriott, "The EPL of
Elementary Principals," The National Elementary Principal,
Vol. 45, No. 5 (April, 1966), 66:

11Albert H. Shuster and Wilson F. Wetzler, Leader-
ship in Elementary School Administration and Supervision
ICambridge: Harvard University Press, I958), p. 4.

 

b.

E

37".” _._ . Ea
- at
..
a
, ~19! {“1ka
, unm~_.\«l'.- 1. 1'3"" ~.-——

rip-It'll
L... .

 

 

school pri

the signif

Althoz:

in.

-Clare t}

 

 

11

school principals.12 Gerald Becker and others suggest
the significance of principals when they stated:

Although the superintendency is a key position
for the allocation of resources and employment

of personnel, it is only through this alloca-
tion and employment that he can actually affect
changes in the school organization. The princi-
pal of the specific school is, undoubtedly, in
the key position to guide the processes of change
and the implementation of overall goals and
strategies which ultimately influence the success
or failure of an educational program.1

A study of the leadership behavior of principals
conducted at the University of Florida resulted in find-
ings that moved the researchers, Hines and Grobman, to
declare that "what a principal does, matters."14

Much has been written about the conditions and
plight of inner-city schools and most of the literature
suggests that money has been the chief means of elimin-
ating undesirable conditions. Allen suggests that:

The reality is that money alone, no matter how
generously contributed, will not fill the well

of human deprivation and deSpair in our ghettos.
The many years of financial lack and lack of

 

12John K. Hemphill, Daniel E. Griffiths and
Norman Frederikson, AdministrativePerformance and Person-
alit (New York: Teachers College Bureau of—Rublications,
Cqumbia University, 1962), p. 1.

13Gerald Becker and others, Issues and Patterns
in Elementary School Administration TEorvallis: Center
for Educational ResearCh and Service, Oregon State
University, 1970), p. 2.

14V. A. Hines and Hulda Grobman, "What a Princi-
pal Does, Matters," Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 37, No. 8
(April, 1956), 308.

 

 

 

 

. . -.
m m... .. mzAmmLuu

 

oppor-
urban
with 1

W.

Miss Alle:

new books

alone wil

i
h
ecucatior.

Proje
inn :
with

lati:
in s:
irre;
just

a pub
are 5'
reas:|
96 the
SiCn;I
Ofitk

 

 

12

opportunity have developed a complexity of
urban problems that can no longer be solved
with money alone.15

With regard for education of inner-city children,
Miss Allen has indicated that "new school facilities,
new books, higher teacher and administrative salaries

alone will not fill the vacuum of educational inertness

in our inner-city schools."16

Additional insight into the plight of inner-city
education is provided by Day and George when they state:

Projects designed to improve the education of
inner-city disadvantaged children are faced
with seemingly impossible problems.. The pOpu-
lation, by and large, has experienced failure
in school. The schools have been and remain
irrelevant, aloff and distant. A school is
just another forbidding institution foisted on
a public and not a part of the community. Jobs
are scarce; pay is poor. Families have more
reason for disintegrating than for staying to-
gether. All these factors and more have to a
significant degree contributed to the failure
of the school in the urban core.l7

Although the urban scene appears bleak.and im-
possible, many educators and researchers are suggesting

new modes, other than money, for developing productive

 

15Hope E. Allen, "Fantasy or Reality? Education
in the Inner-City," The Clearing House, Vol. 44, No. 6
(February, 1970), 357.

16Allen, op. cit.

17David E. Day and Louise Y. George, "Effecting
Change in Inner-City Schools: Some Reflections,"
The Journal of Negro Education V014 39, No. 1 (Winter,
1970),’4.

 

" te
stratcr

mools
inazca

J.

1

:5 4.. 1: .ns

0 F.‘ . . (h J
v n. :4 + n ~ 6
a... my.» .1. F. .L d S d ..... 1-. .1 .f. C
val“ .l .n“ (L a e e In ' hit c wflfl Q,» S
C o. a,» LE P“ LL ~u. a» .r...
a n. a u... 4.. .1 a. a. o
6 b u . 6 b .5 .mi N: a; 1.1.. .hauuV

 

a. . fay”.
»...

. ‘ .
2.145..)

 

13

schools in the inner-cities of urban areas. Marburger
indicates that there are numerous ways to reinforce the
enthusiasm of teachers and students in inner-city school
settings.~ He suggests, however, that "these means may
be basically without purpose if the style of the admin-
istrator is such that it stiffles the creativity of the

18 He further states that the type of adminis-

teacher."
trative staff in a school affects the nature of the
teaching and learning process considerably.

Hagman, realizing the uniqueness of various school
settings, suggests that school systems have to free indi-
vidual principals and,schools to work in the manner best
suited for their particular situations. He went on to
suggest that the success of educational goals would then

depend upon the leadership of the principal.19 In his

book, Teaching in the Slum School, Strom states:

 

The extent to which teachers are successful in
classrooms and satisfied with their working con-
ditions depends in part on the role assumed by,
the building principal. . . . As-most of these
school leaders perceive their major function to

 

18Carl L. Marburger, "Considerations for Educa-
tional Planning," Education in Depressed Areas,
ed. A. Harry Passow (New York: TeaChers College, Columbia
University, 1963), p. 308.

19Harlan L. Hagman, Administration of Elementary
Schools (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956), pp. 4- .

 

 

14

be that of coordinating staff efforts, they

are keenly aware that their attitudes of
education, their expectations of teachers and
students, and their relationships with colleagues
can greatly influence pupil progress and success.

New and innovative activities, other than more
money, must be developed in order to eradicate or.at
least reduce the educational problems of urban schools.
The principal is an important cog in the development of
successful and productive schools. Consequently, inten-
sive research into the leader behavior and leadership
style of inner-city elementary school principals may
reveal the key to the urban school dilemma.

Should the principal be sensitive to the feelings
of his staff if he is expected to lead his staff success-
fully toward the achievement of the goals of the school?
Croft says "yes” and supported his contention by con-
ducting an investigation of "the dogmatism and percep-
tions of the leader behavior of principals." The basic
assumption of the study was that "the school principal,
to be effective, must be able to make accurate estimations

of the perceptions that others have of his behavior."21

 

2(ORobert Strom, Teaching in the Slum School
(Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1965),
pp. 59-60.

21John C. Croft, "Dogmatism and Perceptions of
Leader Behavior," Educational Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 1, No. 3 (Autumn, 1965), 60-61.

 

 

15

In what manner should the inner-city principal
behave as a leader in order to maximize positive relation-
ships with the teaching staff? Before answering, more
information is needed about the leadership behavior of
principals. Much more needs to be known about the manner
in which inner-city teachers feel that principals should
behave. Is the principal's perception of his behavior
in agreement with his teachers? perceptions of his behavior?
Are inner-city principals in agreement concerning the appro-
priate leader behavior for inner-city principals? The
author in this study seeks answers to these questions.

The researcher was impressed with the volumes of
information in the literature reflecting the "effective
methods" for teaching disadvantaged children of inner-city
schools. However, there is a paucity of research focusing
upon effective leader behavior and leadership style of
inner-city administrators. Therefore, the researcher sees
a need for this kind of study in order to focus upon activ-
ities which reflect leader behavior through interpreting
the interactions of inner-city elementary principals and
their staffs.

Characteristics of the inner-city elementary
schools in this study may be similar to inner-city elemen-
tary schools in urban districts like Grand Rapids. This

study, then, may have significance for inner-city

 

 

 

‘.

  

:_ 1, n u
v; L ...
.. U"

“H.148: . MENU.» uh...

as

..m .n» ma
.3 . . .
v . MH.‘ HQ

Q»

 

 

16

elementary schools in those other cities. Since the
research was conducted in twelve of the eighteen inner-
city elementary schools in Grand Rapids, Michigan, this
study will be of significance to the teachers and princi-
pals involved in the study. In addition, the development
and planning of future pre-service and in-service train—
ing programs for teachers andprincipals in all of the
inner-city elementary schools within the district may

be enhanced as a result of this study.

Methodology

 

The sample in this study is from a population of
inner-city elementary schools located in Grand Rapids,
ichigan. The Grand Rapids Board of Education, in accord-
ace with ESEA Title I Federal guidelines, has designated
ghteen elementary schools as being inner-city schools.

a eighteen inner-city schools are administered by nine
:k principals and nine white principals. The researcher
omly sampled six among the nine schools administered
lack principals and six among the nine schools admin-
ed by white principals. Twelve inner-city elementary
(pals and their full-time teaching staffs were. in-

in this study.

A personal data form was. constructed to gather

ive data from the prospective teachers and principals

 

 

 

 

 

 

(see Ap;
51025 0:
Porn XII
The orig
was proc‘
aid Coo:

,1
V

'9‘

1 -
lease

LC; "1'
4 CI

.vtcfl' .

”In? 1
levelcpec
~'::

 

 

17

(see Appendix C). Data were obtained using four dimen-

sions of the "Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire,
’ 22

 

Form XII, often referred to as the LBDQ--Form XII."
The original Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire
was produced through the efforts initiated by Hemphill
and Coons.23 A large number of hypothesized dimensions
of leader behavior led researchers to feel that leader
behavior could be reduced to two factors. These two

factors were identified by Halpin and Winer as Consid-

eration and Initiation of Structure and have been widely

 

used in various leader behavior research studies.24
After four different revisions, the LBDQ--Form XII was
developed.

The researcher met with the appropriate school

25 in the Grand Rapids public school system to

officials
secure permission to conduct this study in twelve of its

inner-city elementary schools. In addition, a meeting

 

22Stogdill, op. cit.

23John K. Hemphill and Alvin E. Coons, "Develop-
ment of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire,"
in Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons (eds.) Leader
Behavior: Its Description and Measurement (Columbus,
Ohio: Ohio State University, 1957).

24Andrew W. Halpin and B. James Winer, "A Fac-
toral Study of the Leader Behavior Description Question-
naire," in Stogdill and Coons, Ibid.

25Included the Assistant Superintendent for
Instruction, Acting Director of Elementary Education,
and the Director of Research; Grand Rapids Public Schools.

 

 

_ 55:14.;

.jfi'l'flf‘l‘.

”4,.

I. ‘4‘.

LIST: '

11’.»

 

\
a. :7:
EXri Li.

include:

 

‘k
.i. ‘
\‘I
'.V‘Maalrf
'4
V I
rats. ~

 

.
Im‘c .
‘7‘ 221'
‘V..

.y ,

..
Viva .
«‘5 At
U~

18

was scheduled with all of the inner-city elementary
principals to explain the purpose of the study; to

explain the method used for selecting the twelve schools
included in the study; and to secure their c00peration

and participation in the study. The researcher also

met with the executive director of the Grand Rapids
Education Association to explain the purpose of the study;
method to be employed for selecting teachers for the study;
and to secure that organization's support for the study.

A letter (see Appendix B) was sent to each of the
twelve inner-city elementary schools inviting the princi-
pals and their teachers to participate in the study as a
total staff. Moreover, the executive director of the
Grand Rapids Education Association sent a letter (see
Appendix B) to each of the twelve schools encouraging the
teachers in the selected schools to participate in the
study.

The participants were given an eighty-item ques-
tionnaire (see Appendix C) which was constructed into two
parts. The first forty items described the perceived
Ibehavior (real) of the elementary principal, and the
second set of forty items described the expected behavior
(ideal) of inner-city elementary principals. Teachers
xvere asked to respond to the first set of items on the-

loasis of how they felt their principal actually behaved.

 

é

3.,

r,

i
m h
,.

 

 

a“ kih‘
an b‘VI
0

should 1

u n
r IQYV
.6..:.EC

Z'ifia'co

My»

A
T':po..‘ ”o.
5"- ' .CO'!

'v
:se In"

 

.. I
'l‘."
V‘ 7‘
s ' ‘
‘n'fl‘k

 

19

They were instructed to respond to the second set of
questions on the basis of how they felt the principal
should behave. -
As in the case of the instructions for teachers,
principals were instructed to respond to the first set
of items on the basis of how they felt they actually
behaved as principals. They were instructed to respond
to the second set of items on the basis of how they felt
they should behave as principal. ReSponses were analyzed
statistically by the use of multivariate analysis of

variance. An alpha level of .05 was chosen for this study.

Overview of the Thesis

In Chapter II, the related literature and research
are reviewed. This includes leadership, leader behavior,
and.role-related literature. In Chapter III, the design
and methodology of the research are described and dis-
cussed. This chapter centers upon the identification of
sample, procedure, details of instrument, statistical
hypotheses, and analysis techniques utilized. In Chapter
13], the research findings are presented and the results
are discussed. In Chapter V, the research is summarized,

and conclusions and recommendations are presented.

 

 

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

 

If leadership were the act of being a collective
reflector at the head of a body of people, we
well might be able to have a large computer as
our leader. Leadership, however, is something
more--it is the most humane of human activities.

--Author unknown
The history and success of man, since the begin-
ning, has been in direct relation to the quality of
leadership that has been demonstrated throughout his
existence. Leaders and leadership were of great concern
early in the history of man as is reflected in Plato's,

The Republic. One of the better known writers on leader-

 

ship was Niccolo Machiavelli who was chancellor in the
Republic of Florence during the latter thirteenth and
early fourteenth centuries. Directing his writings to
leaders of his time, Machiavelli wrote a volume called
De Principipatibus, often referred to as ThgyPrince.1

Machiavelli's major effort in this manuscript was to list

 

1Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, trans. by W. K.
Marriott (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1908).

20

 

“1'7“,”
rtfiodb

into

for the

used as

ions c

(In

 

I
-. .1 rum wealth“

 

K
., "'5 .
:: 'IV 5 r
4
v:
"Hr. ‘
‘ I i.
. v
a iese

 

6‘. '
3~~€ntl<
(”tn

~buuCl a

A: x .
h alter;

 

 

”‘1‘.— An. ....1
.. ‘—

21

principles which he felt were significant in a govern-
ment of a principality. He suggested a mode of behavior

for the prince or leader to follow. The Prince has been

 

used as a resource in many current writings and discus-
sions on leadership and leader behavior. r?

Great interest has been generated in recent years
over studies in leadership and leader behavior. These
two terms have provided fertile fields for investigation
by researchers. As Lipham suggested, "The national pre-
occupation with leadership on the part of researchers
and practitioners alike has been no less than phenom-.
enal."2 More specifically, in the field of education,
attention has shifted, more than ever before toward the
school administrators and their influence upon the shaping
of America's youth. 1

Leadership and Leader
Behavior Defined

 

 

Leadership and leader behavior have been described
and defined by many authors in many ways. An investiga-
tion of leadership and leader behavior which failed to
present some of these definitions and descriptions would

be incomplete.

 

2James M. Lipham, "Leadership and Administration,”
Behavioral Science and Educational Administration, Sixty-
third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, Part II, ed. Daniel E. Griffiths (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 119.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Mr-m

 

 

 

 

 

22

In his description of a leadership act, Shartle

 

suggested that "a leadership act is one which results

in others acting or responding in a shared direction."3
From this definition leadership may be thought of as a
performance on the part of both the leader and the fol-

lowers constituting a relationship between acts of the 9

leader and responses on the part of the followers, move-

ment, and interaction in determining the direction of_
the movement.

Cowley defines a leader as an "individual who
is moving in a particular direction and who succeeds in
inducing others to follow."4 McCloskey describes leader-
ship as:

. . . a process of stimulating and leading groups
to define common goals and to devise voluntary
means of moving toward them. Leadership is the
structure of voluntary group behavior. Leadership
includes means of providing facts and ideas which
help groups intelligently to define and reach
objectives. Leadership involves making arrange-.
ments which facilitate constructive interaction
between group members.5

 

3Carroll L. Shartle, Executive Perfgrmance and
Leadershi (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc. 1956;, p. 106.

4William H. Cowley, "Three Distinctions in the
Study of Leaders," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology, Vol. 23, No. 2 (1928), 144-157.

5Gordon McCloskey, Education and Public Under-
standing (New York: Harper-Row, 1959) p. 252. ‘

 

—j

 

  

i‘ll

. . , ufifldwfflahmrflldflfl Us An. 10V... in .

 

 

  

 

23

Hemphill, in his definition of a leadership

act, suggests that "to lead is to engage in an act that

 

initiates a structure in interaction as a part of the
process of solving a mutual problem."6 He further
states that leadership must include the characteristics
of a social situation and the characteristics of an
individual. Approaching the problem of leadership in

an Operational manner, leadership may be said to be the
behavior of an individual while he is involved in direct-
ing group activities.7

In another description of leadership Hemphill

W-

provides a significant contribution to leadership and

x -- .1..-
fi‘ ~ v 7‘

leader behavior literature when he describes it as

A . ..—..~—~‘—-o.— .

"the initiation of a new structure or procedure for

accomplishing an organization' 3 goals and objectives.

"8

Using this definition, the terms leadership and adminis-
tration, which have been defined as the utilization of

existing structures and procedures in order to attain

u..- _.___,\, p mum a“.
M‘ - a"... -mw
W—

6John K. Hemphill, "Administration as Problem
Solving," Administrative Theory in Education, ed.
Andrew W. HaIpin (Chicago: Midwest Administration
Center, University of Chicago, 1958), p. 98.

7John K. Hemphill, Situational Factors in Leader-
(Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Education Resear ch Mono-
grap ,No. 32,1949), p. 5.

8

 

Lipham, 2p. cit., p. 119.

 

 

5
g

 

organizational g:

r.

 

another. Leaders

they affect ch an:

Stabilizing force

demonstrates a c
’ . 9
tratzon.

Brown re

:iOn, has to do

“"913! and with

 

his directly OP
ship as the init
for accomplishin
description of 1
is perceived as
actually behaves

There 11;
and leader beha'
~d many others
W defined as

713.,
“515 are coo

 

24

organizational goals, should not be confused with one

\.

another. Leaders are disruptive to the status quo and

“It. Wm- .

 

mum—h. v—A

 

they affect change, whereas administrators set as a

stabilizing force within the organ1zation. Much research

-r_.

demonstrates a confusion between leadership-and adminis- C‘-
t22£10n.9”” \rf

A Brown reported that "leadership, by implica- ,fl
tion, has to do with group maintenance almost exclu-

sively and with goal achievement only indirectly."-10

This directly opposes Hemphill's definition of leader-
ship as the initiation of a new structure or procedure
for accomplishing the organization's goals. Brown's
description of leadership suggests that how a leader
is perceived as behaving is more important than how he
actually behaves in a group.

There have been other descriptions of leadership
and leader behavior by Jackson, Halpin, Gouldner, Pigors
and many others. Jackson suggests that "Leadership is
now defined as a function which is required when indi-

viduals are coordinating their efforts towarda common

 

9Ibido ' Pp. 122-123.

10Alan F. Brown, "Reactions to Leadership," Educa-
tional Administration Quarterly, Vol.. 3, No. 1 (Win__ter,
1967) , 62-73.

. -' ~7mgmfl'

J

 

w
M.

 

 

goal."11 In

suggests tha
i: a mamer
in a group.
verbal or wh
agoal or o‘:
Piqc
:utual stim
relevant dij
Slit Of a CC
in {Elation
the Structu:
ea.
in conflict
5-” the ind
3f leadersh

Sfl‘n

a“ by lis

ea: .
5r i‘shlp
a ( anu
12‘
w h
J Y0:k.
13
W5. p
L011: H
14J
.U'll Pays
\"

25

goal."11

In his description of a leader, Gouldner
suggests that a leader is an individual who behaves
in vanmanner which causes certain patterns of behavior
in a group. By providing some kind of stimuli, written,
verbal or whatever, he facilitates group action toward
a goal or objective.12
Eigors has called leadership a "process of
mutual stimulation which, by successful interplay of
relevant differences, controls human energy in the pur-

13 He claims that when viewed

suit of a common cause."
in relation to the group, leadership is the quality of
the structure.

Traditional concepts of leadership are often

.._.....-.-__..~-.-.-o v... -—-..r—» v

 

in conflict with democratic prinCiples of consideration
fgr the individual, Jones14 suggests that such models
of leadership are passe. He attempted to define leader-
ship by listing outdated and ineffective leadership

strategies as those in which:

 

11Jay M. Jackson, "The Effect of Changing the
Leadership of Small WOrk Groups," Human Relations, Vol. 6,
No. 1 (January, 1953), 25-44.

(New York: Harper-Row, 1950’), pp. 17-18.

13Paul J. W. Pigors, Leadership or Domination
(Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., I955Y, p. 16.

14John P. Jones, "Changing Patterns of Leader-
ship," Personnel, Vol. 44, No. 2 (March-April, 1967), 13.

 

 

I ._ N
. _ ,, .e — ..
' .' "liiffiifll 1“ _ 1 _~ '5-‘1' . a 1

 

 

 

 

1. The
conf
bent

2. Grar
th

3. The
0rd:

 

26

l. The authority of a position automatically
confers leadership qualities on its incum-
bent.

2. Granting power to subordinates diminishes
the power of the leader.

3. The leader should know more than his sub-
ordinates about what's going on.

4. No leader can be secure unless he makes
all final decisions.

5. A leader loses his individuality when he
involves subordinates in the decision-
making process.
Tead has spoken of leadership as "the activity
of influencing,pe0ple to cooperate toward some goal

16 Halpin's defini-

which they come to find desirable.
tion of leadership, which complements Hemphill's def—
.Lnition, suggests that leadership is "a complex social
phenomenon that cannot be treated meaningfully apart

17 His definition

from related situational factors."
suggests that in order to understand leadership in the
future one must not bypass the social, economic, and

psychological behavioral and environmental forces that

cause men.to act either individually or in groups.

