INTEGRATION AND CONFLICT IN EDUCATIONAL

ORGANIZATIONS: AN EXAMINATION OF
SECONDARY SCHOOL SYSTEMS

. Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CHARLES WILLIAM GIVEN
1.969

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
Integration and Conflict in Educational

Organizations: An Examination of Secondary
School Systems
presented by

Charles William Given

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M degree in_”_g_w()_d__/_O/0; 7

 

ZZZ/99‘ fiffl

Mafgr professor?

Date 7 7’] é;

0-169

 

 

HI.

 

 

b-l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTEGRATION AND CONFLICT IN EDUCATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS: AN EXAMINATION OF
SECONDARY SCHOOL SYSTEMS

By

Charles William Given

This dissertation examines the impact of specializa-
tion and the structure of decision-making upon integra-
tion and conflict in educational organizations. Research
in secondary education has not made full use of organiza-
tional perspectives and paradigmns. In this research
schools will be treated as a type of organization employ-
ing highly trained personnel to carry out the basic
function of teaching. The relationships between teachers,
principals, and the central administration will comprise
the major focus of this study.

After a review of the organizational and educa—
tional literature concerning the concepts in question,
two general propositions were developed to guide the
inquiry, and to provide a basis for the development of
the specific hypotheses.

1. As the degree of specialization increases, the

greater the social interdependence among all

positions associated with the completion of a
series of tasks.

 

 

 

 

Charles William Given

2. As the actual decision-making roles assumed
by superordinate positions exceeds the
legitimacy extended to these positions by
subordinates, conflict will arise between
the subordinate position and each of the
superordinate positions.

Following the development of the specific hypotheses,
the concepts under study are operationalized, the methods
for gathering the data are described, and the background
characteristics of the five school districts are explored
in some detail.

The hypotheses dealing with specialization, and its
relationship to integration and conflict are tentatively
accepted. Not all findings meet the accepted levels of
significance, but there is a clear indication that speciali-
zation serves to increase horizontal as well as vertical
integration among those positions associated with the
performance of a series of tasks.

The hypotheses concerned with legitimacy and dis—
crepancies in decision-making were generally rejected.
However, it was found that legitimacy was an effective
device by which subordinates could influence the way
superiors utilized their authority. Discrepancies between
positions over decision—making tended to lower the integra-
tion between those positions. Most important was the
finding that discrepancies between teachers and super-

intendents lead to a reduction in integration between

teachers and all other positions. Thus, the higher the

I?

 

 

 

Charles William Given

position at which discrepancies occur, the more disruptive
it will be for all participants in the organization.

The conclusions from this study are that Specializa-
tion andibgitimacy must be examined within the context of
the tasks being performed by the organization. Where
tasks are complex and non—routine, specialization seems
to foster greater integration between different levels,
and to increase the legitimacy extended superordinate
positions for completing organizational tasks. It is
argued that future research must pay closer attention to
the type of tasks that participants undertake in behalf
of the organization.

The dissertation closes with an extended discussion
of the relationship between integration and conflict, and
their use in empirical research. It is strongly urged,
in light of the findings presented here, that integration
and conflict not be treated as unideminsional concepts,
with one measuring a positive aspect of a relationship
while the other measures the negative aspects. Instead
what is needed is more conceptual work dealing with the
conditions under which aspects of integration and conflict
may exist simultaneously, or, in varying degrees, depend-
ing upon the type of relationships existing among organiza—

tional participants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTEGRATION AND CONFLICT IN EDUCATIONAL

ORGANIZATIONS: AN EXAMINATION OF

SECONDARY SCHOOL SYSTEMS

By

Charles William Given

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology

1969

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are several peeple I should like to acknowl—
edge, though they have contributed in different ways,
they have been important in my life and therefore I wish
to express in some way my gratitude.

One seldom comes to pursue a subject like sociology
without first having lived in an environment where social
phenomenon and social problems were important and worthy
of discussion and debate. For such an environment I
owe much to my parents, their personal commitment to
the world around them, made me aware that social change
was possible: their openness to new ideas taught me the
importance of reasoning and logic. For this and so much
more will I always be grateful.

To my wife Barbara, I wish to express my deep
gratitude for so much. Though the strains of graduate
student life were often great, she has made these years
memorable ones which we will both recall with fond rec-
ollection. More importantly, her interest in, and under-
standing of, sociology has made it possible for me to
share my work and to enrich our relationship.

To my advisor, Dr. Philip Marcus, there is little

that I could say to express the appreciation and respect

ii

that I hold for him. Not only did he make the final year
of my graduate work an intellectually stimulating one,
but his willingness to listen to my ideas made our dis-
cussions an exciting time which were for me true learning
experiences. My respect for him as a researcher is only
exceeded by my respect for him as a kind and honest per-
son in the fullest measure of those words.