 

15John P. Jones, op. cit.

‘ 16Josiah G. Holland, "The Leadership Concept,"
An Introduction to School Administration (New York: The

Macmillan Company, 1966): p. 110.

17Ibid.

 

i
,
i
,2"
,‘1
.
i
a
w.
1,

 

 

 

 

 

Bellows ca

individual

toa leade

leade;
sonal
parti

 

15:: athe

Effec
ship

Organ
that

inVol
SOna]
condi

E
iSClate C

scriptior

ofleade:

 

27

Belglcnns calls that entire complex of factors which mend

individuals into teams and prompts them to assign power

to a leader as the leadership syndrome.18

Gibb suggests that leadership be:

. . . viewed in relation to the individual;
leadership is not an attribute of the per-

sonality but a quality of his role within a
jparticular or specified social system.13

Stogdill, Wherry and Jaynes, in a study of admin-
irrtirative performance in the mid-fifties, stated that:

. . . leadership is judged inrterms of its
effect upon the organization.. Since leader-
ship is frequently evaluated in terms of
organizational effectiveness, it would appear
that all aspects of organizational Operations
involving communication, performance, and per—
sonal interactions might exert limiting or
conditioning effects upon leadership.2

Bowers and Seashore state that it was useful to
isolate .on a omen-sense basis when searching for de-
scriptions of leadership. They contend that the concept

a
0f leadership is meaningful only in the context of two

k

. Roger Bellows, Creative Leadershi (Englewood
Cliffs, NoJo: Prentice-Hal ' Inc. I p p. IX.

19Cecil A. Gibb, "The Research Background of an
Interaction Theory of Leadership," Australian Journal of

Psychology, Vol. 28, No. l (1950): 19-41-

2°Ra1ph M. Stogdill, Robert Wherry, and William
Jaynes, "A Factoral Study of Administrative Performance,"
In Ralph M. Stogdill, Carroll Shartle, and Associates,
Bitterns of Administrative Performance (Columbus, Ohio:

Buriiu.ofBusinessfiesearch Monograph No. 81, 1956),
P- .

 

 

«1‘7 ’
‘0‘ A .
£3”. ‘ha‘ .

 

 

 

or more peOpl

. . . co:
it is be?
advances
ally use:
Ship: le.
from the
that adv
a common
izationa
Organize
merber s

Zefined in 1
Ship bflonc:

tiltih Can b

28

or more peOple.21 They indicate that leadership:

. . . consists of behavior; more specifically,
it is behavior by one member of a group, which
advances some joint aim. Not all organization-
ally useful behavior in a work group is leader-
ship; leadership behavior must be distinguished
from the performance of noninterpersonal tasks
that advance the goals of the organization. On
51 common sense basis, then, leadership is organ-
izationally useful behavior by one member of an
organizational family toward another member or
nnembers of that same organizational family.22

Defined in this manner, it becomes obvious that leader-
ship belongs to a large group of selective behaviors,
which can be classified in a variety of ways.

In his analysis of leadership, Barnard defines
it in reference to status in some field of activity.
He suggests that leadership is the guidance of people
in organizations.2:3 French has suggested that there
are twenty-two behaviors, supported by research which

may serve as guidelines of an effective leader. He con-

tends that the effective leader:

. 21David G. Bowers and Stanley E. Seashore, "Pre-
dicting Organizational Effectiveness with a Four-Factors
Theory of Leadership," Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 2, No. 2 (September, 1960,7457 L

22David G. Bowers and Stanley E. Seashore,

23Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the
W, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938).

 

id'gflEJe-IJI“.
fell;

égflfiww
.LEY .

70
«v

11.

12.

13.

 

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

29

establishes attainable but high performance
standards and goals--goals which are con—
sistent with the goals of the enterprise;

utilizes and encourages subordinates to
utilize the appr0priate technology in
attaining these goals--e.g., work simplifi-
cation and appropriate tools, proper layout,
and so forth;

conveys that he has confidence in his sub-
ordinates;

permits subordinates to have latitude in the
solution of work problems where subordinate
ingenuity can result in gains, and where
standardization in method is not imperative;

permits and encourages participation in the
development of methods to achieve enterprise
goals; \

encourages the participation of subordinates,
but only on the basis of genuine interest in
utilizing constructive suggestions;

encourages participation in those matters where
subordinates perceive participation as being
legitimate;

recognizes differences between people in the
strength of their needs and their other
characteristics--e.g., may spend more time
with some individuals in conditions of change
than with others;

helps to integrate subordinates' needs and
goals with the goals of the enterprise;

is an effective planner in terms of both short
range and long range goals and contingencies;

is permissive in terms of being approachable
and friendly;

appraises subordinates as nearly as possible
on the basis of objective, measurable per-
formance;

is eager to help subordinates to be more
effective and works at removing obstacles
to achievement;

is an effective follower in the larger organ-

_izational context.

\

~ '- , .. a. -
VFIW mmr' - -n‘ 4.}.—

nzfi-flr I

é:

“hf.

 

l6.

17.

18.

 

19.
20.

22.

30

115. uses subordinates' mistakes as an educational
opportunity rather than an opportunity for
punishment;

.165. is interested in his subordinates as total
persons rather than as employees only;

137. in dealing with subordinates, is emotionally
supportive and is careful to avoid ego--
threatening behavior;

3.8. assists subordinates in minimizing the psycho-
logical impact of technological changes;

19. gives recognition to good work;

:20. does not play favorites by giving differen-
tial privileges;

21. asserts his leadership; and

122. communicates information needed by subordinates
to carry out their jobs, to prevent unnecessary

anxieties from developing, and to convey the
'broader picture.'24

French indicates that these behaviors are a gen-
eral set of behaviors and should not be applied univer-
saJJLy. In a summation of leadership research literature
in Inasiness and industry, French suggests:

If there is one theme which stands out clearly
from the research, it is that effective leader-
ship requires the leader to be effective in inte-
-sgrating individual and enterprise goals. He must
lbe concerned with the objectives of the enterprise;
.at.the same time, he must also be concerned with
human beings.25

Obviously, leadership and leader behavior have

been (described and defined extensively in the literature

 

 

24Wendell French, The Personnel Mana ement Process
(Bostuon: Houghton-Mifflin, 1964), pp.5§5-5%7.

25Ibid., p. 538.

by various
discussion
only a sma
the litera
vitally in

: -~ ..
L {De Ila:

 

oena'oior.
:
g
. I. “L .
z tsud'fid In
E
,.
a
.'r‘*".-e—~ y:

  
 

Ly.

 

 

 

 

 

31

by various authors in diverse fields. The preceding
discussion of leadership and leader behavior represents
only a small sampling of the definitions presented in

the literature describing these concepts. It is not
vitally important that an individual support any one

of the numerous descriptions of leadership and leader
behavior. One might be wise to consider aspects pre-
sented in all of the definitions if a realistic and com-
prehensive understanding of the concepts is to be realized.

A Partial Theory of Leader-
ship Appropriate for this

Study

 

Leadership studies undertaken by the Ohio State
University Bureau of Business Research, the Kellogg
Foundation, The Midwest Administration Center, along with
various other research agencies have contributed signifi-
cantly to an understanding of leadership and leader,
behavior. One outgrowth of the efforts of the Kellogg
Foundation has been a partial theory of pragmatic value
which is useful in determining the extent to which a prin-
cipal should exercise leadership in the performance of his

tasks and in decision-making.26

 

26RobertL. Saunders, Ray E. Philips, and Harold T.
Johnson, A Theory of Educational Leadership (Columbus,
Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc.,41965), pp. V-VII.

 

32

Leadership is an important factor necessary to
moving followers toward goals. In educational settings
the notion of principals seeking to improve and enrich
the school's educational program through the leadership
process is an emerging concept. Guba and Bidwell reported
that teaching satisfaction is related to how congruent
the teachers' perceptions are to the principal's self-
perceptions of his mode of behavior.27 Research suggests
that people who are enthusiastic about their work and
enjoy doing it put forth a greater effort and communi-
cates positive good will and approval to the public.28
Many of these factors seem to be absent in most of the
inner-city schools in urban communities.

COOperative group action or team work may be the
decisive force needed in order to improve educational
achievement for youngsters in inner—city schools. The
principal, teachers, and the total community should

acquire a burning desire in order for educational improve-

ment to become a reality. How does one ignite this desire?

 

27Egon Guba and Charles Bidwell, Administrative
Relationships--Teacher Effectiveness, Teacher Satisfac-
tion andedministrative Behavior (Chicago: Midwest Admin-
istration Center, 1957), pp. 67468.

28John R. P. French, Jr., "The Disruption and
Cohesion of Groups," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology, Vol. 36 (July, 1941), 376.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cotinuous
principals
the dynani
ing theory
principals
as well, t

tires, bUt

33

Continuous re-examination of educational objectives by
principals and their staffs must take place because of
the dynamics and changing nature of society. An emerg-
ing theory, then, should provide for an interaction of
principals and teachers, along with the lay community
as well, to not only determine the educational objec-
tives, but also the means to fulfillment.

A partial theory of leadership appropriate for
this study may be stated simply as "that action or be-
havior among individuals and groups which causes both
the individual and the groups to move toward educational
goals that are increasingly mutually acceptable to them."29
A principal who works within the sc0pe of this partial
theory of leadership becomes an instrument for change,
involvement and efficiency.

Historical Overview of
the Study of Leadership

 

 

Prior to World War II, the emphasis in leadership
research by psychologists, educators, and sociologists
was on analyzing individual personality traits and char-
acteristics. Numerous attempts were made to isolate and
identify certain traits and characteristics, thought to
be related to leadership behavior, and which also would

explain why some persons were leaders and others_not.

 

29Saunders, Philips, and Johnson, 92, cit., p. 40.

approac
areas h

Scott 5

 

 

aFI

L4:
:.. r
.. EA
Q q;

7 ' u-

r '5‘ ‘
)

fif"\ ‘D: c‘

n

 

9 .
I ’ Anny “
. .
.' "

‘v

. I

"h.
ael§ <
.

51‘
“"‘ue ‘

 

34

Although there have been several leadership
approaches investigated over the past fifty years, two
areas have dominated the scene in leadership research.

Scott suggests that:

. . . in general, leadership research may be
divided into two categories: (1) individual-
centered research, usually called the trait
approach; and, (2) group-centered research,
frequently referred to as the situational or
Situationist approach.3O

 

 

The first approach emphasizes personality traits common
to all leaders; while the second point of view stresses
the interaction between the behavior of leaders and the
characteristics of the particular situations in which
those leaders function. The trait approach to leader-
ship carries the implication that leadership is an attri-
bute of individuals; whereas the situational theory sug-

gest that leadership is an aspect of organizations.

Trait Approach

 

Early studies of leadership were predominately
of personal trait or individual-centered. As Scott points

out, " . . . this point of view dominated such research

31

until relatively recent times." And Bavelas cites that

 

30Ellis L. Scott, Leadership and Perceptions of
Organizations, (Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business
Research Monograph No. 82, 1955), p. 6.

31

 

Ibid 0

 

 

 

 

 

great lea:

possessed

nods, pr
32

6306.

iovestiga

 

35

great leaders supposedly had more than normal abilities
possessed by most men; such as the ability to read men's
minds, predict the future, or hypnotically compel obedi-
ence.32 He provides a frame of reference for these
investigations by suggesting that:

. . . these powers were often thought of as

gifts from a God, as conditional loans from

a devil, or as the result of some accidental

supernatural circumstance attending conception,

birth, or early childhood.33
Leadership of this nature has often been described as
"Charismatic Leadership."

Several reviews have been made of the many studies
conducted in the search for a clearly defined set of
leadership traits. One of the earliest research inves-
tigations on individual traits characterizing leaders
was made by Bird in 1940. He found seventy-nine traits
mentioned in twenty different studies, only five per cent
of which were common to four or more investigations.34

Cowley suggests four common traits to look for in

a leader, they are: (1) speed of decision in which he in-

dicated that the leader always makes decisions with facts

 

32Alex Bavelas, "Leadership: Man and Function,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 6 (March,
1962), 491.

33

 

Ibid.

 

34

Charles Bird, Social PS cholo , (New York:
Appleton-Century-Croft, 1945), p. 27.

  

‘r
' ‘ ' ' ‘ .- =.-': )—
gJEYNJPJF-I-x WIK'W

.*
I

5?...

 

lowers;

energy

(I)
D
o I)
, l
(1
(“f

36

and appropriate data in hand for greater speed than

his followers; (2) finality of judgment, which suggest
that the leader stands firm after a decision has been
made; (3) he is slightly more intelligent than his fol-

lowers; and (4) a leader usually has considerably more

energy than his followers.35

Borgatta, Bales, and Couch36 provide an in-

sight to understand why the trait approach commanded so
much attention for such a long time. In their study of
the "great man theory of leadership" they indicated
that the reason why this theory had received so much
attention for such an extended length of time was due
to history being written from the reference point of
"great men." They reported that there was great manip-

ulative ease if performance was thought to be determined

37

by a single person in a t0p position. Consequently

early research in leadership was looking for those traits
(piety, honesty, courage, etc.) of great men.' Bavelas

suggested that these early investigations were looking

35W. H. Cowley, "Don of Higher Educationists: In
Search, of a Discipline," College and University Business,
Vol. 46, No. 6 (June, 1969).

36Edgar F. Borgatta, Robert F. Bales, and
Arthur S. Couch, "Some Findings Relevant to the Great Man
Theory of Leadership," American Sociological Review, Vol.
19, No. 1 (December, 1954), 756.

37

 

 

Ibid I

 

 

at how re

the selec

(I 4':
an i .

)
)
()[4
m

( ) fl)

37

at how researchers felt leaders ought to be like, and
the selection of traits were arbitrary.38
Another comprehensive survey was conducted by
Stogdill in 1948 and he recorded the most commonly
identified so-called leadership traits as: (1) physical
and constitutional factors--height, weight, physique,
and appearance; (2)1ntelligence; (3) self-confidence;
(4) sociability; (5) will-initiative, persistence, and
ambition; (6) dominance; (7) surgency--talkativeness, .

39 In analyzing

enthusiasm, alertness, and originality.
the results of the survey, Stogdill concluded that leader-
ship was not a matter of passive status, or a mere com-
bination of traits, but rather was " . . . a working re-.
lationship among members of a group, in which the leader
had acquired status through active participation and dem-'
onstration of his capacity for carrying cooperative tasks
through to completion.40
SanfOrd concluded, after analyzing various studies

of leaders, that:

. . . there are either no general leadership traits,

or, ifthey do exist, they are not to be described
in any of our familiar psychological or common-sense

 

.38Bave1as, op. cit., p. 492. ‘
39Ralph M. Stogdill, "Personal Factors Associated

with Leadership:, A Survey of the Literature," Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 1 (January, 1948), 35-36;

40

 

 

Ibid., p. 71.

38

terms. In a specific situation, leaders do
have traits which set what leaders apart

from what followers will vary from situation
to situation.41

Gibb suggests that leadership be placed in a
£319e3<zific situational context when he reports that leader-

ship is not an attribute of personality but a quality
C>i5 ea role within a particular social system.42 He suggests
some explanations for his failure to find personality

1:3CHEiits of leaders when he indicated that it may have been

dillee to the following factors: (1) inadequate measurements;

(2 ) lack of comparability of data from different kinds of

1T'sassearch; and (3) the inability to describe leadership
afileequately.43

After studying successful leaders in business,

Davis indicated that " . . in spite of the disagree-

I“exit regarding traits and the measurement difficulties

lirrvolved, there is some agreement that traits are related

t3C) leadership success."44 Although Davis concedes that
\

41

Fillmore H. Sanford, "Research on Military Leader-
ship," in John C. Flanagan (ed.) Psychology in. the World
(Itittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press, 1952), p. 51.

42

Cecil A. Gibb, "The Principles and Traits of
Leadership," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
"<>1u 42, No. 3 (July, 1947), 267-284.

43

Cecil A. Gibb, "Leadership," in Gardner Lindzey
(63(1.) Handbook of Social Psychology (Cambridge, Mass.:
Ademon-Wesley publishing Co., 1954), p. 889.

44

Keith Davis, Human Relations at Work,

Mscrew-Hill Book Co., 1962f, pp. 105-108.

(New York:

 

 

 

 

 

‘I‘F
and?"

.‘I u“
man c

Vain.

E‘GBJI
1,, '
‘1- d'aa

39

the correlation was very often meager and fluctuated
from group to group, he suggests that the following
general traits were somewhat related to successful
business leadership: intelligence, social maturity and
breadth, inner motivation, and human relations atti-
tudes.45 In addition, Davis reports that although cer-
tain personal traits do not guarantee effective leader-
Ship, they do, however, cause a probability greater
than chance alone.

The trait approach to leadership study has
t-erided to ignore the situation in which leadership takes
Place. Lists of traits that were suggested in the lit-
eJ'L‘ature were diverse and often contradictory in nature.
An awareness of the inadequacies of the trait approach
InC>tivated researchers to broaden the scope of their
studies. During the past two decades the trait theory
Of leadership has yielded to investigations which empha-
size the study of the social situation in which the
leader functions. This is the group-centered or 11.5112“

.tional approach to leadership research.

451bid.

 

40
Si tuational Approach

The thinking involved in the transition from
the trait approach to the situational approach was re-
flected by Dawson when he stated, "though some leaders
are doubtless 'born,‘ there are many more who are 'made,’
largely through conscious effort or the necessity of
rising to meet particular circumstances."46 Leader-
Ship was viewed by Gibb as being relative to the sit-
11ation in two senses: (1) that leadership flourished
only in a problem situation, and (2) that the nature of
the leadership role is determined by the goal of the
group.47 He indicated that leadership was the process
of "mutual stimulation-~a social interactional phenom-
enon in which the attitudes, ideas and aspirations of
the followers play as important a determining role as
CiC) the individuality and personality of the leader."48

McGregor reported that successful leadership is
not dependent upon possessions of universal patterns of
iIlloorn traits and abilities. He suggested that leader-

s111p be viewed from a situational aspect; thus indicating

\

46Eugene E. Dawson, "To Lead or Not to Lead,"
Egzpni;leadership, Vol. 11, No. 10 (April, 1963), 303.

47Gibb, 9p. cit., p. 282.

481bid.

 

that l

popula

 

 

 

whi
carres
:ndivi
i charac

!

i the le

11 .
pgika Ed the Si
or gro

that t
vidual
Patti:

12d iv;

§

_ —_ '.
..--._—____._....,_,.,

 

41

‘tlléli: leadership is widely distributed throughout the

£>c>1ptilation of the world.49

Stogdill stated that the "qualities, character-
istics, and skills required in a leader are determined

to a large extent by the demands of the situation in

50

Which he is to function as a leader." Hemphill con-

cztlzrres with Stogdill when he indicates that what an
J'—l'1<'iividual does as a leader quite often depends upon the
C311Eiracteristics of the situation in which he functions.51

Whereas the trait approach tends to suggest that
re

‘lliga leader's effectiveness is apart from his followers,

—__

35:25: situational approach views leadership from a task

M

<>Iixfigroup structure point-of—reference. Gordon indicates
titlait the possession of certain traits may enhance an indi-
vidual's ability to acquire a leadership position in a
E>Eiacticular situation, but there is no guarantee that the

j~rléiividual will be able to keep the position.52

49Douglas McGregor, "Your Words Tell What You Are,”

£1513;ion's Business, Vol. 50, No. 10 (October, 1962), 108.

soStogdill, 92, cit., p. 71.

51John K. Hemphill, Situational Factors in Leader-
3111. (Columbus, Ohio: Bureau oflfiducatIOnaI Research Mono-
grap No. 32, 1949), p. 5.

52Thomas Gordon, Group Centered Leadership,

(New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1955) , p. 19.

42

It is apparent, after a review of the leader-
ship literature that there is no clear-cut-agreement
c>r1 vvhere the trait and situational approaches should
appear as determining factors in the study of leader-
Ship. Halpin reports that attention should be focused
'th>c:n the behavior of leaders without imputing fixed

Jeeeéadership capacity, thereby assuming that such capac-

i ties exist.53

There is no one universal approach to leader-
Esldgip and leader behavior that satisfies all individuals
j-111terested in the concepts. Successful and effective
JLEiiadership may be dependent upon knowledge drawn from
tillee trait and situational approaches, and many others
5153 well. More importantly, researchers and students of
leadership should be aware of the various attempts to
ea=r<35;.31ain leadership and leader behavior and govern their
a<=1tivities accordingly.
Igszjadership and Leader

€311avior Research
EE£2;,EdGCation

Studies of leadership and leader behavior have

been conducted in various types of organizations.54

\

53Andrew Halpin, "The Behavior of Leaders,"

fifilgcational Leadership, Vol. 14, No. 1 (December, 1956),
72L

54Shartle, op. cit., p. 4.

43

Although the purposes of organizations may vary, leader-
ship patterns and group behavior patterns have generally
been found to have similarities, regardless of the reasons
15:31: the organization's existance. This study is concerned
ijL1:h the leader behavior in school settings and the inves-
t:ng;ations presented here will be limited primarily to the
research with respect to the leader behavior of school
principals.

Administration as problem-solving and as decision-
ITlélking were significant theoretical orientations of
ITEisearch conducted by Hemphill, Griffiths, Frederickson,

and others.“ The objectives of their study were:

1. To determine the dimensions of perform-
ance in the elementary school principal-
ship and thus to develop a better under-
standing of the nature of the job of the

administrator.

2. To provide information helpful in the
solution of the problem of selecting
school administrators.
. 55John Hemphill et. al., Dimensions of Administra-
1illsve Performance, U.S. Office of Education Research Pro-

3eact No. 214 (New York: Teachers College, Columbus Univer-
S:L'ty and Educational Testing Service, May 1961) , PP. l-8.

 

 

 

 

44

3. To provide materials and instruments for

study and teaching of school administra-

tion.56

A twelve-category schema which was used to
dieaxwelop materials to present simulated school situations
‘vvais developed by Hemphill and his associates. After a
'EDxreliminary try-out of the materials on 50 principals,
EaiLong with minor revisions, 127 principals from various
Eieectors of the country were tested. Among the numerous

ifiLndings of the study were the following:

1. men are not overwhelmingly superior toll;

women as principals;

2. little relationship between experience
and administrative performance was noted;
and

3. personality tests might be employed as
a screening device in the selection of
administrators in conjunction with ability
and knowledge tests if the district can
determine what kind of personality is

needed for the particular job situation.57

SSIbido , pp. 1-110

S7Ibid., pp. XIV-8; XIV-12.

45

Gross and Herriott58 contributed to the litera-
ture of leadership behavior in their national principal-
ship study conducted during the mid—sixties. The
researchers measured the behavior of principals and
assigned to this behavior the name Executive Professional
Leadership (EPL) . The study was designed to explore a
rilamnber of problems of interest to both social scientists
and educational practitioners. A major assumption of the
Study was that EPL positively influences the performance
and/or morale of teachers and the behavior of students.

The following twelve hypotheses were formulated and sub-

8 tanti ated :

l. the more a principal permits his teachers

to share in his decisions, the greater his

EPL;

2. the more egalitarian a principal's relation-

ship with his teachers, the greater his EPL;

3. the more social support a principal offers

to his teachers, the greater the EPL;

4. the greater the managerial support a princi-

pal offers his teachers, the greater the EPL;

58Neal Gross and Robert E. Herriott, Staff Leader-

shi in Public Schools: A Sociolo ical In uir (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Tnc. I965}.

 

10.

ll.

46

the greater the principal's support of
his teachers in cases of conflict between

teachers and pupils, the greater his EPL:

the higher a principal's evaluation of
his ability to provide educational leader-

ship to his staff, the greater his EPL;

the more off-duty time a principal devotes

to his job, the greater his EPL;

the more fully a principal internalizes
the professional leadership definition of

his role, the greater his EPL;

the greater importance a principal attaches
to his routine administrative duties, the

greater his EPL;

principals with a service motive for seeking

their positions will provide greater EPL

than those without it;

the greater the intellectual ability of the

principal, the greater his EPL; and

47

12. the greater a principal's interpersonal

skills, the greater his EPL.59

A study of the "Principal's Role in Facilitating
Innovation," conducted by several researchers at the
University of Michigan, revealed that principals with
iJaxiovative staffs were found to be in agreement with
tjieeir teachers' feelings about education and better in-
fr>rnned concerning their informal relationships.60 The
investigators discovered a high correlation between the
auncrunt of staff inventiveness and the staff's perception

<Df' the principal's support of innovative teaching;61 and

thus concluded that:

l. the principal must have an accurate per-
ception of the values and skills of his

staff; and

2. the staff must be aware of the priorities

 

 

59Neal Gross and Robert E. Herriott, op. cit.,
PP. l-S; 121-134; 135-149.

. 60Chester Mark, Richard Schmuck, and Ronald
ITFPpett, "The Principal's Role in Facilitating Innova-
1Lon," Theory Into Practice, Vol. 2, No. 5 (December,

31963), 269-277.

611bid., p. 274.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘
l‘gh,'
s.‘

"U

.
l 1

'..

4 ‘9)
()

48

that the principal places on the improve-

ment of classroom teaching.62

Furthermore, they suggested that principals
with innovative staffs are more professionally oriented;
concerned with improving classroom processes, encouraging
teacher growth, and constantly evaluating student learn-
ing - They reported that principals with less innovative
staffs tended to be concerned with a smooth running
school, and all were exceedingly responsive to adminis-

tr ative superiors . 63

In a study at the University of Kentucky, atti-
tudes of practicing educational administrators were in-
vestigated in terms of themselves and others.64 The
research suggested that one group accepted their own
wOlfth and believed that other peOple were equally or more
accepting of their worth. Another group of the adminis-
trators rejected themselves but believed that other people
were more accepting of themselves. A third group accepted
themselves and believed that other people were less ac-

cepting of themselves. The first group of administrators,

 

621bid., p. 275.

63Ibid.

64Robert L. Hopper and Robert E. Bills, "What's
a Good Administrator Made Of?" The School Executive,
V01. 74, No. 3 (March, 1955), 93- 95.

 

 

49

according to the report, should be looked upon as being
the most desirable and the third group the least desir-
able.65

A significant development in the measurement
ch leader behavior occurred in 1950 when the Leader

Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) was developed

lxy' the Personnel Research Board at Ohio State University.

 

erj_ginally constructed from the efforts of Hemphill and
Ch:c>ns, the instrument has been used in numerous studies
caf' leadership and leader behavior; particularly in the
stir: force and in education. Halpin summarized the results
<3f' various leadership studies in which the LBDQ had been
used and suggested that:

l. the evidence indicates that "initiating
structure" and "consideration" are funda-
mental dimensions of leader behavior, and
that the Leader Behavior Description Ques-
tionnaire provides a practical and useful
technique for measuring the behavior of
leaders on these two dimensions;

2. effective leader behavior is associated
with high performance on both dimensions;

3. there is, however, some tendency for
superiors and subordinates to evaluate
oppositely the contributions of the leader
behavior dimensions to the effectiveness
of leadership;

4. changes in the attitudes of group members
toward each other, and group characteris-
tics such as harmony, intimacy, and pro-
cedural clarity, are significantly

w

65Ibid.

 

 

 

  

e

... I .

ma 10.. f. .

OJ a a.»

.Vl hu *5 .nl.

6L. .1 s L a
.. . . H.§l.¥x....n§..xvmnan udfiufllmn
IL; u

Stud

in

Hv‘

U.
Q

5112‘

 

 

 

50

associated with the leadership style of
the leader. High Initiating Structure
combined with high consideration is
associated with favorable changes in group
attitude;

5. there is only a slight positive relationship
between the way leaders believe they should
behave and the way in which their group mem-
bers describe them as behaving; and

6. the institutional setting within which the

leader operates influences his leadership
style.66

While at the Ohio State University, Halpin inves-
tuigaated the leadership behavior of fifty superintendents
143 Ohio using the LBDQ. His findings suggested that
Staffs, board members, and superintendents characterized
the ideal superintendent as one scoring high in both
Consideration and Initiation of Structure.67 Several
Studies duplicating Halpin's study were conducted using
Principalsas participants and many of the findings were
SiJmilar to Halpin's conclusions.

The LBDQ has undergone numerous revisions since
the early work of Hemphill and Coons. The fact that two
factors were accepted as sufficient to account for all
tile variance in leader behavior stimulated Stogdill to

develop a new Questionnaire for measuring leadership

\

66Andrew W. Halpin, The Leadership Behavior of

53chool Su erintendents (Columbus: Ohio State University
Press, 19535, pp. 23-24.

67Ibid., pp. 85-86.

51

behavior. He called this revised instrument the "Leader-
ship Behavior Description Questionnaire—-Form XII (LBDQ--
Form XII).68 A discussion of the LBDQ--Form XII is pre- a
sented in Chapter III.
Brown used the new edition of the LBDQ--Form XII
in an investigation of the leadership behavior of princi-
pals as perceived by their teachers. This was reportedly
the largest study in education with the LBDQ--Form XII

being employed as the instrument used for gathering
data.69 The study tested the staffs of 170 principals
and its major assumption was "how a leader really behaves
is less important than how the followers perceive that
he behaves." Brown reported that it was the teaching

Staffs' perceptions of the principal's behavior-~if any-

thing--that influenced their actions and determines what

We call leadership:70 Brown indicated that the satisfac-

tion of teachers and confidence in the principal are sen-

s-it:ive to the perceived leadership of the school; but

‘_

7—

68Stogdill, Manual for the Leadership Behavior
Description Questionnaire-~Form XII.

69Alan F. Brown, "Reactions to LeaderShiP,"

Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 1
(Winter, 1967), 64-65.

70Alan F. Brown, "Research in Organizational

Dynamics: Implications for School Administrators,"
The Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 5, No. 1
(May, 1967), 46.

1"
.|~.

h
l

 

e...

s H

52

t:eeachers estimate of the school's performance is not.71
rise suggested, after analyzing the results of the study,
tzliat two well-defined factors emerged: "the first, a
asset of leader behaviors that responded to the needs of
1:11e school app system; the second, a set of behaviors
t:r1at responds to the needs of the staff members qu

{peersons." These two factors were subsequently named

£3§rstem and Person factors of leadership.

lLeeadership and Role Theory

The focal point of this study is concerned with
‘tlae perceptions of and role expectations for the leader-
Slnip behavior of inner-city elementary school principals
as perceived by themselves and their teaching staffs.
IFEearing, in 1963, studied the relationships which existed
Ibeetween perceptions of principals and their faculties con-
ceerning the relative worth attached to certain common and
013servable behaviors of elementary school principals in
Seelected Colorado schools. He found that the perceptions
annong key personnel in several of the dysfunctioning ele-

Huentary schools were frequently dissimilar.73 After

‘

i7

71Brown, pp. cit., p. 71.

72Brown, pp, cit., p. 46.

73Joseph L. Fearing, "Principal-Faculty Per-

(ceptions of Certain Common and Observable Role Behaviors

53

zanalyzing the results of several studies of educational
jLnstitutions, Campbell reported that the studies showed
<:1early that the school's professional staffs had con-

jElicting perceptions of what the "role of the adminis-

tzrator is or should be."74

Barnard, in 1938, theorized from his experiences
:Ln.business that accurate perceptions of organizational
ggoals and individual needs are required in c00perative.
ssystems to insure a continuing organization. He suggests
1;hat the organizational purposes must be communicated in
Esuch a way that members are willing to respond, and that
1:he necessary balances be maintained between achieving

1:he desired goals of the organization and satisfying the

75

lieeds of individuals. The impact of this theory is

itnherent in the indication that differences of perceptions
in social, physical, and biological; environments account

ifor errors of decision and are a limiting factor in inter-

S taf f cooperation. 76

k

<>f the Elementary School Principal" (unpublished doctoral
(iissertation, Colorado State College, 1963).

74Halpin, pp, cit., p. 179.

75Banard, pp. cit., p. 95.

761bid., p. 286.

54

Gwynn stated that: "Groups work well together
only when they understand what brought them together.”7
Likewise, Vroom suggested that the more positive a per-
son's attitude toward an organization, the greater the
tendency for him to perceive a similarity between the
organization's goals and his own.78 Glanz has suggested
that group success is related to the perceptions and inter-
actions of leaders and group members, "Group success . . .
is the complex outcome of similar perceptions by the
leader and the members of the inter-personal relations
of leader and the members."79
A review of the literature concerning the role
of the principal and related theories, suggest that the
importance of common understanding between the principal
and his staff for his behavior is vital to the educational
process. Why do some teachers seem more satisfied under
certain kinds of leadership than others? Why do some
teachers rate their principal more effective than others?

Why do teachers in seemingly similar schools rate their

principal's leadership performance differently? These

 

77Minor Gwynn, Theory and Practice of Supervision
(New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1961). p. 357.

78Victor H. Vroom, "The Effects of Attitudes on
Perception of Organizational Goals," Human Relations,
Vol. 13, No. 3 (August, 1960), 229-24UT

79Edward C. Glanz, Groups in Guidance (Boston:
Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 1962), p. 86.

 

 

 

 

55

questions are of vital concern to both the practitioner
and the researcher in educational administration. A
large body of social science theory, particularly re-
lating to leadership and organization, would appear to
be pertinent in attempting to answer many of these ques-
tions. There is one concept which seems particularly
applicable, and that is the concept of social Eplp,

This concept has received considerable attention
in general theory as applied to the study of leadership
and organizations. A discussion of the role theory as
it relates to this study may provide some insight and
understanding for certain kinds of principal-teacher
observations for the leader behavior of principals in

inner-city school settings.

The Concept of Role

The application of role theory is a way by which
the behavioral scientiSt attempts to explain the inter-
action of various individuals within their social set-
ting. Benton has suggested that "every society . . .
can be viewed as a division of labor suited to its environ-
ment. Particular members are given their task to perform

80

on behalf of the group." Role Theory has been impacted

 

80Michael Benton, Roles (New York: Basic Books,
Inc., 1965), p. 43.

56

greatly by the contributions of Mead. Role theorists
have used the concept of the role as the intervening
variable in the individual's development of self; the
contention being that the self comes from social inter-
action. Mead's contention of self as originating solely
in social interaction has given rise to role theory
where interaction of self and role are studies as co-
ordinates and not parallels.81 Bonner applied Mead's
concepts of social interaction and suggested that all
social psychologists are interactionists. He indicated
that the emphasis is placed not on reaction but on inter-

action between persons and persons, persons and groups.82

Definition of Role

Newcomb, in attempting to define role, suggested

that:

. . . the ways of behaving which are expected of
any individual who occupies a certain position
constitute the role associated with that position
. . . (A Role) is something dynamic; it refers

to the behavior of the occupants of a position
(and) what they do as occupants of the position.83

 

fir

81George H. Mead, Mind, Self & Society (Chicago:
University Chicago Press, 1934). ’

. . .82Herbert Bonner, Social Psychology! An Inter-
d18c1plinary Approach (New York: American Book Com-

pany, 1953), p. 13.

83Theodore M. Newcomb, Social Psychology (New York:
Dryden Press, 1950), p. 280.

 

57

Coutu states that role may be defined as:

. . . a socially prescribed way of behaving
in particular situations for any person
occupying a given social position or status.
A role represents what a person is supposed
to do in a given situation by virtue of the
social position he holds.84
Parsons and Shils defined the contract between the indi-

vidual and a social system as the role.85 Sarbin spoke
of the role as being a patterned sequence of learned

actions performed by individuals in interaction situa-

tions.86

Getzels described role as certain "normative
obligations and responsibilities which may be termed
"role expectations," and when the role incumbent puts

these . . . into effect, he is said to be performing his

role."87

A better understanding of how role theory attempts

to explain behavior in organizations is presented by Merton

 

84Walter Coutu, "Role Playing vs Role Taking: An
.Appeal for Clarification," American Sociological Review,
Vol. 16, No. 1 (February, 19515, 199-197.

85Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, eds.,
Toward a General Theory of Action (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard university Press, 1962), p. 15.

86Theodore R. Sarbin, "Role Theory," Handbook of
Social Psychology, ed. Gardner Lindzey (Cambridge:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1954), p. 225.

87Jacob W. Getzels, "Administration as a Social
Process," Administrative Theogy in Education, ed. Andrew W.
Halpin (Chicago: Midwest Administrative Center, University
of Chicago, 1958), p. 153.

 

58

in his book, Social Theorypand Social Structure.88 In

his analysis he suggests that for every position within

a social system, there are a number of "significant

 

others" or incumbents in closely related positions who

are interdependent with a particular actor (focal role).

 

Merton further states that the way in which the major

significant others (role set) define the focal actor's

 

role greatly influences the way he fulfills his role.
Merton coined the term "role set" to describe the signif-
icant others surrounding any particular role. The role
set of a role incumbent consists of those persons most.
dependent upon the focal role's behavior.

A role cannot exist without one or more relevant
other-roles towards which it is oriented. For example,
the role of "principal" is meaningless without the role
of "teacher." Nadel suggested that:

. . . roles materialize only in an interaction
setting: consequently, the behavioral charac-
teristics we have in mind when talking about

roles will always include, besides the actor's 89
own mode of behavior, that of others toward him.

From Nadel's suggestion it can be concluded that

the ongoing process of interaction and the changes in the

 

88Robert Merton, §pcia1 Theoryiand Social Struc-
ture (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1957).

895. F. Nadel, The Theo;y_of Social Structure
(Illinois: The Free Press), p. 20.

 

59

individual role reflect a changed perception in the role
of significant others. The response of these others
serves to reinforce or challenge one's self image.

peadership and Role
Expectations

 

 

According to Turner, there are three key factors
in the dynamics of the role theory model: conformity,
expectations, and approval. Although each of the three
factors are important to the concept, the discussion here
will be limited to expectations and its significance to
role theory.

Sargent suggests the importance of expectation
when he defines role as "a pattern or type of social
behavior which seems situationally appropriate to him in
terms of the demands and expectations of those in the

group."90 Brookover and Gottlieb91

indicate that much of
the behavior of individuals is influenced by the actions
and expectations of others and the expectations imposed

within a particular situation; as interpreted by the

 

90Stansfeld Sargent, "Conceptions of Role and Ego
in Contemporary Psychology," in J. Rohrer and M. Sherif,
eds., Social Psycholo y at the Crossroads, (New York:
Harper &'§rothers, 19 I), p. 360.

91Wilbur Brookhover and David Gottlieb, A Socio-

logy of Education (New York: American Book Co., 1964),
p. 61.

 

 

60

actors in that situation. Gross, Mason, and McEachern92

define role .as a set of expectations that apply to the
incumbent of a particular position. They suggest that:

. . . peOple do not behave in a random manner.

Their behavior is influenced to some extent by

their own expectations and those of others in

the group or society in which he participates.93

Gross reports that expectations represents behavior

that should happen and not necessarily that behavior that
occurs.94 Getzels concurred with Gross when he suggested
that expectations suggest norms, telling the actor what he

95 Role expectations are the mech-

should or should not do.
anisms which integrate the individual into the social sys-
tem with significant others occupying other positionsin

the social system. It becomes apparent, as Gross suggests,
that despite the number of Operational definitions, " . . .
expectations are generally presumed by most role theorists

to be an essential ingredient in predicting behavior."96

 

92Neal Gross, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander W.
McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis, (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 69.

93

 

Ibid.

 

94Gross, Mason, and McEachern, pp. cit., p. 67.

95Getzels, pp. cit., p. 153.

96Gross, Mason, and McEachern, pp. cit., p. 18.

61

Leadership and Role Conflict

 

A basic premise of role theory is that conflict
is a major element in role relationships. A leader may
often find himself in the middle between members consti-
tuting the significant other group, or he may experience
self-held expectations which differ from those held by
the members of the significant other group.

Nadel indicates that there are a number of
characteristics relevant to the role incumbent which may
alter the expectations that those in other roles hold for
the performance of the role in question. These are clas-

97 Pri-

sified as primary and secondary characteristics.
mary characteristics refer to those kinds of variables
which are located within the individual: ability, person-
ality, intelligency, initiative, ambition, etc. Secondary
characteristics, on the other hand, refer to much more
visible factors which, while often having little to do with
actual role performance, may alter the expectations held

by others with regard to role performance, (e.g., sex,
race, age, etc.). What this suggests, then, is that a

person may come to occupy a given role; he may possess all

of the primary characteristics necessary for portraying

 

97Nadel, pp. cit., p. 23.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

62

the role; but he may also carry with him certain second-
ary characteristics which so affect the expectations of
those in significant other roles that he is unable to
carry out his performance effectively.

In this brief discussion of leadership and role
theory no attempt has been made to add to existing social
science knowledge of role theory. The review of role
theory literature simply suggests that the part that
teachers may play in reinforcing, enhancing, impeding,
or challenging the leadership behavior of the principal
may be a crucial variable in the functioning of the total

social and academic structure of the school setting.

CHAPTER III

THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Permission to conduct this study in twelve inner-
city elementary schools was secured from the Grand Rapids,
Michigan public school system in December, 1970. Partici-
pation in this study, as is usually the case with similar
research studies, was voluntary on the part of inner-city
elementary teachers and principals in the district. All
of the inner-city principals in the eighteen elementary
schools were contacted to explain to them the purpose of
the study, method to be employed in the selection of
schools, and to encourage them to participate and support
the study. All of the principals agreed to participate
in the study if their particular schools were selected.
The level of participation of teachers and principals in
this study, along with other significant information re-
garding the respondents, is presented in this chapter

(Tables 3.4-3.12).

63

64

The Site and Sample

 

The sample for this study was from a population
of inner-city elementary schools located in Grand Rapids,
Michigan. Grand Rapids is an urban city of approximately
240,000 residents in a metropolitan area of some 500,000
residents. The racial makeup of the citizens of Grand
Rapids resembles other rapidly changing urban centers of
similar size in the United States. The black population
comprises 10-12 per cent of the total population and the
Latin American p0pulation approaches 5-7 per cent of the
city's population. The Grand Rapids public school dis-
trict is governed by a separate unit of government, i.e.,
the Board of Education, which is completely independent
of the city municipal government (i.e., the City Commis-
sion).