I would also like to thank the members of my commit-
tee for serving and reading the draft of this dissertation
and offering their comments.

Finally, I would like to thank Mrs. Audrey Carr
and Miss Julie Tubbs for spending long hours in working
through some of the tedious computational problems which
were involved in this dissertation. Their work was done
efficiently and correctly. I should like to recognize,

and thank them for their effort.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter

I. THE ORGANIZATION OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

II.

The Introduction to the Problem . . .

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND DEVELOPMENT
HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . .

The Special Purpose Organization . .

Specialization . . . . . . .
Differentiation of Tasks . . .
Differences Between Specialists and

Professionals . . . . . . . .

Coordination . . . . .

DeveIOpment of Coordinative Decisions
Differences Between Participation in

Decision-Making and the Making of Coordi-

native Decisions . . .

Coordination of Organizational Relationships

Coordination and Specialization . .
Coordination and Communication .
Coordination and Legitimacy . .
Integration and Conflict . . .
Background of the Concepts . .
Social Integration .
Towards a Definition of Integration .
Social Integration and Organizational
Relationships . . . . . . .
Communication . . . . .
Social Support . . . . .
Reference Groups . .
Conflict . . .
Towards a Definition of Conflict .
Statement of the Theory and of the Dave
of the Hypotheses . . . . . .

1

iv

opment

Page
ii
vi

ll

11
IA
ID

16
22
22

Chapter Page

III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND OPERATIONALIZATION OF

CONCEPTS C O O O O O O O O O O O 70
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 70
The Research Design . . . . . . . . . 71
The Sample . . . . . . . . 7A

The Measurement of the Variables and the
Effect of the District Differences Upon

Those Variables . . . . . . . . 80
The Independent Variables . . . . . . 80
Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . 95
Integration . . . . . . . . . . . 95
The Analysis Procedure . . . . . . . . 106
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

IV. SPECIALIZATION, INTEGRATION AND CONFLICT . . 108

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Background Variables . . . . . . . . . 108
Test of the Hypotheses . . . . . . . . 110
Conclusion . . . ‘. . . . . . . . . 131

V. THE LOCATION OF COORDINATIVE DECISION-MAKING
AND ITS IMPACT UPON CONFLICT AND INTEGRATION ., 135

Introduction . . . . . 135
Test of the Hypotheses on Legitimacy for
Decision-Making . . . . . 136

A Comparison of LegitimiZed Decision—Making

Roles with Actual Decision-Making Roles . . 149
Discrepancies in Decision-Making . . . . 152
Background Variables . . . . . . . . 153
Test of the Hypotheses . . . . . . . 155
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 168
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . 171
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Specialization . . . . . . . . . . 172
An Aside on Professionals in Organizations . 179
Legitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . 18A
Discrepancy . . . . . . . . 197
Integration and Conflict . . . . . . . 199
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O C O C O O O O O 220

 

 

 

Table

2.

10.

LIST OF TABLES

General characteristics of school organizations .

Social and economic characteristics of cities
comprising five school districts used in the
study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total number of usable administrative units in
grades 7-9 and 10-12 and their range of faculty
size by district . . . . . . . . . . .

Size of faculty, number of returns, and per cent
of returns by district and by school within each
district 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O 0

Per cent male, per cent teachers with three or
more years experience, and per cent teachers with
master's degree . . . . . . . . . . .

Specialization ratios and the ranks of those
ratios by school and by district . . . . . .

Rank of teacher, principal and superintendent
legitimacy scores, the rank of principal actual,
and superintendent actual on teacher legitimacy
scores, and of rank of teacher-principal dis-
crepancy score, teacher-superintendent discrepancy
score, and principal-superintendent discrepancy
score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inter-position correlation of support, communica-
tion, and reference group identification . . .

Inter-item correlations for index of integration
between support, communication and identification.

Ranks of teachers in specialty, teachers not in
specialty, principals, superintendents, super?
intendent assistants, school board, parents,

and PTA on the integration index, by district and
by school within districts . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

73

75

77

78

82

93

98

100

102

 

 

 

Table Page

11. Ranks of conflict between teachers in same sub—
Ject, between teachers and principals, between
teachers and superintendent, between teachers
and school board, between young and old
teachers, between male and female teachers by
district and by school within districts . . . 10A

12. Spearman Correlation Coefficients between
size of school, percentage of males and the
index of integration and specialization . . . 110

13. Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
between specialization and the index of
integration . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

14. Spearman Rank Older Correlation Coefficients
between integration index and the influence
which teachers have over principals, and other
teachers in their building . . . . . . . 117

15. Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
between specialization and conflict, and
between conflict and size of school and per
cent of males . . . . . . . . . . . 123

16. Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
between legitimacy scores for teachers,
principals, and superintendents, and the size
of school, the percentage of males, and the
degree of specialization . . . . . . . . 127

17. Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficient
between legitimacy scores for teachers,
principals, and superintendents, and the
index of integration . . . . . . . . . 137

18. Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
between legitimacy scores for teachers,
principals, and superintendents, and the
measure of conflict . . . . . . . . . 1A2

19. Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
between size of school and the per cent of males
and the decision-making discrepancies for:
teachers and principals, teachers and super-
intendents, and principals and super-
intendents . . . . . . . . . . . . l5II

vii

Table

20.

21.

Page

Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficient

between decision-making discrepancies for:

teachers and principals, teachers and super-
intendents, and principals and superintendents

and the measures of conflict . . . .. . . 156

Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients

between decision—making discrepancies for:

teachers and principals, teachers and super-
intendents, and principals and superintendents

and the index of integration . . . . . . 162

viii

CHAPTER I

THE ORGANIZATION OF SECONDARY

EDUCATION

The Introduction to the Problem

 

Public secondary education in the United States
has always been responsive to the economy which utilizes
the training and talents it produces. The technological
revolution, coupled with the advent of cybernation, has
fostered a new demand for technically trained personnel.
Likewise, the rapidly expanding service economy has
opened new demands for the professionally educated. As a
result variety has become the cornerstone of secondary
education. Secondary schools must prepare a balanced
curriculum, ranging from an emphasis on technical educa-
tion for the terminal degree student, to the college pre-
paratory for those-who wish to continue their education.

Martin Trow has traced the development of the
secondary school system through two successive trans-

formations.1 According to Trow, the first important

 

lMartin Trow, "The Second Transformation of American
Secondary Education," International and Comparative
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 2 (September, 1961), INA-165.

 

 

 

transformation occurred during the mid 1870's when
secondary schools began to receive an influx of students
who desired additional training in order to qualify for
positions in the emerging industrial economy. Prior to
this time secondary schools were to some extent privately
endowed and dedicatedéto training an elite group of
students who planned to continue their education in such
areas as theology, philosophy, and to a lesser extent in
the natural sciences. After 1875 a high school education
was no longer an experience for the priviledged, but was
turned into a practical program for students seeking a
higher terminal degree. During this time college pre-
paratory courses were de-emphasized, the demand for
technically trained personnel also grew, as a result
secondary schools found that they must provide a dual
curricula to satisfy both the college bound as well as
the technically oriented student. This transformation
occurred at a time of rapid increase in the numbers of
students entering high schools creating an additional
burden upon the school system.

The nexus of these events has served to produce a
considerable amount of strain in the organization of
secondary education. This specialization of teaching
personnel to meet a wider variety of societal demands,
has created a need for additional administrative per-

sonnel to coordinate and integrate a variety of

educational programs. To accommodate these changes school
organizations have specialized their personnel and
standardized many of their procedures. This raises an
important issue: to what extent can secondary school
systems be legitimately conceptualized as complex organ-
izations and thus subject to the concepts and paradigmns
found in the literature.2 Treating school systems as a
complex organization is relatively new, and research in
both areas has not been interwoven to any extent as
Bidwell admits.

Few students of organizations have turned their

attention to schools and few students of schools

have been sensitive to their organizational

attributes . . . As a result this empirical 3
literature is fragmentary and discontinuous.

Considering schools as complex organizations has
occurred only recently, though many educational researchers

have utilized concepts from the area of organizations.“

 

2David Goslin, The School in Contemporary Society

(Illinois: The Scott Foresman Co., 1965), A6-H8.

3Charles Bidwell, "The School as a Formal Organiza-
tion," Handbook of Organizations, Edited by James G.
March (New York: Rand McNally and Co., 1965), 972.

“Educational researchers have been aware of socio-
logical writings on organizations for some time. Early
theoretical pieces in educational Journals attest to this
fact. Education has preferred to incorporate organiza-
tional concepts rather than the entire paradigmn; they
have examined the relationship between principal and
teacher and the satisfaction and effectiveness of the
teaching staff. See Charles Bidwell, "Some Effects on
Teacher and Administrator Behavior: A Study in Role
Theory," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 2
(September, 1957), 163-181. Another example of this piece-
mean use is Robert E. Sweitzer, Role Expectations and
Perceptions of School Principals, A Report to the United

 

 

 

 

Ill».