The Grand Rapids public school system is a K-l4

urban school district enrolling over 40,500 students.
The district's 35,000 K-12 students are housed in fifty-
five elementary schools, six junior high schools, three
middle schools, four senior high schools, and a central
educational park complex, serving Grand Rapids public

school senior high students, along with other county wide

65

senior high students. The school system's Junior College
enrollment is over 5,500 students.1
The Grand Rapids Board of Education, in accord-
ance with ESEA Title I Federal guidelines, has designated
eighteen elementary schools as being inner-city schools.

The criteria used for the selection of schools in this

study were:
(1) A K-6 elementary inner-city school.

(2) At least seven full time teachers

teaching at the school.

The inner-city elementary schools selected for
this study served roughly 5,450 pupils and included approx-
imately 220 teachers.2 Table 3.1 shows the number of
teachers in this study and the students served by these
teachers in relation to the total inner-city elementary
school teacher-pupil population in the district.

The eighteen inner-city elementary schools in the
district are administered by nine black principals and nine

white principals. In order to reflect a representative

 

1These figures were obtained from the school system's
research center (12-5-70), Grand Rapids Public Schools.

2These figures were obtained from the Director of
Personnel as of 10-2-70, Grand Rapids Public Schools.

66

sample of the inner-city elementary school population
'vvithin the school system, twelve schools were selected
It>y randomly sampling six among the nine schools adminis-
tzered by black principals and six among the nine schools
Eidministered by white principals. The twelve elementary
jE>rincipa1s and all of their full time teaching staffs

tarere included as participants in this study.

TABLE 3.1

A COMPARISON OF THE TOTAL INNER-CITY ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL POPULATION, THE SAMPLE USED, AND THE
NUMBER OF STUDENTS SERVED.

 

Per cent of

 

IDescription Description Total Inner-

of Total of City Popula-
POpulation Number Sample Number tion
Number of Number of

Students 7,100 Students 5,450 77
Number of Number of

Schools* 18 Schools 12 67
Number of Number of

Teachers 270 Teachers 220 81

Que Instrument

The data obtained in this study were collected
from four dimensions of the "Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire, Form XII," often referred to as the LBDQ--

Form XII by Dr. Ralph M. Stogdill. The LBDQ--Form XII

67

vvas developed for use in obtaining descriptions of a
taupervisor by the group members whom he supervises.
Stogdill suggests that the LBDQ--can be used to
<3escribe the behavior of the leader, or leaders, in any.
gyroup or organization, provided the members of the organ-
jLzation have had an Opportunity to witness the leader in
section with the group.3 Although the questionnaire has
(often been used by-followers to describe the behavior of
1their leader, it can be used by peers or superiors to
(Sescribe a leader whom they know well. Moreover, with
'the proper changes in the instructions (e.g., substituting
‘the item "I" for the item "he"), the LBDQ can be used by
‘the leader to describe his own behavior (see Appendix A).
The LBDQ originated with the work conducted by
Hemphill.4 From this a further development of the scales
‘was initiated by the staff at the Ohio State Leadership
Studies as reported by Hemphill and Coons.5 The theoret-

ical aspects underlying the descriptive method were

ei

3Ralph M. Stogdill, "Manual for the Leader Behavior

IDescription Questionnaire, Form XII," An Experimental
Revision, p. l. ’
4John K. Hemphill, Situational Factors in Leader-

shi (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau
0 ducational Research, 1949).

5John K. Hemphill and A. E. Coons, "Development of
the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire," in Leader
gghavior: Its Descri tion and Measurement, ed. by R. M.
Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Columbus, Ohio: The-Ohio State
University, Bureau of Business Research, 1957), pp. 6—38.

 

68

Jreported by Shartle.6 Shartle observed that during the
time of the Ohio State Leadership Studies no sufficient
1theory or definition of leadership had been formulated.
ESubsequently, alarge number of hypothesized dimensions
(of leader behavior could be reduced to two factors.

IFleishman called these two factors Consideration and

 

:Initiation of Structure.7

These two dimensions, Consideration and Initia-
‘tion of Structure have been widely used in various leader-
sahip studies in industry, education, and military organ-
:izations. A feeling emerged among researchers that two
ciimensions of leadership were not sufficient to include
(all of the factors of leader behavior.

After several minor revisions of the LBDQ Stogdill's
‘work on theory of role differentiation and group achieve-

Inent provided significant information for a major revision

 

6C. L. Shartle, "Introduction," in Leader Behavior:

Its Descri tion and Measurement, ed. by R. M. Stogdill and
.An E. Coons (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University,
IBureau of Business Research, 1957), p. l.

7E. A. Fleishman, "A Leader Behavior Description
for Industry," in Leader Behavior: Its Descpiption and
Meashrement, ed. by R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons

'TCqumbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of
Business Research, 1957), pp. 103-118.

 

 

69

(of the "Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire."8

Research data supporting this theory suggested that a
Inumber of variables function as a result of differentia-
'tion of roles in social groups. Factors suggested by the

'theory were: Tolerance of Uncertainty, Persuasiveness,

 

{tolerance of Member Freedom of Action, Predictive Accur-
zacy, Integration of the Group, and Reconciliation of Con-
:flicting Demands. As a result of empirical research the
sadditional dimensions of Rppresentation of Group Interest,

lRole Assumption, Production Emphasis, and Orientation

 

froward Others were suggested.9
Items.were developed for the new subscales and
<questionnaires were administered to several groups. After

an item analysis, the instruments were revised; given again,

reanalyzed,.and given again.lo

Marder reportedly was the first to use the new

.LBDQ scales in a study of an airborne division of the army

11,

and a state highway patrol agency. Other revisions were

8Ralph M. Stogdill, Individual Behavior and Group

.Achievement (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959),
p. 262.
9Stogdill, pp. cit., p. 2.

loIbid.

11E. Marder, Leader Behavior as Perceived by Sub-

pgdinates as a Function of Organizational Level (Columbus,
Ohio: CThe Ohio State University Library, 1960).

7O

czonducted by Stogdill,12 Goode,l3 and Day14 in the
j_nvestigation of ministers, leadership in community
(Clevelopment, United States Senators, and presidents
<:>f corperations. Stogdill also used the new LBDQ in.
en study of industrial and governmental organizations.15
!1?he Form XII is the fourth revision of the questionnaire.

The LBDQ--Form XII (see Appendix A) was designed

t:o measure twelve specific dimensions of leader behavior.

The dimensions are as follows:

1. Rppresentation--speaks and acts as the

representative of the group (5 items).

2. Demand Reconciliation--reconciles conflict-
ing demands and reduces disorders to

the system (5 items).

3. Tolerance of Uncertainty--is able to tol-

erate uncertainty and postponement without.

12Ralph M. Stogdill; O. S. Goode; and D. R. Day,
"New Leader Behavior Description Subscale," in The Journal
53f Psychology, Vol. 54, No. 2 (October, 1962), 259-269.

13Ralph M. Stogdill; O. S. Goode; and D. R. Day,
"The Leader Behavior of United States Senators," in The
gpurnal of Psychology, Vol. 54, No. 1 (July, 1963), 3-8.

14Ralph M. Stogdill; O. S. Goode; and D. R. Day,
"The Leader Behavior of Corporation Presidents," Personnel
Epychology, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Summer, 1963), 127-132.

15

 

Stogdill, pp. cit., p. 2.

 

 

 

J1;

 

10.

71

anxiety or upset (10 items).

Persuasiveness--uses persuasion and agru-

 

ment effectively; exhibits strong convic-

tions (10 items).

Initiation of Structure--clearly defines

 

own role, and lets followers know what is

expected (10 items).

Tolerance of Freedom--allows followers

 

sc0pe for initiative, decision, and action

(10 items).

Role Assumption--actively exercises the

 

leadership role rather than surrendering

leadership to others (10 items).

Consideration--regards the comfort, well

 

being, status, and contributions of fol-

lowers (10 items).

Production Emphasis--app1ies pressure for

 

productive output (10 items).

Predictive Accurapye-exhibits foresight

 

and ability to predict outcomes accurately

(5 items).

72

ll. Integration--maintains a closely knit

 

organization; resolves intermember con-

flicts (5 items).

12. Superior orientation-~maintains cordial
relations with superiors; has influence
with them; is striving for higher status

(10 items).

Each item on the LBDQ--Form XII is keyed to one
Eirldi only one dimension of the instrument. The responses
iiltee marked in terms of frequency of behavior--A1ways,
c>151:en, Occasionally, Seldom, and Never. The scoring of

I“(bst of the items are as follows:

ABCDE

5 4 3 2 1

Twenty items on the instrument are scored in the reverse

direction which is:

ABCDE

1 2 3 4 5

Stogdill has indicated that the reliability of

tflae subscales was determined by a modified Kuder-Richardson

16

iEormula. The modifications consisted of correlating each

 

 

lGStogdill, pp. cit., p. 8.

73

item with the remainder of the items in its subscale
rather than with the subscale score including the item.

These reliability coefficients are presented in Table 3.2.

flodification of the LBDQ--
Forzn XII for this Study

This study was concerned with inner-city elemen-

tary teachers and principals' perceptions and expectations

for the leadership behavior of inner-city elementary

School principals. After careful consideration it was

determined that the four dimensions of the Leader Behavior

Description Questionnaire would be sufficient for obtain-

ing data pertinent to this study. The four dimensions

of the LBDQ--Form XII used in this study were: (1) Initi-

ation of Structure, (2) Consideration, (3) Tolerance of

Freedom, and (4) Role Assumption.

@ephone Conversation with
Li‘- Rallfli M. Stogdill

A telephone call was made to Dr. Stogdill on
February 16, 1971 at 3:30 P.M. to solicit his advice and

c=<>unsel with regard to the four dimensions of the LBDQ--

F"arm XII being considered for the study. In addition,

background information about the prospective site, sample,

and participants was also related to Dr. Stogdill.

74

 

 

om. mm. Hm. ma. em. :oflumucmfluo
Howummsm .NH
on. mu. coflumummucH .HH
am. am. mm. mm. Hm. mm. mm. homunooa
m>fluoanoum .OH
mm. as. me. an. as. am. an. an. on. mammsdem
coauOSUoum .m
mmu ma. mm. ma. an. mm. am. am. on. coaumumwwmaoo .m
mm. ma. mm. hm. mm. me. am. am. mm. coaumssmma maom .5
we. ma. mm. am. mm. ma. mm. as. am. sowmmum
mocmnmaoa .m
ma. om. mu. as. ms. on. we. ma. as. musuosuum
maHpMfiuHcH .m
mm. ma. om. me. an. as. «m. mm. em. mmmcm>flmmsmumm .v
mm. om. mm. as. mm. «m. mm. mm. mm. muqflmuumoco
moamumaoa .m
Hm. Hm. mm. mm. up. mu. coflumfl
[HHonoomm panama .m
cm. mm. on. em. mm. mm. as. mm. mm. coflumucmmmummm .H
S d3 d1 d3 13 W 3V dH 0V
9 .40 11: Tao enu I. x.+ v.1. t.
u a.L 91% 9.4 e w u e 1 1:9 A w
9 ST. SO Sd D. T. 00 IU. ILA
1. 7:8 TI 1.0 an S n1 OM S
0 0.5 D. P1 In 1. 1.9 In. I.
1 .aa 9 .a9 5.; a r;& .A o
s u u u.+ a+ 1 A.+ u
1. 1. 1.1. .A S e
S S 8% S

 

h

HHX EMOhIIOQmH.m0m AZOmQMEEUHMImeDM QMHmHGOZV mBZMHUHhhmOU MBHAHM¢HQmm

N.m mqmdfi

75

Dr. Stogdill indicated that the dimensions under
consideration for this study seemed "quite sufficient."
He related that he had recently used only four of the
subscales of the LBDQ--Form XII in a study of business

executives and that this procedure did not alter the

effectiveness of the subscales. He reported that he had

used tflae subscales: (l) Initiation of Structure, (2) Con-

siderertion, (3) Production Emphasis, and (4) Tolerance of

Freedom in his study. Three of the four dimensions used

by 917. Stogdill in his recent study of business executives
were ~u5ed in this study to obtain data reflecting the
leadership behavior of inner-city elementary principals
aS‘Viewed by inner-city elementary teachers and principals.
A letter granting permission for the use and minor re-
ViSion of the questionnaire (see Appendix B), along with
two sets of the LBDQ--Form XII instruments were received
from Dr. Stogdill's office a few days after the telephone
cOnversation.

Although only four dimensions of the instrument
were used to obtain data in this study, minor revisions,
With regard to the instructions for participants and re-

Vision of "tense" were made (see Appendix C). The

revisions were:

76

1. Item "Very Rarely" was substituted for
the item "Never" in the response section

of the questionnaire.

2. Item "Very Frequently" was substituted
for the item "Always" in the response

section of the questionnaire.

3. Item "Faculty" was substituted for the

item "Group."

4. The items "My Principal," "As Principal,"
and "As Principal I think that" were added

to the questionnaire.

5. Item "Principal" was substituted for

"Superior."

6. Two sets of questionnaires were developed
with one being for teachers, and so labeled;

and one set for principals and so labeled.

7. Participants were informed that the question-
naire would be color coded for school identi-

fication.

Each participant was given a questionnaire com-
posed of eighty items and the questionnaire was composed
of two parts--Parth and Part II (see Appendix C). Each

part of the questionnaire had forty items of which the

77

first set of forty items described the perceived behavior
(real) of the principal; while the second set of forty
items in Part II of the questionnaire described the ex-
pected or desired behavior (ideal) of principals. The
items in both parts of the questionnaire were constructed
in the same manner. However, a slight revision of the
questionnaires allowed both teachers and principals to
respond to the items with regard to their perceptions
and expectations for the leadership behavior of inner-
city elementary school principals.

The instructions given to teachers for the com-
pletion of the questionnaire (see Appendix C) asked that
they respond to the first set of items on the basis of

how they felt their principal actually behaved. They were

 

instructed to respond to the second set of items on the
basis of how they felt the principal should behave.

As in the case of the instructions for teachers,
principals were instructed to respond to the first set of

items on the basis of how they felt they actually behaved

 

as principals. They were instructed to respond to the.
second set of items on the basis of how they felt they

should or would like to behave as principals.

78

Scoring of Instrument

 

Each item was keyed to one and only one of the
four dimensions of the questionnaire. The responses were
marked in terms of frequency of behavior on the question-
naire itself. Those frequency of behaviors were: Very
Frequently, Often, Occasionally, Seldom, and Very Rarely.
Respondents were instructed to indicate their responses
by drawing a circle around one of the letters (A B C D E)

following each item. Most items were scored:

ABCDE

5 4 3 2 1

However, items number 3, 7, ll, 15, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27,
and 40 on both parts of the questionnaire were scored in

the reverse direction, as follows:

A B C D E

l 2 3 4 5

The reliability of the subscales used in this study were
determined by the Hoyt estimate reliability formula. The
results of the test are presented in Table 3.3.

Scores from the four dimensions of both parts of
the questionnaire, in addition to the information obtained
by the personal data sheet, were transferred to Michigan
State University computer laboratory IBM data coding forms.

Identification code numbers were given to each school and

79

each respondent included in the study and that informa-
tzion, along with the scores from the questionnaires, and
1:11e information from the personal data forms, were punched
<31) IBM cards and processed through the 3600 computer at

Michigan State University.

TABLE 3.3

RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS (HOYT'S ESTIMATE OF RELIABILITY)
OF THE FOUR SCALES TAKEN FROM LBDQ--FORM XII FOR
INNER-CITY ELEMENTARY TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS

 

 

 

 

 

m

 

 

Perceptions Expectations
Subscale (real behavior) (ideal behavior)
JInitiating Structure .71 .73
{Tolerance of Freedom .70 .75
Role Assumption . 74 . 77
Consideration . 68 . 77

_‘

fiersonal Data Form

The personal data form (see Appendix C) was designed
'to collect the following normative information on the par-

'ticipants relative to their particular characteristics:

1. Sex
2. Age
3. Race

4. Employment status (half time or full time)

5. Level of experience.

80

Summations of the data obtained from the per-

sonal data forms are presented in Tables 3.4 to 3.12.

Procedure

 

Although informal permission had been granted
for this study in December 1970, a formal request (see
Appendix B) was submitted to the Grand Rapids public
school system to conduct this study in February 1971.

A meeting was held with the appropriate school officials
in the district to secure formal permission to conduct
the study in twelve inner-city elementary schools. In
addition, a meeting was scheduled with all of the inner-
city elementary principals to explain to them the pur-
pose of the study; the method to be employed in select-
ing the schools; and to secure their cooperation and
participation in the study.

A meeting was scheduled with the Executive Direc-
tor of the Grand Rapids Education Association to explain
to him the purpose of the study; method to be employed
for selecting teachers; and to also secure that organ-
izations' cooperation and support for the study.

Letters, addressed to the principals and their
staffs, were sent to each of the twelve randomly sampled
inner-city elementary schools (see Appendix B) explaining

the purpose of the study, insuring anonymity of individual

81

respondents, and inviting all of the teachers and prin-
cipals at the respective schools to participate in the
study. Prospective participants were informed in the
letter that neither the names of respondents nor the
names of schools would be presented in the future re-
porting of data.

The Executive Director of the Grand Rapids Educa-
tion Association sent a letter (see Appendix B) to each
of the twelve inner-city schools encouraging all teachers
to participate in the study and declaring his personal
support and the association's support for the study.

Even though all teachers in the twelve selected
schools were invited to participate in the study, only
the responses of full time teachers were actually included
in the data that were analayzed. Participants were not
informed, however, that half-time teacher responses would
not be included in the study so as to minimize the built-
in potential for feeling "left out" of school matters.

Six teacher respondents identified themselves as being
half-time teachers in one or more of the schools selected,
and, consequently, their questionnaires were discarded.

Each principal and each of the teacher associa-
tion's building representatives at each school were con-
tacted to find out if the teachers of the twelve buildings

had agreed to participate as a total staff in the study.

82

Questionnaires (see Appendix C), along with instructions
and envelopes, were delivered to the twelve inner-city
schools and placed in the mail boxes of all teachers

and principals. Participants were instructed to complete
the personal data form and both parts of the questionnaire,
insert them into the furnished envelOpes and seal firmly.
All participants were instructed not to put their names

nor their school's name on the material. It had been
agreed that participants would complete the questionnaires
within eight school days and return them to the school's
office on the ninth school day, sealed. On the day that
questionnaires were to be picked up at the schools, self-
addressed, stamped envelopes were left at the schools for
those participants who might have missed the deadline.

The teacher association's building representatives reminded
teachers each day of the "pick up date" for the question-
naires for this study.

Participants were informed that the questionnaires
were being color keyed by schools in order to provide some
indication of the rate of returns as well as insuring
accuracy for identification of particular schools in re-
porting the data. All of the twelve principals and 211
teachers returned questionnaires. Ten of the teacher
questionnaires had to be discarded; six of which were half

time teachers in one or more of the schools and four of

83

which were not completely answered. Table 3.10 pre-

sents a breakdown of participation of teachers by schools.

Hypotheses to be Tested

 

In attempting to determine whether significant
differences exist between inner-city elementary school
teachers' and principals' perceptions and role expectations
for the leadership behavior of inner-city elementary prin-
cipals, the following hypotheses stated in the null form

were developed:

1. There is no significant difference between
the perceptions of inner-city elementary
school teachers and principals with regard
to the leadership behavior of inner-city

elementary principals.

2. There is no significant difference between
the expectations of inner-city elementary
school teachers and principals with regard
to the leadership behavior of inner-city

elementary principals.

3. There is no significant difference between
inner-city elementary teachers' perceptions
and expectations for the leadership behavior

of inner-city elementary principals.

84

4. There is no significant difference in
the perceptions and expectations of inner-
city elementary teachers in terms of level
of experience for the leadership behavior

of inner-city elementary principals.

5. There is no significant difference in
the perceptions and expectations of male
and female inner-city elementary teachers
with regard to the leadership behavior of

inner-city elementary principals.

6. There is no significant difference between
the inner-city principals' perceptions and
expectations for the leadership behavior of

inner-city elementary principals.

Treatment of the Data

 

Guilford has suggested that, whenever possible,
the most powerful parametric tests available should be

17 He states that these tests are catagorized under

used.
the general heading of analysis of variance. After sev-
eral discussions with consultants at the Michigan State

University Office of Research Consultation, it was decided

 

17J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in
Psychology and Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., 1956), p. 258.

 

 

85

that a multivariate analysis of variance test of the
data would be used for this study. An alpha level of
.05 was chosen for this study. The analysis of the data

is presented in Chapter IV.

TABLE 3.4

SUMMATION OF PERSONAL DATA OBTAINED FROM
TEACHERS SAMPLED--DISTRIBUTION BY SEX

 

 

 

 

N=201
Number of Teacher Per cent of
Sex Respondents Total
Male 71 35
Female 130 65
TABLE 3.5

SUMMATION OF PERSONAL DATA OBTAINED FROM
TEACHERS SAMPLED--DISTRIBUTION BY AGE

 

N=201

m

Number of Teacher Per cent of

Age Respondents Total

Below 20 0 0
Between 20-23 16 8
Between 24-27 55 27
Between 28-31 48 24
Above 31 82 41

Median Above 31

 

86

TABLE 3.6

SUMMATION OF PERSONAL DATA OBTAINED FROM
TEACHERS SAMPLED--DISTRIBUTION BY RACE

 

 

 

N=201
Number of Teacher Per cent of
Race Respondents Total
Black 55 27
White 145 72
Latin American 0 0
Other (Oriental) - 1 .04
TABLE 3.7

SUMMATION OF PERSONAL DATA OBTAINED FROM TEACHERS
SAMPLED--DISTRIBUTION BY LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE
N=201

.W

How long have you
been assigned to

 

this school in Number of Teacher Per cent of
present position? Respondents Total
Less than one year 42 21
Between 1-2 years 49 24
Between 3-5 years 62 31

Over 5 years 48 24

 

87

TABLE 3.8

SUMMATION OF PERSONAL DATA OBTAINED FROM TEACHERS
SAMPLED--DISTRIBUTION BY LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE

 

 

 

 

N=201

How many years have you
taught in the inner-
city since you started
teaching (includes ex- Number of Teacher Per cent of
periences in other inner— Respondents Total
city elementary schools
in Grand Rapids as well
as other school systems)?
Less than one year 27 13
Between l-2 years 47 23
Between 3-5 years 68 34
Over 5 years 59 30

TABLE 3.9

SUMMATION OF PERSONAL DATA OBTAINED FROM TEACHERS
SAMPLED--DISTRIBUTION BY LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE

 

 

 

N=201
How many years have Number of Teacher Per cent of
you been a teacher? Respondents Total
Less than one year 21 10
Between 1-2 years 37 18
Between 3-5 years 55 27

Over 5 years 88 44

 

88

TABLE 3.10

SUMMATION OF INFORMATION OBTAINED BY COLOR CODING
QUESTIONNAIRES BY SCHOOL ON TEACHERS SAMPLED--
REPRESENTATION OF RESPONDENTS BY SCHOOLS AND
STUDENTS THAT ARE SERVED

 

 

 

 

Total Number Per cent

Number Number of of of
of Teachers Teacher Teachers

School Students at School Respondents Responding
l 560 24 23 96
2 234 ll 10 91
3 616 26 24 92
4 295 12 12 100
5 260 16 13 81
6 539 22 21 95
7 353 14 12 86
8 613 24 18 75
9 575 24 23 96
10 383 15 13 87
11 368 20 14 70
12 558 22 18 82
Total 5454 220 201 91

TABLE 3.11

SUMMATION OF PERSONAL DATA OBTAINED FROM
PRINCIPALS--DISTRIBUTION BY SEX

 

 

Sex Number of Respondents

 

Male 11
Female 1

 

89

TABLE 3.12

SUMMATION OF PERSONAL DATA OBTAINED FROM
PRINCIPALS-~DISTRIBUTION BY AGE

 

 

 

 

Number of Principal Per cent of
Age Respondents Total
Below 24 years 0
Between 24-27 years 1 8
Between 28-31 years 4 33
Above 31 7 58
Summary

In this chapter, the design, methodology, and pro-
cedures used to develop this study have been presented.
Data were collected on four dimensions of the "Leadership
Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form XII." The four
dimensions were: (1) Initiation of Structure, (2) Consid-
eration, (3) Tolerance of Freedom, and (4) Role Assumption.

The sample used in this study was randomly selected
from a population of eighteen inner-city elementary schools
in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The data were analyzed by a
multivariate analysis of variance technique.

In Chapter IV, the analysis of the data is pre—
sented. In Chapter V, the research is summarized, and

conclusions and recommendations are presented.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

In this chapter the author presents the results
of the analysis of the data. Each hypothesis has been
restated as the null or test hypothesis. A11 hypotheses
were tested using the "Finn" routine at the Michigan
State University computer center which is a multivariate
analysis of variance test. An alpha level of .05 was

selected for determination of significance of difference.

Hypothesis 1

 

There is no significant difference between the per-
ceptions of inner-city elementary school teachers

and principals with regard to the leadership behavior
of inner-city elementary principals.

The overall F-ratio for the multivariate test of
this hypothesis shows that the significance level is
.7799, which suggests that the null hypothesis is tenable.
Results of the multivariate analysis test for hypothesis 1
are presented in Table 4.1. The mean scores of the
teachers and principals on the four subscales (Table 4.2)
demonstrate that no significant differences exists between

teachers' and principals' perceptions.

90

91

 

Ham u gonna now Eocmmum mo mmwnmmo

H u mwmwsvomhm How Ebpmmhm Mo wmmumma

 

-om.o ooeo.a Heho.m~ :oflumumeflmcoo
mmmm.o mmmo.o momm.o conuaesmma mHom
mmam.o Haoo.a «mm¢.mm soemmum mo moqmumaoe
ammm.o vmqm.o omqq.aa musuosuum mo coflumauaqH
smcu mmwa m m mumaum>wqp Um new: cmm3umm Ammamomnsmv manneum>

 

mmhb.o Gena mmwa m

oooo.mo~ saw v u .m.@
emmv.ouumuouom> cums mo sugamssm mo umme mumflum>nuass non oflummum

 

ZOHBhMUMMQIINUZde¢> ho mHmNA¢24 mfide<>HBQDS

H.v mnmda

92

Therefore, it is concluded that there is no dif-
ference between the perceptions of inner-city elementary
school teachers and principals for the leader behavior
of principals. Consequently, the null hypothesis is
accepted.

TABLE 4.2
MEAN SCORES OF PERCEPTION ON SUBSCALES--

TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS

Initiation Tolerance

 

of of Role
Group Structure Freedom Assumption Consideration
Principals. 40.50000 40.16667 43.08333 39.16667
Teachers 38.92537 40.41294 40.91045 37.92537

 

Hypothesis 2

 

There is no significant difference between the expec-
tations of inner-city elementary school teachers and
principals with regard to the leadership behavior of
inner-city elementary principals.

The F-ratio for the multivariate test of this
hypothesis shows that the significance level for the over-
all test is .0255 and the null hypothesis is not accepted.
The evidence for this hypothesis is found in Table 4.3.

It can be concluded, then, that there is a significant dif-
ference between the expectations of inner-city elementary

school teachers and principals for the leadership behavior

of inner-city elementary principals.

 

93

 

Ham u Honum Mom Eocemum mo mmmumoo

H u mammnuommm mom Eocmmum mo mmmummo

 

v5~o.o ommm.¢ HomH.hHH nowumumvflmcou
mmam.o moao.o bmmm.o sowumESmmd mHQm
mmmm.o hmvm.o omvm.v~ Eopmmum mo mosmnmaoa
memo.o mov¢.v mmom.o~H musuosuum mo GOHuMHu«cH
swap mwma m m mumwuw>HsD Um new: :wmznwm AmwamomQva mansflnm>

 

mmmo.o swap mama m
oooo.mo~ can a n .m.@

mnmm.mlumnouom> smmz mo mufiamsvm mo umma wusanm>wuasz How oflummlm

 

 

mZOHBdfiummeIlmUZ¢Hm¢> m0 mHWMH<Z¢ HBGHM¢>HBADZ

m.v mnmds

94

By looking at the univariate F statistics and
their associated significance levels (Table 4.3), one
observes that the first scale (Initiation of Structure)
and the last scale (Consideration) contribute more to the
nonacceptance of the hypothesis than do scales 2 (Toler-
ance of Freedom) and 3 (Role Assumption).

Observing the cell mean scores presented in
Table 4.4 it is noted that principals have a higher mean
on scale 1 (Initiation of Structure) and scale 4 (Con-
sideration) than do teachers. This suggests that prin-
cipals have higher expectations for the leadership behavior

of elementary principals than do teachers.

TABLE 4.4

MEAN SCORES OF EXPECTATIONS ON SUBSCALES--
TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS

 

 

Initiation Tolerance
of of Role
Group Structure Freedom Assumption Consideration
Principals 43.16667 40.75000 43.33333 41.50000
Teachers ' 39.90050 39.26866 43.14925 38.28358

 

V

Hypothesis 3

 

There is no significant difference between inner-city
elementary teachers' perceptions and expectations for
the leadership behavior of inner-city elementary prin-
cipals.

95

The analysis of the data shows that there is an
overall difference (P less than .0003) between inner-
city elementary teachers' perceptions and expectations.
The evidence for this hypothesis is found in Table 4.5.
The univariate F statistics suggests that scales 2
(Tolerance of Freedom) and 3 (Role Assumption) make a
strong relative contribution to the nonacceptance of the
null hypothesis.

An inspection of the cell means which are found
in Table 4.6 shows the scale in which the relative con-
tribution is highest; as well as that aSpect which is
highest (i.e., perception or expectation). Note that
the cell means are single numbers; the number represents
the average difference between perception and expectation
found by subtracting the expectation scores from the per-
ception scores (perceptioniexpectation).

It is, therefore, concluded that on scale 2
(Tolerance of Freedom) perceptions exceed expectations,
but on scale 3 (Role Assumption) expectations exceed per-
ceptions. This suggests that the principals are doing
better on tolerance of freedom than was expected of them
by the teachers. However, on role assumption the princi-

pals have not performed up to the teachers' expectations.

96

 

com u Hounm How Eonmmum mo mmmumma

H u mammauommm mom Eopmmum mo mmwummo

 

mmmv.o mmmm.o oamh.mm Goflumnwcflmcou
maoo.o mmaa.oa nmmv.booa soflumssmmm maom
mmoo.o mvmm.m vaa.mmm Eocemum mo mosmumaoa
Hmvo.o Homo.v vaH.HmH OHSHODHum m0 GOHDMHDHGH
swap mmma m m museum>flss gm new: cmmzpmm AmmamomQva manmflum>

 

mooo.o gasp mmma m
oooo.nma cum 4 u .m.@

mmmm.m||muouom> saw: no huHHmsvm mo umma mamaum>fluasz How oflummlm

 

 

mZOHfidfiummxm QZ¢ mZOHBmmvmmm

.mmmmodeIIMUZGHm¢> ho mHmMA¢Z¢ MBfiHm¢>HBADE

m.v mamGB

97

TABLE 4.6

MEANS OF THE DIFFERENT SCORES BETWEEN
PERCEPTIONS AND EXPECTATIONS--TEACHERS

 

 

 

Initiation Tolerance

of of Role
Structure Freedom Assumption Consideration
-0.975124 1.144279 -2.238806 -0.358209

Mean scores--computed by subtracting the expectation
scores from the perception scores.

 

Negative numbers--indicate that expectation score was
greater than perception score.

 

 

Hypothesis 4

 

There is no significant difference in the perceptions
and expectations of inner-city elementary teachers
in terms of level of experience for the leadership
behavior of inner-city principals.
The overall F-ratio for the multivariate test of
this hypothesis shows that the significance level for the
overall test is .4505. Consequently, the author assumes

the null hypothesis is not rejected. The evidence for

this hypothesis is presented in Table 4.7.

Hypothesis 5

 

There is no significant difference in the perceptions
and expectations of male and female inner-city
elementary teachers with regard to the leadership
behavior of inner-city elementary principals.

The overall F-ratio for the multivariate test for

this hypothesis shows that the significance level for the

98

 

mud n Houum mom Eowmmum mo mmoumon

a u mammcuommm How Eoommnh mo mmwnmmo

wmmm.o mamm.o mHm¢.o omav.o hmmm.ma NmHm.m
mhbm.o mvmm.o mva.H mbao.o Hoaw.mv ommv.o
mmom.o Noo¢.o oowo.o vvah.o MNHM.H memH.mH
ommv.o vmmm.o mmom.o hmmo.o Hmem.ma whom.o

coflumumpflmsou

sowumESmmm
maom

Eoommnm
mo woeflumaoe

musuosuum
mo GOHDMHDHGH

 

coaummoumm coflumuommxm soaummonwm cowumuommxm coaummoumm soflumuommxm
smnu mmma m m memenm>flsa Um smmz smm3umm

Ammamomgdmv
manmwnm>

 

momv.o Esau mme m

ooooqoba Ucm m u .m.@

mmmm.0IIuo»om> saw: no muwamsvm mo umme mumaum>fiuasz Mom OHuMMIm

 

 

 

 

mZOHfidfiummxm QZd mZOHBmmommm
IIMUZHHmmmxm m0 AW>MAIIWUZ4Hm¢> m0 mHmNQdZ¢ mfide¢>HBAD2

h.v mqmdB

u. i!h.ryic
. 5. II. .. . , .
l
.a
. 4.

99

overall test is .2779. For the purpose of this study

it is not significant and, therefore, the null hypothesis
is not rejected. The author, therefore, concludes that
sex does not make a difference in the perceptions and
expectations of inner-city elementary teachers with re-
gard to the leadership behavior of inner-city elementary
principals. The results of the analysis of the data for

this hypothesis are presented in Table 4.8.

Hypothesis 6

 

There is no significant difference between the
inner-city principals' perceptions and expectations
for the leadership behavior of inner-city elementary
principals.

The results of the multivariate test for this
hypothesis show that the significance level for the over-
all test is .0242 (Table 4.9). There is indeed a signif—
icant difference between the perception and expectations
of principals.

Viewing the univariate F statistics and their
associated significance levels (Table 4.9), it is found
that scales 1 (Initiation of Structure) and 4 (Consider-
ation) seem to contribute most. Table 4.10 shows cell

mean scores. Again, negative numbers indicate that expec-

tation exceeds perception.

100

 

bed n Houum How Eoommum mo mmmummn

H n mflmmnuommm mom Eoommum mo mmmumma

mmmo.o momm.o Nmmm.v «woo.o
mmem.o vmmm.o Homm.o homm.o
Hemm.o Hemm.o mooo.o mmm¢.H
Hmmm.o Hwhm.o mmam.H mmam.o

hmwm.mm

HemH.NH

mmva.o

vmam.am

voNH.o

mmno.mm

mvHo.hm

mmmo.m

coaumumpflmcou

soaumEdmmm
mHom

Eoummum
mo woqmumaoa

wusuosuum
mo sowumfluflsH

 

cowummoumm COHumuommxm coaumwoumm soflumuommxm
swap mmma m m wuswum>flco

coflummoumm soaumuommxm

em new: smmzumm

Ammamomnsmv
manmwnm>

 

mnnm.o nmnu mmmH m

oooo.o>a was m

.m.@

mva.Hlumuosuw> saw: mo muflamswm mo ummB museum>fluasz How oflumm|m

 

 

mZOHfidaummxm 02¢ mZOHBmmUmmm

lemmllmUZ¢Hm<> ho mHmWA<Z< made¢>HBADE

m.¢ mflmdfi

101

 

Ha u Honnm mom Eocmmum mo mmmnmmo

H u mwmwsuommm now Eowwwnm mo mwmnmma

 

mvao.o mmmv.m mmmm.mm soauwumpwmcoo
mmmm.o momo.o comb.o coapmfidmmd maom
ovem.o mmmm.o mmmo.¢ Eoomwhm mo museumaoa
omoo.o mmvm.ma mmmm.mm musuosnum mo COHDMHDHGH
cmzu mmma m m mumaum>flsb gm new: smm3u0m AmmamomQva magmaum>

 

memo.o can» mmma m
oooo.m can v u .M.U

mHmH.m|Imnouom> cmmz mo muwamsqm mo umma museum>wuasz Mom oflummnm

 

 

moneaeommxm oza monemmommm
.mqamHoszmunmozmHm«> mo mHmsqaza meaHma>Haqoz

m.¢ mqmfle

102

On scales 1 (Initiation of Structure) and 4
(Consideration) it is found that principals expect
more on their own performance than what they see them-
selves actually performing. Which is to say, they are
not doing as well as they think they should with re-
gards to their leadership behavior.

In short, inner-city elementary principals see
themselves as needing improvement in initiating struc-
ture and consideration. Their expectations exceeded

their perceptions on these two scales.

TABLE 4.10

MEANS OF THE DIFFERENT SCORES BETWEEN
PERCEPTION AND EXPECTATION--PRINCIPALS

 

 

 

Initiation Tolerance

of of Role
Structure Freedom Assumption Consideration
-2.666667 -0.583333 -0.250000 -2.333333

Means--computed by subtracting the expectation scores
from the perception scores.

Negative numbers--indicate that expectation score was
greater than perception score.

 

 

Summary

In summary, the general statements one can make

from analyzing the data of this study are:

103

There is no significant difference between
the perceptions of inner-city elementary
school teachers and principals with regard
to the leadership behavior of inner-city

elementary principals.

There is a significant difference between
the expectations of inner-city elementary
school teachers and principals with regard
to the leadership behavior of inner-city

elementary principals.

There is a significant difference between
the inner-city elementary teachers' per-
ceptions and expectations for the leader-
ship behavior of inner-city elementary

principals.

There is no significant difference in the
perceptions and expectations of inner-city
elementary teachers in terms of level of
experience for the leadership behavior of

inner-city elementary principals.

There is no significant difference in
the perceptions and expectations of male

and female inner-city elementary teachers

104

with regard for the leadership behavior

of inner-city elementary principals.

There is a significant difference between

the inner-city elementary principals' per-
ceptions and expectations for the leader-

ship behavior of inner-city elementary

principals.

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,

AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary

In this study the author sought to determine if
significant differences exist between inner-city elemen-
tary school teachers and principals with regard to their
perceptions and expectations for the leadership behavior
of inner-city elementary principals. The perceptions
and expectations of the inner-city elementary principals'
leadership behavior were measured by four dimensions of
the "Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire,"--Form XII

(LBDQ--Form XII): Initiation of Structure; Tolerance of

 

 

EEESQQE} Role Assumption; and Consideration. The LBDQ--

 

 

Form XII was developed by Dr. Ralph M. Stogdill and is
used in obtaining descriptions of a supervisor by the
group members whom he supervises.. The questionnaire, with
slight modifications, also can be used by the leader to
describe his own behavior.

The sample for this study was from a p0pulation
of eighteen inner-city elementary schools located in

105

106

Grand Rapids, Michigan. The eighteen inner-city elementary
schools in the district are administered by nine black
principals and nine white principals. In order to reflect
a representative sample of thepopulation for the study,
twelve schools were selected by randomly sampling six among
the nine schools administered by black principals and six
among the nine schools administered by white principals.
The twelve principals and all of their full time teaching
staffs were included as participants in this study. A
total of 213 instruments were used for scoring and analysis.

Analysis of the data was done using the multi-
variate analysis of variance (programmed by Jeremy Finn).
Results were deemed significant at the .05 level of con-
fidence.

Relevant literature was discussed in Chapter II
which included descriptions and definitions of leadership
and leader behavior; presentation of a partial theory of
leadership appropriate for this study; the trait-approach
to leadership; the situational approach to leadership; and
leadership and leader behavior research in education. In
addition, the following concepts were presented: leader-
ship and role theory; the concept of role; the definition
of role; leadership and role expectations; and leadership

and role conflict.

107

In Chapter III the procedure used in the collec-
tion of data was presented. This included such areas as:
the site and sample; the instrument; the modification of
the LBDQ-~Form XII for this study; personal data form;
procedure for distribution and collection of instruments;
and tables reflecting significant information about the

respondents in this study.

 

In Chapter IV the data were presented and the
methods of analysis discussed. In addition, a general
discussion of the hypotheses and the analysis of the data
for the hypotheses were described. This chapter was con-.

cluded with a summary presentation.

Conclusion

 

One of the assumptions that the author made con-
cerning the instrument used in this study is that the
dimensions of the LBDQ--Form XII has predictive validity.
That is, one can expect certain behavior patterns of the
leaders being investigated based upon scores from the
instrument. In Chapter II of this study (pages 49-50),
the author listed some predictions of leaders and leader-
ship which were summarized by Halpin.1

In order to interpret and eventually conclude

from the findings of this study, it must be made clear

 

lHalpin' 220 Cite, pp. 23-240

108

how one is going to interpret "high" scores on the instru-
ment used for this study. In short, what constitutes a
high score for effective leadership?

For the purpose of this study one may interpret
the principals' score as being "high" on the perception
aspect (real behavior) of leadership effectiveness if it
is less than or equal to the teachers' score on the same
dimension. One may interpret the expectation aspect
(ideal behavior) of the principals' leadership effective-
ness as "high" if his score is greater than the teachers'
score on the same dimension.

Halpin2 suggests that, Initiating Structure and
Consideration are fundamental dimensions of leadership
behavior. Hypotheses l and 2 are indeed crucial to the
adequate interpretations of this study. The discussion of
the findings is presented first with respect to Halpin's
conclusions of leadership and leader behavior.

Findings resulting from a test of hypothesis 1
indicate that inner-city elementary school teachers and
principals view the actual leadership behavior that the
principals display at approximately the same level. Con-
sequently, the author interprets at this point in time
that the inner-city teachers and principals in this study

are perceiving similar behaviors by the principals.

 

2Ibid.

109

According to Halpin's second stipulation, which
is presented in Chapter II of this study (page 49),
effective leadership behavior is associated with high
performance on the two dimensions, initiation of struc-
ture and consideration. One must now look at the expec-
tation aspect of the teachers and principals in order to
make statements about the effectiveness of the principals
as leaders.

The findings of hypothesis 2, given the previous
definition of "high" score, indicate that if the princi-.
pals work to achieve the present expectation of themselves
on the dimensions of initiating structure and considera-
tion, they will continue to be seen as effective leaders
in the future by the teachers.

The conclusions proposed by the author as a result
of looking at these first two hypotheses generate two
basic questions. First, is there a difference between
inner-city elementary teachers' perceptions and expecta-
tions concerning the leadership behavior of inner-city
elementary principals? And second, is there a difference
between.inner-city elementary principals' perceptions and
expectations for the leadership behavior of inner-city
elementary principals?