 

   

 

The recent interest in examining schools as organi-
zations has come from a realization that the problems which
secondary schools face are, to a large extent, organiza-
tional in character. The size of school systems is rapidly

increasing to accommodate a wider variety of courses.

 

States Office of Education, January, 1963 (Research Foun-
dation, Oklahoma State University, Still Water, Oklahoma.)

In general, there has been a rather distinct
chronological ordering to the emergence of organizational
thinking into the educational literature. The earliest
work in this area was Willard W. Waller, The Sociology
of Teaching (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1932).
Following this work by some years was a theoretical
article by Getzels and Cuba which became the basis for
organizational research in education. J. W. Gfitzels and
E. G. Guba, "Social Behavior and the Administrative
Process," School Review, Vol. 65 (Winter, 1957), A23-AA1.
Also see R. O. Carlson "Research on the School System
as an Organization," School Review. Vol. 66 (Winter,
1958), A73.

Other studies which attempted to identify dimensions
of school organizations by examining the climates which
develop within them include Andrew Halpin, Theory and
Research in Administration (New York: The Macmillan
Co., 1966), 22-80. Another analysis of schools employing
a human relations perspective was done by Daniel Griffiths,
Human Relations in School Administration (New York:
Appleton Century Crofts, 1962)} Probably the most com-
plete empirical work done by a sociologist on the school
system as an organization is that of Corwin. See Ronald
Corwin, Development of an Instrument for Examining Staff
Conflict (Cooperative Research Project No. 193A;
Washington, D. C.: Office of Education, U. S. Department
of Health Education and Welfare, 1963). Also see his
textbook, Ronald O. Corwin, A Sociology of Education:
Emerging Patterns of Class Status and Power in the Public
Schools (New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1965).

A most thorough exploration of the relationship between
sociology and education is presented in a book of essays
edited by Robert Hanson and Joel Gerstl where the authors
explore a variety of topics concerning the area of educa-
tion. Joel Gerstl and Robert Hanson, eds, On Education-
Sociological Perspectives (New York: John Wiley and

SEns, 1957).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.malmm ..ufio .mm .coflpmozpm do mmoHoHoom < .cflzhoo camcom:

 

.mHoocom ALmUCOQom mmLmH on» do peas» mco CH new maoocom upwucmEon who no
mma :H voodoo CH ma wcficommp Emme .ooma one Nora cmozpmn mwmpsoo mocofiom new .cpme .mmmzmcmH
nomafimfiomom CH mwcfipmudo commence“ cazpmgow Lo ome no: can maoocom :mfic ofiahsd on» go “NH mace

.mEmummm Hoocow hufio CH nopmpm on» no mco ummma um 90 wmm CH mnzooo coHu
ImNHHmucmEuLmdop new pmwfiawpcmEmeoon mamuoadsoo one mHoocom swag Loficzn on» go ucoo Loo mpnom

 

coHpmNHHmwoodw

 

.wocmflom CH mpmfiamfioQO m>mc am new camse Lou mahwfifim>m mpmwamflomdm m>mc
wow pcm mOCMDmfimmm moflcuo HOLDCOO hoax Hmdfiocfind esp mUH>ond moomaq smog: ecu do wcunsoulmmnce

.mom0dL3d Hmfiowam Lou mpcsu do COHDSDHmeHU one
coflpmamfiwma cmsopcp wcfizonw ma cofiumojpm co mofiocmmm ucmECLm>om Acheson mcu do muco3HLCH one

.wcfizohw mfi wepmpcmpm new COABwoamflmeo genome» Honpcoo .E3H30przo vm>opdam cm cmHHQMDmm
.mxoonuxou mmmhonsd .mUCSL monooHHm on coflumosom mo mucmspLMQmo mumpm on» do zpfipocpjm one

.maocm HHwEm CH cohpaflco
U®QdMofipcmc o» mooH>Lom Hmflomdm once mpfl>ond Hafiz mpflcz ALMHUoELmucfl pas» mam muomdmonm

.Nmma mocfim mom zapmmc poosoop soon we: mpoHmefiU Hoocom no Lopez: 029

.coHumHSQOQ .m.: mzu 90 wow mahmmc wumozpm mEoummw Hoocom m.coflpmc on» go cansouumco

 

coflpmwflamnucmo

 