These two questions were answered by the findings

from hypotheses 3 and 6 respectively. Results of testing

110

hypothesis 3 showed that the dimensions of initiating
structure and consideration, relative to the teachers'
perceptions and expectations, did not significantly dif-
fer from each other. That is, the teachers' perceptions
and expectations of the principals behavior are relatively
the same. The author, therefore, interprets this to mean
that the current behavior of the inner-city elementary
principals is adequate at this point in time on the two
dimensions, initiating structure and consideration.

The findings after testing hypothesis 6 showed
that the principals' expectations on initiation of struc-
ture and consideration exceeded their perceptions. Con-
sequently, putting together the partial findings of hypoth-
eses l, 2, 3, and 6 the author concludes that the inner-
city elementary principals sampled in this study are per-
forming as effective leaders at this point in time. There-
fore, if the principals try to achieve their expectations
they will continue to be viewed as effective leaders on
these two dimensions of initiation of structure and con-
sideration.

It is unrealistic to assume that two dimensions of
leadership are sufficient to include all of the factors of
leader behavior. Consequently, the author felt that an
investigation of leader behavior using only the two dimen-

sions of initiation of structure and consideration would

111

be insufficient to adequately profile Grand Rapids
inner-city elementary principals. Therefore, the dimen-
sions of tolerance of freedom and role assumption were
included in the assessment.

The findings of this study will now be discussed
with respect to these two dimensions, tolerance of free-
dome and role assumption. The same definition of "high"
score that was applied to the discussion of initiating
structure and consideration apply to these two dimensions.

Results of examining hypothesis 1 show that the
inner-city elementary teachers and principals are again
in agreement concerning the perceptions (actual behavior)
of the principals leadership behavior on the dimensions
of role assumption and tolerance of freedom.

Testing hypothesis 6 suggests that the inner-city
principals' expectations and perceptions of these dimen-
sions (tolerance of freedom and role assumption) do not
differ from each other. This indicates that the way the
principals perform now is likely to be the manner in which
they perform in the future on these two dimensions.

The results of testing hypothesis 3 show that the
inner-city elementary teachers' perceptions and expecta-
tions do differ, and indicates that their expectation on

role assumption is greater than perceptions on the same

112

dimension. This suggests that the principals in the
future must improve on the leadership dimension of role
assumption.

Two other hypotheses were tested with this sample
strictly as an ad-hoc dimension of this study. They per-
mitted investigations of inner-city elementary teachers on
two demographic characteristics. It is fully admitted that
these do not address themselves to the fundamental issues
that structured this study. It was done strictly as a
response to the rhetorical clamors of the urban school scene.

Referring to Chapter II (page 50) of this study,
Halpin indicates that:

(1) there is only a slight positive relationship
between the way leaders believe they should

behave and the way in which their group mem-
bers describe them as behaving; and

(2) the institutional setting within which the

leader operates influences his leadership

style.3

This suggested to the author that there should be
no difference between the demographic dimensions of sex
and level of experience of inner-city teachers.

Hypotheses 4 and 5 indicate that there is no dif-
ference when inner-city teachers are classified by sex

and level of experience when one tests on perceptions and

expectations of inner-city elementary teachers for the

 

3

Halpin, op. cit.

113

leadership behavior of inner-city elementary princi-
pals.

Whereas the data clearly indicate that princi-
pals are more concerned with initiation of structure
and consideration, teachers are more concerned with the
tolerance of freedom and role assumption dimensions.

The surprising finding to this author is the
apparent perception of teachers for the principal's
tolerance of freedom behavior. That which is apparently
important is that the dimension of tolerance of freedom
is assumed to be outside the normal role expectation of
the principal. Although the principals see part of the
role of leadership as tolerating freedom, this aspect
of their behavior is being achieved to a greater degree
than the teachers expected. The author is somewhat puz-
zled by this unexpected result.

How might this finding be explained? One explan-
ation for this finding might be due to a lack of role
definition for inner-city elementary principals. The
average age of inner-city elementary principals in Grand
Rapids is considerably less than that of other principals
throughout the district. This finding, then, may be attrib-
uted to a new or different attitude of the younger princi-
pals toward teachers. Both of these suggestions are capable

of being tested empirically.

 

 

.. . _. gal-BIT, t’il. . .
. ‘V
II... . ...l

114

Recommendations

 

The findings in this study indicate that per-

formance is rated on structural issues rather than what

might be considered ephemeral considerations.

Consequently, the author makes the following

recommendations:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Delineation be made within the leadership
dimension of tolerance of freedom in such
a manner as to allow for a more comprehen-

sive study of this apparent phenomenon.

That attitude studies be conducted in order
to ascertain what inner-city principals
might do to improve their performance on

role assumption dimension of leadership.

That demographic variables such as sex

and level of experience not be included

i as relevant dimensions of the respondents

to concept of leadership behavior.

An extension of the study to include the
same criterion at different intervals to
find out whether the same perceptions and
expectations found in the present study

concerning leader behavior of inner-city

115

elementary principals holds true over

an extended period of time.

(5) DevelOpment of improved pre-service and
in-service training programs for inner-
city teachers and principals with regard
to the importance of leadership in organ-

izations.

(6) An investigation of the inner-city elemen-
tary principals immediate superior's per-
ceptions and expectations for the leader-
ship behavior of inner-city elementary

principals.

Implications

 

The finding of this study suggests that inner-
city elementary principals are viewed as effective leaders
by their teaching staffs. An explanation of this finding
must be viewed with regard to situational factors.con-
fronting inner-city principals in urban communities. A
common conception among citizens of urban cities is that
most of their schools are failing to meet the needs of
their children. This attitude is reflected by many citi-
zens in urban centers who are demanding community control

of their schools.

116

The instrument used in this investigation is
designed to describe the behavior of the leader as per-
ceived by the members of a group. The finding does not
necessarily indicate the effectiveness of the principal
as he intervenes in the learning process of children.

This suggests that although inner-city principals are per-
ceived as effective leaders by their teachers, the educa-
tional needs of children may still remain unfulfilled.

Inner-city parents, students, teachers, principals,
and the principal's superiors may have different notions
concerning the principal's role in the schools. This im-
plies a need for a reorganization of the evaluation pro-
cess of inner-city elementary school principals. More-
over, this suggests that the inner-city elementary prin-
cipal's role as perceived by inner-city parents, students,
and professional school personnel, be more clearly defined.

The finding of this investigation suggests to the
writer that inner-city elementary school personnel in
Grand Rapids have achieved major success in order to move
toward the possibility for educational reform in their
schools. That is, principals are perceived as effective

leaders by their teachers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Barnard, Chester I. The Functions ofthe Executive.
Cambridge:. Harvard University PresE} 1938.

 

Becker, Gerald and Others. Issues and Patterns in
Elementary_School AdmInIStration. Corvallis:
Center for Educational RESearch and Service,
Oregon State University, 1970.

 

 

Bellows, Roger. Creative Leadership. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961.

 

Benton, Michael. Roles. New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
1965. '

Bird, Charles. Social Psychology. New York: Appleton-4
Century-Croft, 1940.

 

Bonner, Herbert. Social Psychology, An Interdesciplin-

ary Approach. New York: American Boo Company,
Brookhover, Wilbur and Gottlieb, David. A Sociolo of
Education.. New York: American BooK Co., I964.

Conant, James B. Slums and Suburbs. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Co., 1961.

 

 

 

Davis, Keith. Human Relations at Work. New York:
McGraw-Hill BooE Co., 1962. ?

Flanagan, John C., ed. Psychology in the World. Pitts-
burg: University of Pittsburg Press, 1952.

 

French, Wendell. The Personnel Management Process.
Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1964. ‘P

 

117

118

Glanz, Edward C. Groups in Guidance. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon, Inc., 1962.

 

Gordon, Thomas. Group Centered Leadership. New York:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1955.

 

Gouldner,Alvin W. Studies in Leadership. New York:
Harper-Row, 1950.

 

Griffiths, Daniel E., ed. Behavioral Science and Educa-
tional Administration. Sixty-thirdiYearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education,
Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1964.

 

 

Gross, Neal; Ward, Mason 8.; McEachern, Alexander W.
Exploration in Role Analysis. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958.

 

Gross, Neal and Herriott, Robert E. Staff Leadership in
Public Schools: A SociologicaIInquiry. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965.

 

 

Guba, Egon and Bidwell, Charles. Administratiye Relation—
ships--Teacher Effectiveness; Teacher Satisfaction
and Administrative Behavior. Chicago: Midwest
Administration Center, 1957.

 

 

 

Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistigs in Psychology
and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Boo
Company, Inc., 1956, p. 258.

 

Gwynn, Minor. Theory agd Practice of Supervision. New York:
Dodd, Mead and Co., 1961.

 

Hagman, Harlan L. Administration of Elementary Schools.
New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956.

 

Halpin, Andrew W. and Winer, James B. "A Factoral Study.
of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire,"
in Stogdill and Coons edition Leader Behavior:

Its Description and Measurement. Columbus: Ohio
State University, 1957.

 

 

Halpin, Andrew W. Administrative Theory in Education.
Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, UniVersity
of Chicago Press, 1958.

 

119

Hemphill, John K.; Griffiths, Daniel E.; and Frederikson,
Norman. Administrative Performance and Personal-
ity, New York: TeaChers College Bureau of Puin-
cations, Columbia University, 1962.

 

Hemphill, John K. and Coons, Alvin E. "Development of
The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire,"
in Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons edition
Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement.
Cqumbus: Ohio State University, 1957.

 

Hemphill, John K. Situational Factors in Leadership.
Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, Bureau of
Educational Research Monograph No. 32, 1949.

 

Hemphill, John. Dimensions of Administrative Performance.
U.S. Office of Education ResearCh Project No. 214.
New York: Teachers College, Columbia University
and Educational Testing Service, 1961.

 

Holland, Josiah G. An Introduction to School Administra-
tion. New York: The Macmillan Company,iI966.

 

Lindzey, Gardner, ed. Handbook of Social Psychology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Pub-
lishing Co., 1954.

 

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Translated by W. K.
Marriott. New York: E. P. Dutton and Company,
1908.

 

Marburger, Carl. L. "Considerations for Educational Plan-
ning," Education in Depressed Areas. Edited by
A. Harry—Passow. New York: Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1963.

 

Marder, E. Lgader Behavior as Perceived by Subordinates
as a Function ofigrganizational Level. Coiumbus,
OEio: The Ohio State University Library, 1960.

 

 

McCloskey, Gordon. Education and Public Understanding.
New York: Harper-Row, 1959.

 

Mead, George H. Mind, Selftand Society. Chicago:
University Chicago Press, 1934.

 

Merton, Robert. Social Theory and Social Structure.
Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1957.

 

120

Miller, Van. "Assessment and Projection," Administra-
tive Behavior in Education. Edited by Roald’F.
Campbell and Russell T. Gregg. New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1957.

 

 

Nadel, S. F. The ATheory of Social Structure. Illinois:
The Free Press, 1957.

 

Newcomb, Theodore M. Social Psychology. New York:
Dryden Press, 1950.

 

Parsons, Talcott and Shils, Edward A., eds. Toward A
General Theory of Action. Cambridge, Massachu-
setts: Harvard University Press, 1962.

 

 

Pigors, Paul J. W. Leadership or Domination. Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1935.

 

Rohrer, John H. and Sherif, Muzafer eds. Social Psychol-
ogy at the Crossroads. New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1951.

 

 

Saunders, Robert L.; Philips, Ray E.; and Johnson, Harold T.
A Theory of Educational Leadership. Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., I966.

 

Scott, Ellis L. Leadership and Perceptions of Organizations.
Columbus,O Ohio: Bureau of’Business ResearCh Mono-
graph No. 82,1955.

 

Shartle, Carroll L. ExecutivejPerformance and Leadershi
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, l9 6.

Shuster, Albert H. and Wetzler, Wilson F. Leadership in
Elementary School Administration ands ervision.
Cambridge:. Harvard Univers1ty4 Press, 19 8.

 

 

Spain, Charles R.; Drummond, Harold D.; and Goodlad,
John I. Educational Leadership in the Elementar
School. New York: Rinehart and Company, 1956

 

Stogdill, Ralph M. "Manual for the Leader Behavior Des-
cription Questionnaire, Form XII." An Experi-<
mental Revision. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau for Bus-
iness Researéh, College of Commerce and Adminis-
tration, The Ohio State University, 1963.

 

 

121

Stogdill, Ralph M.; Wherry, Robert; and Jaynes, William..
Patterns of Administrative Performance. Columbus,
Ohio: Bureau of Business ResearEH Monograph

NO. 81, 1956.

Stogdill, Ralph M. Individual Behavior and Group Achieve-
ment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959.

Stogdill, Ralph M. and Coons, A. E. LeaderBehavior:
Its Description and Measurement. Columbus, Ohio:
The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business
Research, 1957.

Strom, Robert. Teaching in the Slum School. Columbus,
Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1965.

Periodicals

Allen, HOpe E. "Fantasy or Reality? Education in the
Inner City." The Clearing House, Vol. 44, No. 6
(February, 1970), 357.

Bavelas, Alex. "Leadership: Man and Function." Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 6 (March,

I962), 49I.

Borgatta, Edgar F.; Bales, Robert F.; and Couch, Arthur 8.
"Some Findings Relevant to the Great Man Theory of
Leadership." American Sociological Review, Vol. 19,
No. 1 (December, 1954i, 756.

Bowers, David G. and Seashore, Stanley E.. "Predicting
Organizational Effectiveness with a Four-Factors
Theory of Leadership." Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2_TSeptember, 1966), 240.

 

Brown, Alan F. "Reactions to Leadership." Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Winter,
1967), 62-73.

Brown, Alan F. "Reactions to Leadership." Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Winter,
1967), 64-65.

122

Brown, Alan F. "Research in Organizational Dynamics:
Implications for School Administrators." The
Journal of Educational Administration, VolT_5,
No. 1 (May, 1967), 46.

Coutu, Walter. "Role Playing vs Role Taking: An Appeal
for Clarification." American Sociological Review,
Vol. 16, No. 1 (February, 1951), 180-187.

 

Cowley, William H. "Three Distinctions in the Study of
Leaders." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psye
chology, Vol. 23, No. 2 (1928), 144-157.

 

Cowley, William H. "Don of Higher Educationists: In
Search of a Discipline." College and University
Business, Vol. 46, No. 6 (June, 1969), 21.

 

 

Croft, John C. "Dogmatism and Perceptions of Leader
Behavior." Educational Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 1, No. 3 (Autumn, 1965), 60-61.

 

Dawson, Eugene E. "To Lead or Not to Lead." Adult Leader-
ship, Vol. 11, No. 10 (April, 1963), 303.

 

Day, David E. and George, Louise Y. "Effecting Change in
Inner City Schools: Some Reflections." The
Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 39, No. I—TWinter,
l970),14:

 

Doolittle, Lawrence W. "Needed: Teachers of Teaching."
Educational Leadership, Vol. 24, No. 7 (April,
1967), 624-629.

 

Educational Research Service. "Decentralization and Com-
munity Involvement: A Status Report." Educational
Research Service, No. 7 (November, 1969), 1.

 

 

Elam, Stanley M. "The City is the Frontier." Phi Delta
Kappan, Vol. 48, No. 7 (1967), 305.

 

French, John R. P. "The Disruption and Cohesion of Groups."
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 36,
(July, 1941), 376.

 

Gibb, Cecil A. "The Research Background of an Interaction
Theory of Leadership." Australian Journal of Psy-

 

123

Gibb, Cecil A. "The Principles and Traits of Leadership."
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 42,
No. 3 (July, 1947), 267-284.

Gross, Neal and Herriott, Robert E. "The EPL of Elementary
Principals." The National Elementary Principal,
Vol. 45, No. 5 (April, 1966), 66.

Halpin, Andrew W. "The Behavior of Leaders." Educational
Leadership, Vol. 14, No. 1 (December, 1956), 173.

 

Halpin, Andrew W. The Leadership Behavior of School Super-
intendents. Columbus,’Ohio: Ohio State University
Press, 1956.

 

Hines, V. A. and Grobman, Hulda. "What a Principal Does,
Matters." Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 37, No. 8 (April,
1956), 308.

 

Hopper, Robert L. and Bills, Robert E. "What's a Good
Administrator Made of?" The School Executive,
Vol. 74, No. 3 (March, 1955), 93-95.

Jackson, Jay M. "The Effect of Changing the Leadership of
Small Work Groups." Human Relations, Vol. 6, No. 1
(January, 1953), 25-44.

 

Jones, John P. "Changing Patterns of Leadership." Person-
nel, Vol. 44, No. 2 (March-April, 1967), 13.

Mark, Chester; Schmuck, Richard; and Lippett, Ronald.
"The Principal's Role in Facilitating Innovation."
Theory Into Practice, Vol. 2, No. 5 (December,
1963), 269-277.

 

McGregor, Douglas. "Your Words Tell What You Are." Nation's

 

Business, Vol. 50, No. 10 (October, 1962), 108.

 

Stogdill, Ralph M. "Personal Factors Associated with Leader-
ship: A Survey of the Literature." Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 1 (January, I948), 35-36.

 

Stogdill, Ralph M.; Goode, O. 8.; Day, D. R. "New Leader
Behavior Description Subscale." The Journal of
ngchology, Vol. 54, No. 2 (October, 1962), 259—269.

 

124

Stogdill, Ralph M.; Goode, O. 8.; Day, D. R. "The Leader
Behavior of United States Senators."

The Journal
of Psychology, Vol. 54, No. 1 (July, 19637, 3-8.

Stogdill, Ralph M.; Goode, O. 8.; Day, D. R.

 

"The Leader
Behavior of Corporation Presidents." Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Summer, 1963), 127-132.

Vroom, Victor H. "The Effects of Attitudes on Perception
of Organizational Goals."

Human Relations, Vol. 13,
No. 3 (August, 1960), 229-240.

Unpublished Material

Fearing, Joseph L. "Principal-Faculty Perceptions of
Certain Common and Observable Role Behaviors of

the Elementary School Principal." Unpublished
Doctor's dissertation, Colorado State College,
1963.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE--FORM XII

Originated by staff members of
The Ohio State Leadership Studies
and revised by the

Bureau of Business Research

Purpose of the Questionnaire

On the following pages is a list of items that may be used
to describe the behavior of your supervisor. Each item
describes a Specific kind of behavior, but does not ask

you to judge whether the behavior is desirable or undesir-
able. Although some items may appear similar, they express
differences that are important in the description of lead-
ership. Each item should be considered as a separate de-
scription. This is not a test of ability or consistency in
making answers. Its only purpose is to make it possible
for you to describe, as accurately as you can, the behavior
of your supervisor. ‘

Note: The term, "group," as employed in the following
1tems, refers to a department, division, or other unit of
organization that is supervised by the person being described.

The term "members," refers to all the people in the unit of
”Organization that is supervised by the person being described.

Published by
Bureau of Business Research
’ College of Commerce and Administration
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio

C°pyright.1962

125

126

DIRECTIONS:
a. READ each item carefully.

b. THINK about how frequently the leader engages
in the behavior described by the item.

c. DECIDE whether he (A) always, (B) often,
(C) occasionally, (D) seldom or (E) never
acts as described by the item.

d. DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters
(A B C D E) following the item to show.the
answer you have selected.

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

e. MARK your answers as shown in the examples
below. ’

Example: He often acts as described. .. A C D E
Example: He never acts as described. A B C D @
E

Example: He occasionally acts as described A B (E) D

 

1. He acts as the spokesman of the group.. A B C D E

2. He waits patiently for the results \
OfadeCiSion..0.00IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOA B C D E

3. He makes pep talks to stimulate the
group.OIOOOOOOI...OOOOOIOOIOIOOOOOOOOOOA B C D E

4. He lets group members know what is
expected Of them.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOA B C D E

5. He allows the members complete
freedom in their work.................. A B C D E

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.
17.

18.

19.

20.

127

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

He is hesitant about taking
initiative in the group...............

He is friendly and approachable.......
He encourages overtime work...........
He makes accurate decisions...........

He gets along well with the people
above himOOOIOO0.0000IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

He publicizes the activities
Of the group.0......IOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

He becomes anxious when he cannot
find out what is coming next..........

His arguments are convincing..........

He encourages the use of
uniform procedures....................

He permits the members to use their
own judgment in solving problems......

He fails to take necessary action.....

He does little things to make it
pleasant to be a member of the group..

He stresses being ahead of competing
grOUPSoooooncoco.coco-000.00.000.00...

He keeps the group working together
asateamOOOOIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

He keeps the group in good standing
With higher authoritY0.0000IIOOOOOOOOO

W 3’ w 3’

A

I'D w tn w

0000

UUU U

MIMI?! (3.1

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.
29.

30.

31.

32.

33.
34.

35.

128

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

He speaks as the representative
Of the group..OIOOOIOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOI.

He accepts defeat in stride...........

He argues persuasively for his point
0fVieWOIVOOO.0...OOOOIOOOOOIOOOOCOCOOO

He tries out his ideas in the group...

He encourages initiative in the
groupmemberSOOIOOOOOIOOOOIOOOOIIOOOO.

He lets other persons take away his
leadership in the group...............

He puts suggestions made by the
group into operation..................

He needles members for greater effort.

He seems able to predict what is
coming next.OOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.

He is working hard for a promotion....

He speaks for the group when
visitors are present..................

He accepts delays without becoming

upsetOIOIOOOOO00.000.000.000...0......

He is a very persuasive talker........

He makes his attitudes clear
to the group..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOI.

He lets the members do their work
the way they think beStooooooooooooooo

129

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

36. He lets some members take advantage

Of himOIOIOOOOOOIOIOIOOOOOOOIOOIIOOOOO

37. He treats all group members as his
equalSIOOO0......OOIOOOOOOOOOIIOOOOOOO

38. He keeps the work moving at a rapid

paceOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOIIOOOO

39. He settles conflicts when they occur
in the group...OOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOIOI.

40. His superiors act favorably on most
of his suggestions....................

41. He represents the group at outside
meetings.0.0.0.0...OOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

42. He becomes anxious when waiting
for new develOpmentS.....o.o.....‘.....

43. He is very skillful in an agrument....

44. He decides what shall be done and
hOW it Shall be doneooooooooooodoooooo

45. He assigns a task, then lets the
members handle itOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

46. He is the leader of the group in
nme onlYOOOOOO0.00000000000000000000I

47. He gives advance notice of changes....
48. He pushes for increased production....

49. Things usually turn out as he
prediCtSoooooooo00000000000000.0000...

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.
58.
59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

130

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

He enjoys the privileges of his
pOSitionOOIOOOOOOOOI0.0.000...00......

He handles complex problems
effiCient1y0000.IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOO.

He is able to tolerate postponement
and uncertaintY0.00.000000000000000...

He is not a very convincing talker....

He assigns group members to particular

taSkSO0......OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOC

He turns the members loose on a job,
and lets them go to it................

He backs down when he ought to
Stand fimOO0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

He keeps to himself...................
He asks the members to work harder....

He is accurate in predicting the
trend Of eventSOOOOOOOO00.00.00.000...

He gets his superiors to act for the
welfare of the group members..........

He gets swamped by details............

He can wait just so long, then
blows upOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

He Speaks from a strong inner
conVictiOROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

A

A

 

 

{‘E
Li.
J

 

131

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

64. He makes sure that his part in the
group is understood by the group
memberSOOOIOO0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOIOOOOO

65. He is reluctant to allow the members
any freedom of action.................

66. He lets some members have authority
that he should keep...................

67. He looks out for the personal welfare
Of groupmemberSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOEOOOO

68. He permits the members to take it
easy in their work....................

69. He sees to it that the work of the
group is coordinated..................

70. His word carries weight with his
superiors.0....OOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOO...

71. He gets things all tangled up.........

72. He remains calm when uncertain about
coming eventSIOOOOOCOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOO

73. He is an inspiring talker.............
74. He schedules the work to be done......

75. He allows the group a high degree
Of initiativeIOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIO

76. He takes full charge when emergencies

ariseOOOOOO...OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOIIOOOI

77. He is willing to make changes.........

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.
88.

89.

90.
91.

132

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

He drives hard when there is a job
to be done.000......OOIOOOIOOOOOOOOOO.

He helps group members settle their
differences...IOOOOIOOIOOOOOOOOIOOOOOO

He gets what he asks for from his
superiorSIO0..OOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

He can reduce a madhouse to system
and order.0..OOOOODOOOOIIOIOOOOOIOOOOO

He is able to delay action until the
proper time occurs....................

He persuades others that his ideas
are to their advantage................

He maintains definite standards of
performance.IOCOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0....0..

He trusts the members to exercise
gOOd judment...OIOOOOOIOOOOIOIOOOI...

He overcomes attempts made to
challenge his leadership..............

He refuses to explain his actions.....

He urges the group to beat its
preViouS record.OOIOOOIOOOIIODIIOOOOO.

He anticipates problems and plans
for them...OOOOOOOOOOIIOOOOIIO00......

He is working his way to the top......

He gets confused when too many
demands are made of him...............

133

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

92. He worries about the outcome of
any new procedure.....................

93. He can inspire enthusiasm for a
prOjeCtooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

94. He asks that group members follow
standard rules and regulations........

95. He permits the group to set its
own‘paceOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOIIOOOO00....

96. He is easily recognized as the
leader Of the group.....OOIOOOOOOIOOIO

97. He acts without consulting the group..

98. He keeps the group working up to
capaCitYOIOIOOOOOOOO0.0000000000000000

99. He maintains a closely knit group.....

100. He maintains cordial relations with
superiors...IOOOOOOOOIIOOOOOO0.0.0....

LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE--FOR.M XII SELF

Originated by staff members of
The Ohio State Leadership Studies
and revised by the
Bureau of Business Research
On the following pages is a list of items that may
be used to describe how you behave as a leader. This is
not a test of ability. It simply asks you to describe as

accurately as you can, how you behave as a leader of the

group that you supervise.

Note: The term, "group," as employed in the.
following items, refers to a department, division, unit,
or collection of peOple that you supervise.

The term "members," refers to all the people in
the unit that you supervise.

Published by
Bureau of Business Research
College of Commerce and Administration

The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio

Copyright 1962

134

 

DIRECTIONS:
a. READ each item carefully.
b. THINK about how frequently you engage in
the behavior described by the item.
c. DECIDE whether you (A) Always, (B) Often,
(C) Occasionally, (D) Seldom or (E) Never
act as described by the item.
d. DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters
(A B C D E) following the item to show the
answer-you have selected.
A = Always
B = Often
C = Occasionally
D = Seldom
E = Never
e. MARK your answers as shown in the examples
below.
Example: I often act as described A C D E
Example: I never act as described A B C D (E)
Example: I occasionally act as described A B (:) D E

135

 

l. I act as the spokesman of the group.... A B C D E

2. I wait patiently for the results of
adeCiSionOOOI00......OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOA B C D E

3. I make pep talks to stimulate the
group.000......0000000OOOOOIIOOOOOO0.0..A B C D E

4. I let group members know what is
expected Of themOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.A B C D E

11.

12.

13.
14.

15.

16.
17.

18.

19.

136

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

I allow the members complete
freedom in their work.................

I am hesitant about taking initiative
in the group..OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO

I am friendly and approachable........
I encourage overtime work.............
I make accurate decisions.............

I get along well with the people
aboveme...OOOOOOIOOOOOOO0.0.0.0000...

I publicize the activities of the

group.0.0000.0.00.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I become anxious when I cannot find
out what is coming next...............

My arguments are convincing...........

I encourage the use of uniform
Procedures.0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I permit the members to use their
own judgment in solving problems......

I fail to take necessary action.......

I do little things to make it
pleasant to be a member of the group..

I stress being ahead of competing
grouPSOO0.0.0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOO

I keep the group working together
asatem.OO...OOOOOOIIIIOOOIOOOOOOOO.

V 3’ F 3*

A

w cu m w

0000

U U U U

['11 (:11 (:11 t1!

47.-“1

Bf”. _ .._

137

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

20. I keep the group in good standing
with higher authority.................

21. I speak as the representative of
the group.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

22. I accept defeat in stride.............

23. I argue persuasively for my point
Of VieWOOO..0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

24. I try out my ideas in the group.......

25. I encourage initiative in the group
melnberSOOOOO0.000IOOOOOOOOIOOIOOOOO...

26. I let other persons take away my
leadership in the group...............

27. I put suggestions made by the group
into operationOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOIIOOOOOI.

28. I needle members for greater effort...

29. I am able to predict what is coming

neXtoooso.no...ooooooooooooooooooooooo

30. I am working hard for a promotion.....

31. I speak for the group when visitors
are present...OOOOOOOIOOOOIOOOOOIOOOOO

32. I accept delays without becoming

upsetOOOOOOOOOIOIOOOOO00.00.000.000...
33. I am a very persuasive talker.........

34. I make my attitudes clear to the

group.....OOOOOOOOI...OOOOOOOIOOOOOOOO

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.
44.

45.

46.

47.

48.
49.

138

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

I let the members do their work
the way they think best...............

I let some members take advantage

Ofme...0.......QOOOOOOIOOOOIOOIOCOOOO

I treat all group members as my equal.

I keep the work moving at a rapid

paceIOOIOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOO

I settle conflicts when they occur
in the group...OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

My superiors act favorably on most
of my suggestions.....................

I represent the group at outside
meetingSOO...0......OOOOOOOOOOOIOOOIO.

I become anxious when waiting for new
developmentSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOO

I am very skillful in an agrument.....

I decide what shall be done and how
it Shall be done...OOOOOOOIOOOOOIIIOOO

I assign a task, then let the members
handle it...I.OOIOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I am the leader of the group in name

onlYOOO0.0......IOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOIOOO

I give advance notice of changes......

I push for increased production.......

Things usually turn out as I predict..

» > 3' 3’

U U U U

00 O O

U U U U

M E! In M

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.
58.

59.

60.

61.
62.

63.

64.

139

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

I enjoy the privileges of my
pOSition.O0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOIIOOOOOO

I handle complex problems efficiently.

I am able to tolerate postponement
and uncertainty.......................

I am not a very convincing talker.....

I assign group members to particular

taSkSIO...OOIOOIOOOIOOOOO0.0.0.0000...

I turn the members loose on a job,
and let them go to itOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I back down when I ought to stand‘

fimI.O..0.0.0.0.0....0.00.00.00.00...

I keep to myself......................
I ask the members to work harder......

I am accurate in predicting the trend
Of eventSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOIOIIOOOOOO.

I get my superiors to act for the wel-
fare of the group members.............

I get swamped by details..............
I can wait just so long, then blow up.

I speak from a strong inner
conVictionOOOIOOOOIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

I make sure that my part in the group
is understood by the group members....

A

A

A

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.
74.
75.

76.

77.
78.

79.

140

Always

Often

Occasionally
.Seldom

Never

m t: 0 cm V
II

I am reluctant to allow the members
any freedom Of actionOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI

I let some members have authority
that I should keep....................

I look out for the personal welfare of
group memberSOOOOOIIOOOOOOIOOOOIOIIOOI

I permit the members to take it easy
in their work.IDIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I see to it that the work of the
group is coordinated..................

My word carries weight with my
superiorSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOIOOOOOI.

I get things all tangled up...........

I remain calm when uncertain about.
coming events.IIOOOOIOOOIOIOOOOOOIOOOO

I am an inspiring talker..............
I schedule the work to be done........

I allow the group a high degree of
initiative............................

I take full charge when emergencies

arise.‘COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOO000......

I am willing to make changes..........

I drive hard when there is a job
to be done.0.0.00000IOIOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO

I help group members settle their
differenceSOOOIOOOOOOIOOOIOOOOOOOOOOI.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

141

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

I get what I ask for from my
superiorSOOOOOO0.000000000000000000IO.

I can reduce a madhouse to system
and orderOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0000...

I am able to delay action until the
proper time OCCUI’S.........‘...........

I persuade others that my ideas are
to their advantage....................

I maintain definite standards of
perfomanceOOOOIC‘IOO00.0.0000000000000

I trust the members to exercise
900d judgmentOIIOIIOOOOOOOOOQOOOIOOOOO

I overcome attempts made to challenge
my leader-Ship.OOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO.

I refuse to explain my actions........

I urge the group to beat its
previous record.......................

I anticipate problems and plan for

themOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOQO

I am working my way to the top........

I get confused when too many
demands are made of me................

I worry about the outcome of any
new procedure.OIIOOOIOOOOOOOOOOIOIOIOO

I can inspire enthusiasm for a project

A

142

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

94. I ask that group members follow
standard rules and regulations........

95. I permit the group to set its own

pace...‘O0.0.0.0.000...0.00.00.00.000.

96. I am easily recognized as the
leader of the group...................

97. I act without consulting the group....

98. I keep the group working up to
capaCitYIOOOOIOOOOOOOIOOOOIOOOOIOOOOOO

99. I maintain a closely knit group.......

100. I maintain cordial relations with
superiorSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOO.

IDEAL LEADER BEHAVIOR--FORM XII
(What you Expect of Your Leader)

Originated by staff members of
The Ohio State Leadership Studies
and revised by
Studies in Leadership and Organization

On the following pages is a list of items that
may be used to describe the behavior of your supervisor,
as you think he should act. This is not a test of
ability. It semply asks you to describe what an ideal
leader ought to do in supervising his group.

Note: The term, "group," as employed in the following
items, refers to a department, division, or other unit
of organization which is supervised by the leader.

Published by
Center for Business and Economic Research
College of Administrative Science

The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210

Copyright 1962 OSU

143

144

DIRECTIONS:
a. READ each item carefully.

b. THINK about how frequently the leader
SHOULD engage in the behavior described
by the item.

c. DECIDE whether he SHOULD always, often,
occasionally, seldom or never act as described
by the item.

d. DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters
following the item to show the answer you
have selected.

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

What the IDEAL leader SHOULD do:

1. Act as the spokesman of the group...... A B C D E

2. Wait patiently for the results of a
deCiSionO00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...OIA B C D E

3. Make pep talks to stimulate the group.. A B C D E

4. Let group members know what is expected
Of them.I.OI.0.0IIOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOI...A B C D E

5. Allow the members complete freedom in
their workOOOOCOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOIOOI...A B C D E

6. Be hesitant about taking initiative
in the group..I0.0IIOOOIIIOOOOOIOOOOOOOA B C D E

7. Be friendly and approachable........... A B C D E

8. Encourage overtime work................ A B C D E

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

145

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

Make accurate decisions................

Get along well with the peOple above

himOIOOO0..00......OCOOIOOOOOOOCDOOOOOO

Publicize the activities of the group.

Become anxious when he cannot find
out what is coming next...............

Be convincing in his arguments........

Encourage the use of uniform
procedures............................

Permit the members to use their own
judgment in solving problems..........

Fail to take necessary action.........

Do little things to make it pleasant
to be a member of the group...........

Stress being ahed of competing groups.

Keep the group working together as

ateam.0..0..OIOIOOOOIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Keep the group in good standing with
higher authoritYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIO

Speak as the representative of the

group.....o...‘OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Accept defeat in stride...............

Argue persuasively for his point
Of VieWOOOOOIIOOOIO0.0.00.0.0...00....

A

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.
33.
34.

35.

36.

37.
38.

39.

146

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

Try out his ideas in the group........

Encourage initiative in the group
melnbers..0.00....OIIOOOOOOIOOOOIOOOOO.

Let other persons take away his
leadership in the group...............

Put suggestions made by the group
into operation.OOOOOOOOIOOOOOIOOOOOOO.

Needle members for greater effort.....

Be able to predict what is coming

nextOOOOOO0.0.0.0000...IIOOOCOCIOOOOOO

Be working hard for a promotion.......

Speak for the group when visitors
are presentOIOOCIOOOOOOOOOOOOI0.0.0...

Accept delays without becoming upset..
Be a very persuasive talker...........
Make his attitudes clear to the group.

Let the members do their work the way
they think best.OOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOIOOO

Let some members take advantage of

himOOOOO000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIIIOOO

Treat all group members as his equals.
Keep the work moving at a rapid pace..

Settle conflicts when they occur
in tile group....OIOOI...0.00.00.00.00.

W 3’ iv W

A

U1

w (I! U1 Cd

0

0000

U U U 0

F1

b1 F1 M Di

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.
48.
49.
50.
51.

52.

53.

54.

147

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

Get his superiors to act favorably
on most of his suggestions............

Represent the group at outside
meetingSOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOIOOOIOOO

Become anxious when waiting for new
developments.OOIOIOOOOIOOOOIOOIIOI.0..

Be very skillful in an argument.......

Decide what shall be done and how
it Shall be doneOCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO

Assign a task, then lets the members
handle it...IIIOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOIOOOOI.

Be the leader of the group in name

onJ-YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIOOIIOOOOOOOOOOOO

Give advance notice of changes........
Push for increased production.........
How things turn out as he predicts....
Enjoy the privileges of his position..
Handle complex problems efficiently...

Be able to tolerate postponement and
uncertaintYOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Not be a convincing talker............

Assign group members to particular

taSkSOOOOIOO0.0.0.0....IOOOOOOIOOOOOOO

V 3’ w 3’ :5 V

w w w II!

CD

000000

0

U U U U DO

U

['11 M ['11 ["1 L11 [11

IF!

55.

56.

57.
58.

59.

60.

61.
62.
63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

148

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

Turn the members loose on a job,
and let them go to it.................

Back down when he ought to stand

firm.0.000.0..COOOOIICOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOI

Keep to himselfOOOIOOIIOOOOOOO0......O
Ask the members to work harder........

Be accurate in predicting the trend
Of events.C....OOOIOOOOOCOCOIOOOOOOOI.

Get his superiors to act for the
welfare of the group members..........

Get swamped by details................
Wait just so long, then blow up.......
Speak from a strong inner conviction..

Make sure that his part in the group
is understood by the group members....

Be reluctant to allow the members any
freedom Of action.............OCCCOOC.

Let some members have authority that
he Should keePOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOIOOOOO

Look out for the personal welfare
Of group members.IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.

Permit the members to take it easy
in their workOOOOIOOOOOOOOC0.00.0.0...

See to it that the work of the group
is coordinatedOOOOOUOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOIO

U1 II! :11 [II

0000

UUU

U

E1 [:11 M M

70.

71.

72.

73.
74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

149

Always
Often
Occasionally
= Seldom

Never

MUOII13’
ll

How his word carry weight with his
superiorSOOOOOQOIOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOIOOOO'

Get things all tangled up. 0 O I O O O O O O O O O

Remain calm when uncertain about
coming events.OOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO...

Be an inSpiring talker................
Schedule the work to be done..........

Allow the group a high degree of
initiativeOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Take full charge when emergencies

ariseOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0....

Be willing to make changes............

Drive hard when there is a job to
be doneOOOOOOIOOOOIOOOOOOOOOIOOII.O...

Help group members settle their
differenceSOOCO0.0000000000000000.0...

Get what he asks for from his
superiorSOOO0.000000000000000000000000

Be able to reduce a madhouse to
system and orderOOOOOIOOOOOOIOOOI.0...

Be able to delay action until the
proper time occurs....................

Persuade others that his ideas are
to their advantage....................

Maintain definite standards of
performance...OIOOOOOOOOO0.......00...

85.

86.

87.
88.

89.

90.
91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.
98.
99.
100.

150

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

Trust the members to exercise good
judgmentOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOO.

Overcome attempts made to challenge
his leaderShipIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOODO

Refuse to explain his actions.........

Urge the group to beat its previous
recordOOOOOO0.0000000000IOOOOOOIOOOOOO

Anticipate problems and plans for

themOOO..0.I.OOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Be working his way to the top.........

Get confused when too many demands
are made of him.......................

Worry about the outcome of any new
procedure.00.0.0000...OIOOOIOOOOOOOOOO

Inspire enthusiasm for a project......

Ask that group members follow
standard rules and regulations........

Permit the group to set its own pace..

Be easily recognized as the leader
Of the group.....OOIOOOOOO0.0.0.0....O

Act without consulting the group......
Keep the group working up to capacity.
Maintain a closely knit group.........

Maintain cordial relations with
superiorSOOOIOOOOOOOOIOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOO

» 3’ iv »

U1 w (I! w

0000

U

UUUU

MM [:11 M

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

A REQUEST TO CONDUCT A Ph.D. DISSERTATION STUDY IN
THE GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM

FEBRUARY 22, 1971
SUBMITTED BY:

John Dow, Jr.

151

152

Title of Stud : A Comparative Study of Inner-City Elemen-
tary ScfiooI Teachers‘ and Principals' Perceptions Of and
ZRole Expectations For The Leadership Behavior of Selected
Inner-City Elementary Principals.

Statement of Project: Previous studies have demonstrated
that leaders’In different fields face various expectations
for the positions in which they occupy. Thus, enhancing
the possibilities of conflict between the leader and the
subjects with whom he interacts and/or supervises. There
is considerable evidence that supports the notion that the
principal plays an important role in successful schools.
The inner-city elementary principal is expected to provide
leadership in his school and his job is a demanding and
crucial position in urban school districts throughout
America. In order to plan effective pre-service and in-
service programs and minimize potential conflict, studies,
investigating the inner-city teachers' and principals' ex-
pectations for the leader behavior of inner-city principals
is needed. '

Method and Procedure: Twelve inner-city elementary schools
are necessary fOr the study. The researcher will randomly
sample for six schools among the nine inner-city elementary
schools administered by black principals as well as six
schools among the nine inner-city elementary schools admin-
istered by white principals. All teachers and principals
at the twelve schools will be asked to participate in the
study as total staffs. An eighty item questionnaire will
be used to gather the data from participants. Inner-city
principals and teachers will receive a letter from the

researcher asking for their cooperation and participation
in the study.

Anonymity: All individual teacher and principal responses,
as well as school names, will not be used in the final
reporting of the data. AlI data will be used as group

data and all individual responses will be held in strict
confidence.

John Dow, Jr.

153

February 22, 1971

Dear Principal and Faculty:

The purpose of this letter is to invite you to participate
in a research study which I am prOposing as the basis for
my doctoral dissertation. The study is intended to con-
tribute to the understanding of one characteristic of an
organization, namely, "leadership."

Specifically, the study intends to look at the leadership
behavior of selected inner-city elementary school princi-
pals as viewed by inner—city elementary teachers and prin-
cipals. The data necessary to measure leadership behavior
of principals among the elementary schools in this study
will best be obtained from teacher and principal responses
on four dimensions of an instrument known as the Leader
Behavior Description Questionnaire.

 

It is your help in this part of the study which I am re-
questing. The reliability of the leader behavior data
depends upon a near 100 per cent response by each teacher
and principal on the staff at each elementary school sel-
ected for the study.

I realize that school people, particularly elementary
teachers and principals, are extremely busy at this time
of year. This project, therefore, has been organized to
require a minimum of your time and still obtain the maxi-
mum benefit. The average time for each teacher and prin-
cipal to complete this revised version of the Leader
Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) shouId 5e no
longer than 26-30 minutes.

 

In the design of this study, particular attention has been
given to insuring the confidentiality of the data and the
anonymity of all individual respondents. Individual teacher
and principal responses will not be identified and the
schools involved in the study will not be referred to by
name in the dissertation. All data will be treated as
group data and schools will be identified only by code

. . . Example: school no. 1, school no. 2, etc. The
inner-city elementary principals have been informed by

the proper school officials of my being granted permission
to conduct this study. The GREA is also aware of this
study (see attached note from Mr. Dave Thompson, Execu-
tive Director of the GREA).

154

Twelve inner-city elementary schools and their staffs

have been randomly selected for this study and your
cooperation and consent to participate as a total staff
will be greatly appreciated. I will be calling on your
principal in the next few days with regard to the decision
of the staff to participate as a total staff.

I will deliver the necessary directions, instructions
and materials immediately upon the knowledge of those
individuals willing to participate. May I emphasize
again that individual teacher and principal responses
and school names will not be identified or reported in
this study.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely yours,

John Dow, Jr.

Ann-a; g A'Al‘l". L i

 

 

. I

. . A

 

 

G. R. E. A.

GRAND RAPIDS EDUCA‘IION ASSOCIATION Dovld l. Thompson, Exocotlvo OltocIOt

G.II.E.A. Building—4020 Eastern Avenue, S.E.—Grand Rapids, Michigan 49508—Phono 245-3625

February 22, 1971

Dear Staff Members:

This letter comes as a follow-up to some discussion I had with
building representatives at the last GREA Representative
Assembly meeting. John Dow, a former teacher and presently an
administrator who is on leave of absence for study, called me
earlier today to request your help in a survey he is conducting.
While I recognize, as you do, that there are many different
kinds of administrators, John rated as one of the best in our
book and it is for this reason I agreed to enclose a note with
this material seeking your cooperation.

Mr. Dow is involved in a research study project concerning the
relationship between building principals and staffs in thirteen
schools across the district. I hope that you will be willing

to take part and that your responses will be frank and to the
point. This information, when completed, may also be valuable
to us as teachers in determining how we tend to view the leader-
ship being offered in our school system.

Your name will not be used in any way and it should be under—
stood by everyone that this questionnaire is confidential. We
would like to ge your cooperation in this project.

    
 
 

  

L. Thompson
tive Director

155

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

I773 court: cannot sou)
COLUMBUS, onto 43210

(”1.1.803 OF Tuullumzr (nu-293 IIZO
ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE

 

DIVISION OF RESEARCH

 

moon/m son ssssum IN I
leADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION February 11, 1971

Mr. John Dow
1636-D

Spartan Village
East Lansing, Michigan h8823

.-

Dear Mr. Dow:

You have our permission to use the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire in your doctoral research.

Since the questionnaire is cepyrighted by The Ohio State
University, we also grant permission to the university
Microfilms Library Services to duplicate it when it is
included as an appendix in.your dissertation. we suggest
that you file a cepy of this letter in order that it will
be available when requested after your dissertation is
completed., The address of the microfilm service, which
duplicates filed dissertations is as follows:

University Microfilms Library Services
Xerox Corporation
Ann Arbor, Michigan #8106

Sincerely, a

(7%”:-

Ralph M. Stogdil
Director

  

IMMS/az

156

157

STATEMENT OF POLICY

Concerning the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire
and Related Forms

Permission is granted without formal request to
use the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire and
other related forms developed at The Ohio State University,
subject to the following conditions:

1. Use: The forms may be used in research
EEBjects. They may not be used for pro-
motional activities or for producing in-
come on behalf of individuals or organ-
izations other than The Ohio State Univer-
sity.

2. Adaptation and Revision: The directions
and the fOrm of the items may be adapted
to specific situations when such steps are
considered desirable.

3. Du lication: Sufficient copies for a
specific research project may be duplicated.

4. Inclusion in dissertations: COpies of the
questionnaire may'be included in theses and
dissertations. Permission is granted for
the duplication of such dissertations when

filed with the University Microfilms Service
at Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48106.

 

 

5. Co ri ht: In granting permission to modify
or EupIicate the questionnaire, we do not

surrender our copyright. Duplicated question-
naires and all adaptations should contain the
notation "COpyright, 19—-, by The Ohio State
University." -

6. Inquiries: Communications should be addressed
to:
Center for Business and Economic Research
The Ohio State University
1775 South College Road
Columbus, Ohio 43210

 

APPENDIX C

x A. -mJ-A-‘L‘I‘
:
n .

APPENDIX C

PERSONAL DATA SHEET

Please circle the appr0priate letter.

1.

Sex: (a) male (b) female

Age: (a) below 20 (b) between 20-23
(c) between 24-27 (d) between 28-31
(e) above 31

Race: (a) Black (b) white

(c) Latin American (d) Other (please write other)

Employment Status (half time or full time)

Level of experience:

How long have you been assigned to this school in
your present position:

(a) less than one school year
(b) between 1-2 school years
(c) between 3-5 school years
(d) over 5 years

Level of experience:

How many years have you taught in inner-city schools
since you started teaching (includes experiences in

other inner-city schools in Grand Rapids as well as

other school systems)?

 

158

H.-

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

159

less than one year
between 1-2 years
between 3-5 years

over 5 years

7. Level of experience:
How many years have you been a teacher?

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

less than one year
between 1-2 years
between 3-5 years
over 5 years

PART I

LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE
(revised from FORM XII)*

For Teachers

 

Dear Colleague:

On the following pages is a list of items that
may be used to describe the behavior of your principal.
Although some items may appear similar they eXpress dif-
ferences that are important to leadership. This is not
a test of ability or consistency in making answers. Its
only purpose is to make it possible for you to describe,
as accurately as you can, the behavior of your principal.

You will notice that the questionnaire is color
coded in upper right hand corner. The color code is
necessary so that questionnaires may be grouped by school
for analysis and for an indication of rate of returns.
Neither you, your principal, nor your school's name will
be identified in the reporting of the results of this
study.

Sincerely,

John Dow, Jr.

*LBDQ--Form XII COpyright 1962--By the Ohio State University

160

DIRECTIONS:

1.

2.

5.

161

PART I--TEACHERS

READ each item carefully.

THINK about how frequently your principal
engages in the behavior described by the
item.

DECIDE whether he (A) very frequently,
(B) often, (C) occasionally, (D) seldom,
(E) very rarely acts as described by them.

DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters
(A B C D E) following the item to show the
answer yothave selected.

Very Frequently
Often
Occasionally
Seldom

Very Rarely

m (J 0 cu a
ll

MARK your answers as shown below.

Example: He often acts as described........A C D

Example:

Example:

He very rarely acts as described..A B C D (:>

He occasionally acts as described.A B(:) D

 

My Principal:

l. lets the teachers know what is ex-
pected of them......................... A B C D E

2. allows the teachers complete freedom
in their workOOOOIOOOIOOOOOIIOOOOOO0.0.A B C D E

 

 

 

34...... L. 1.0,...
F: . .1..ng

 

 

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

162

PART I--TEACHERS

A = Very Frequently

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Very Rarely

principal:

is hesitant about taking initiative
With the facultYOIOOOOOOOOOOIOOIOOOOOOO

is friendly and approachable...........

encourages the use of uniform
procedures.............................

permits the teachers to use their own
judgment in solving problems...........

fails to take necessary action.........

does little things to make it pleasant
to be a member of the faculty..........

tries out his ideas with the faculty...
encourages initiative in the teachers..

lets other persons take away his
leadership in the faculty..............

puts suggestions made by the faculty
into operationOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO

makes his attitudes clear to the
faculty.II.00......OOCOOOOOOOOCOIOOOIOO

lets the teachers do their work the
way they think beStOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

lets some teachers take advantage

Of him.OOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOO.

treats all teachers as his equals......

A

163

PART I--TEACHERS

A = Very Frequently

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Very Rarely

My principal:

17.

18.

19.

20.
21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

decides what shall be done and how
it shall be done......................

assigns a task, then lets the teachers
handle itIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIOOOOOOO

is the leader of the faculty in
naIne only0000.IOOOOOOOOOOOOOI0.0.0....

gives advance notice of changes.......
assigns teachers to particular tasks..

turns the teachers loose on a job,
and lets them go to it................

backs down when he ought to stand

firmOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00....

keeps to himselfOOOOOCOOOOOOOOI0......

makes sure that his part in the
school is understood by the teachers..

is reluctant to allow the teachers
any freedom of action.................

lets some teachers have authority
that he should keep...................

looks out for the personal welfare
Of teaChers...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI

schedules the work to be done.........

allows the faculty a higher degree
Of initiatiVEOOOIOCOOQOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO

A

A

_' .‘~‘3‘¢" '" .' fl

164

PART I--TEACHERS

A = Very Frequently

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Very Rarely

My principal:

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.
37.

38.

39.

40.

takes full charge when emergencies

arise.0.0.0....OOOOOOCOIOOOOOOI’OIOOIOO

is willing to make changes............

maintains definite standards of
performance.oooodoooooooooo00.0.6.0...

trusts the teachers to exercise good
judgmentOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

overcomes attempts made to challenge
his leaderShiPOOOOOOIIOOOIIIOOOOOOOOOO

refuses to explain his actions........

asks that the teachers follow standard
rules and regulations.................

permits the faculty to set its own

pace.....OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOIOOIOOCOOOOO

is easily recognized as the leader....

acts without consulting the faculty...

'A

cl- 7- '--_
! n

165

PART II--TEACHERS

DIRECTIONS:
Please indicate on this part of the questionnaire how

you believe your principal should behave as a leader.

 

In answering these items use the same procedure as you

did in Part I.

A = Very Frequently E
B = Often i
C = Occasionally ii
D = Seldom

E

Very Rarely

 

As Principal I think that:

1. he should let the teachers know what
is expected of them.................... A B C D E

2. he should allow the teachers complete
freedom in their work.................. A B C D E

3. he should be hesitant about taking
initiative with the faculty............ A B C D E

4. he should be friendly and approachable. A B C D E

5. he should encourage the use of
uniform procedures..................... A B C D E

6. he should permit the teachers to use
their own judgment in solving problems. A B C D E

7. he should fail to take necessary
action...IC..00...OCOOOCCOOOOCOOOOCOOOOA B C D E

8. he should do little things to make it
pleasant to be a member of the faculty. A B C D E

166

PART II--TEACHERS

Very Frequently
Often

= Occasionally
Seldom

E = Very Rarely

COWS,
ll

As Principal I think that:

9. he should try out his ideas with
the facultYOO'OOIOOIOOIIOOOOOOIIOOOOOIO

10. he should encourage initiative in the
teaCherSOOOOOOOOOOOO00......0.0.0.0...

11. he should let other persons take
away his leadership in the faculty....

12. he should put suggestions made by the
faculty into actionIOOOOOOOOO0.0.0....

13. he should make his attitudes clear
to the facultYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIOOOOO0.0

14. he should let the teachers do their
work the way they think best..........

15. he should let some teachers take
advantage Of himOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOO0..

16. he should treat all teachers as
his equaISOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOIOIIOOOI...O

17. he should decide what shall be done
and how it shall be done..............

18. he should assign a task, then let
the teachers handle it................

19. he should be the leader of the
faculty in name only..................

20. he should give advance notice of
ChangeSOIOO0.0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

A

flu“ .'

167

PART II--TEACHERS

A = Very Frequently
B = Often

C = Occasionally

D = Seldom

E = Very Rarely

As Principal I think that:

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

he should assign teachers to partic-
ular taSks...0......OOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO

he should turn the teachers loose
on a job and let them go to it........

he should back down when he ought
to Stand firmOOIIOOII.09.00.000.000...

he should keep to himself.............

he should make sure that his part in
the faculty is understood by teachers.

he should be reluctant to allow the
teachers any freedom of action........

he should let some teachers have
authority that he should keep.........

he should look out for the personal
welfare of his teachers...............

he should schedule the work to be

done...I...0.0.0....OOIOOOOOOOOOIIOOOO

he should allow the faculty a high
degree of initiative..................

he should take full charge when
emergencies arise.....................

he should be willing to make changes..

he should maintain definite standards
Of performanceOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOIOOOOOIO

A

 

168

PART II--TEACHERS

Very Frequently
Often
Occasionally

= Seldom

E = Very Rarely

UOUJII’
ll

As Principal I think that:

34. he should trust the teachers to
exercise good judgment................ A

35. he should overcome attempts made
to challenge his leadership........... A

36. he should refuse to explain his
actionso..0.0.00000000000000000000000.A

37. he should ask that the teachers
follow standard rules and regulations. A

38. he should permit the faculty to set
its own pace.....OIOOOOO.IOOIOOOOIO...A

39. he should be easily recognized
as the leaderOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOIOOIO...A

40. he should act without consulting
the faCUItYOOIOIOIOIOOIOO0.0.0.0000...A

PART I

LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE
(revised from FORM XII)

For Principals

 

Dear Colleague:

On the following pages is a list of items that
may be used to describe your behavior as a principal.
Although some items may appear similar they express dif-
ferences that are important to leadership. This is not
a test of ability or consistency in making answers. Its
only purpose is to make it possible for you to describe,
as accuarely as you can, your behavior as principal.

You will notice that the questionnaire is color
coded in upper right hand corner. The color codes are
necessary so that questionnaires may be grouped by schools
for analysis and for an indication of rate of returns.
Neither you, your teachers, nor your school's name will
be identified in the reporting of the results of this
study.

Sincerely,
John Dow, Jr.

*LBDQ--Form XII C0pyright l962--By the Ohio State University

169

DIRECTIONS:

Example:
Example:

Example:

I occasionally act as described.. A B <:)

170

PART I--PRINCIPALS

READ each item carefully.

THINK about how frequently you engage in
the behavior described by the item.

DECIDE whether you (A) Very Frequently,

(B) Often, (C) Occasionally, (D) Seldom,
(E) Very Rarely act as described by the

item.

DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters
(A B C D E) following the item to show the
answer you have selected.

A = Very Frequently
B = Often

C = Occasionally

D = Seldom

E

= Very Rarely

MARK your answers as shown in the examples
below.

I often act as described......... A C D

I very rarely act as described... A B C D (:>

U

 

As Principal:

l. I let teachers know what is expected
Of themOOI0.0000000CCOOIIOOOOI....00...A B C D

2. I allow the teachers complete freedom
in theirwork...OOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOA B C D

1.

'A

171

PART I--PRINCIPALS

A = Very Frequently

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Very Rarely

As Principal:

3. I am hesitant about taking initiative
With the faculty.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIA B C D E

4. I am friendly and approachable........ A B C D E

 

5. I encourage the use of uniform
ProcedureSIIOOOOOIOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOA B C D E

6. I permit the teachers to use their
own judgment in solving problems...... A B C D E

7. I fail to take necessary action....... A B C D E

8. I do little things to make it pleasant
to be a member of the faculty......... A B C D E

9. I try out my ideas with the faculty... A B C D E

10. I encourage initiative in the
teaCherSOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOIOIOOOOOOIOOOOOA B C D E

11. I let other persons take away my
leadership in the faculty............. A B C D E

12. I put suggestions made by the faculty
into operation.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOA B CD E

13. I make my attitudes clear to the
faculty...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...OA B C D E

14. I let the teachers do their work the
waythey think beStCOOOO.IOOOOOOOOOIIOA B C D E

15. I let some teachers take advantage
Ofme...OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0....A B C D E

As Principal:

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.
21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

172

PART I--PRINCIPALS

A = Very Frequently
B = Often

C = Occasionally

D = Seldom

E = Very Rarely

I treat all teachers as my equals.....

I decide
it shall

I assign
teachers

I am the

what shall be done and how
be done...IOOOOOOOOOIIIOOIOO.

a task, then let the
handle itoooooooooooooooooooo

leader of the faculty

in nan‘e only...‘OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOIOOOO

I give advance notice of changes......

I assign

teachers to particular tasks.

I turn the teachers loose on a job,
and let them go to itOOOOOOOOOIIOOOOOO

I back down when I ought to stand

fim...IIOOOOOOCIOOIOOOOOQIO......O...

Ikeep to myself...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO.

I make sure that my part in the
faculty is understood by the teachers.

I am reluctant to allow the teachers
any freedom 0f aetionooooéoooooooooooo

I let some teachers have authority
thatIShould keepOIOOIOIOIDOOOOOOOOOO

I look out for the personal welfare
Of my teaCherSooooo00.006000000000000.

I schedule the work to be done........

A

A

A

173

PART I--PRINCIPALS

A = Very Frequently
B = Often

C = Occasionally

D = Seldom

E = Very Rarely

‘AS-Principal:

30.

31.

32.
33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.
40.

I allow the faculty a high degree
0f initiative...................‘....o.

I take full charge when emergenciesv

arise.O..900......OOOQOOOOOIOOOOOOOOI.

I am willing to make changes..........

I maintain definite standards of
perfomanceOIOI0.00.00.00.00...0......

I trust the teachers to exercise
gOOd jUdgmentoooooooooooooo06000000000

I overcome attempts made to challenge
my leaderShiPOOOO0.00IOOOOOOOOIOOOO...

I refuse to explain my actions........

I ask that the teachers follow
standard rules and regulations........

I permit the faculty to set its own

pace.....OOOIOQO‘OOOOOOOOOOOIOQOOOOOOO

I am easily recognized as the leader..

I act without consulting the faculty..

174

PART II--PRINCIPALS

DIRECTIONS:
Please indicate on this part of the questionnaire how

you believe you, as Principal, should behave as a leader.

 

In answering these items use the same procedure as you~

did in Part I.

A = Very Frequently
B = Often

C = Occasionally

D = Seldom

E

Very Rarely

 

As Principal:

l. I should let teachers know what is
expeCted Of themooooooooooooooooooooooo A' B C D E

2. I should allow the teachers complete
freedom in their work.................. A B C D E

3. I should be hesitant about taking
initiative with the faculty............ A B C D E

4. I should be friendly and approachable.. A B C D E

5. I should encourage the use of uniform
procedureSO0.0.000000000000000000000000A B C D E

6. I should permit the teachers to use
their own judgment in solving problems. A B C D E

7. I should fail to take necessary action. A B C D E

8. I should do little things to make it
pleasant to be a member of the faculty. A B C D E

175

PART II--PRINCIPALS

A = Very Frequently

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Very.Rare1y

As Principal:

9.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

I should try out my ideas with the
facultYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I should encourage initiative in the
teaCherSOOOOIOOOOIOOOOOIIOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I should let other persons take away
my leadership in the faculty..........

I should put suggestions made by the
faculty into operation................

I should make my attitudes clear to
the facultYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOI.OI.

I should let the teachers do their
work the way they think best..........

I should let some teachers take
advantage OfmeOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I should treat all teachers as my
equalsOIOII00.0.0.0...OIOOOOOOOIOOOOO.

I should decide what shall be done
and how it shall be done..............

I should assign a task, then let
the teachers handle it................

I should be the leader of the faculty
in name only...OOOOOOOOOOOIOOIOIOOOOO.

I should give advance notice of
ChangeSOOOO0.0.0.000000006000000......

176

PART II--PRINCIPALS

A = Very Frequently
Often
Occasionally
Seldom

Very Rarely

MUCH)
II

As Principal:

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

I should assign teachers to particular

taSks.0...O..0OOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOIOIOI

I should turn-the teachers loose on a
job and let them go to it.............

I should back down when I ought to '
Stand fimOIIOIOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOIOOOOOOO

IShOUld keep to myselfooooooooooooooo
I should make sure that my part in
the faculty is understood by the

teaCherSIOOOOOIOOOOOIQ.000060000090000

I should be reluctant to allow the
teachers any freedom of action........

I should let some teachers have
authority that I should keep..........

I should look out for the personal
welfare of any teachers...............

I should schedule the work to be done.

I should allow the faculty a high
degree Of initiativeOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....

I should take full charge when
emergenCieS ariseoooococo-9000000000..

I should be willing to make changes...

I should maintain definite standards
Of perfomanceOOOOOOOOOIIOOOOOOOOOOOOO

A

177

PART II--PRINCIPALS

A = Very Frequently
Often
Occasionally
Seldom

Very Rarely

MUCH!
ll

As Principal:

34.

35.

36.
37.

38.

39.

40.

I should trust the teachers to
exercise good judgment................

I should overcome attempts made to
challenge my leadership...............

I should refuse to explain my actions.

I should ask that the teachers follow
standard rules and regulations........

I should permit the faculty to set
its own pace.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I should be easily recognized as the
leader.O0.0.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I should act without consulting the
facultYOO0.00.00.00.00...0.0.0....O...

A

r—

nICHIan STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
W 1IIIII W W ”l “WI W W W W H" W "U W
31293101675092