.onmomc axe: on» cfizpfiz mahsop Hafiz Logan: was» was .maflazd Hoocom QHHDSQ ooo.OON.H: one whose
.:0apmfisd0d Hepwcmm

on» can» Lmumme moEHu Lsou mcwvcaoxo ma coflmmmuoco mcficommp ecu ohm .coHpmozno ofiahsa CH mH
mmfiufiomqmo Hmcofiwmmcond CH mcfixpoz mCOmLoQ m>Hu do Lao mco .mpwoop ammo on» Lo>o mom do mmmonocfi
cm mucmmwpdmn mfice .ooo.m:o.H mpmmoxm maoozom ofiahsa CH demon HmcoHDQSmecH do honed: one
.mLODMmeHcHEUm Hoocom ofiahso moa.:oa one whose

.Locuocm Lo mufiomomU oco :fi cofiumosoo CH nowmwcm ma coflpm: on» go Rom mapmmz

 

®NHW

 

t.wCOHUwNHCMWLO HOOEOm “O mOHumHLmUUMLMEO HML®C®OII.H MJQ<B

6

This in turn is leading to increased specialization and
to greater administrative overhead. Corwin has sum—
marized a wide range of data depicting the changes which
have taken place in American school systems (see Table 1).
The development of Specialized teaching functions
along with centralized decision-making by the school
administration is for Corwin prima facie evidence that
(9 :‘ :1» ‘

schools represent a type of organization. According to
him, social units may be legitimately treated as organiza-
tions when they exhibit these two characteristics.
Drawing on the work of Weber, and other students of the
formalized relationships in organizations, he states:

But technically speaking, bureaucracy essentially

consists of two principles, coordination and

specialization. Specialization, the process of

breaking work down into standard components, is

accomplished through a hierarchy of offices which

establish spheres of delegated responsibility.

Officials are to be appointed rather than elected

to office, and they should qualify on the basis

of skill rather than social status. Thus, the

basis of an official's superiority in bureaucracy

rests both on the fact that he occupies an office

and on the fact that he has special competence.5

There is some evidence to suggest, however, that

this functional relationship between increasing speciali-
zation and more centralized decision-making may not

survive the strains of actual school system Operation.

Specialization allows teachers to focus their energies

 

SCorwin, A Sociology_of Education, 38.

 

 

 

'2';
m

 

upon one limited area of the total curriculum, at the

same time however, it engenders a set of attitudes and
promotes associations which may subvert the work of

school officials who must coordinate these specialities
into a unified educational program. Specialization also
permits the teacher to become an expert in a limited
subject matter, thus making him more able to meet a variety
of contingencies which arise on the job. But, traditionally,
specialization required increased administrative control
over the teaching situation; thus if the school is to
operate properly the teacher must be restricted from
making independent decisions which he has been trained

to exercise.

Not only does specialization create problems of
coordination but it also has an impact upon the incumbents
of specialized positions. As training becomes more
limited and more intense, teachers turn to others in their
speciality for advice and support on problems that arise
within the classroom. Administrative positions in many
cases do not possess the expertise to provide the infor-
mation teachers need to solve pertinent problems. Thus,
as teachers develop closer ties with others in the
specialty, they reduce their communication with admin—

istrators.

There is counter-argument running through the
pliterature which suggests that specialization, and the
expertise upon which it is based, does not conflict with
administrative control. In fact one author found that
teachers experienced a greater sense of power under a
more bureaucratic administration than they did in less
bureaucratic environments.6 These conflicting points of
View indicate that there is no clear association between
specialization, centralization of decision-making and
their effect upon teachers and administrators in the
school organization.

Much of the confusion surrounding the relationships
between specialization and expertise is a function of the
literature from which the arguments were taken. These
arguments assume an industrial setting with a particular
type of control structure, and a certain type of task to
be performed. With few exceptions, the writings in the 5
area of organizations are based upon studies completed in
industrial contexts. Applying these findings to other
organization settings without first scrutinizing their
differences is extending inferences beyond their empirical
support. Where the tasks are different, methods of

control are likely to change, and accepted standards for

 

6Gerald Moeller and W. W. Charters, "Relation of
Bureaucratization to a Sense of Power Among Teachers,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10 (March, 1966),

 

 

Jug-.421" 1.311,.— - ..‘ __

their performance must be revised, both of which might
lead to alterations in the system of authority. This
study is premised on the condition that educational
organizations cannot be equated with industrial organiza-
tions without first taking some of these variables into
account. By understanding the type of tasks involved,

the structure of control, and how both produce certain
types of relationships among participants in the organiza-
tion, it will be possible to extend the generalizations
concerning complex organizations.

In summary, the research to be undertaken in this
dissertation is designed to investigate the impact of
specialization and the organization of decision-making
upon social relationships in secondary school systems.
There is adequate evidence to suggest that the functional
relationship among these two variables is somehow modified
in the course of actual organization operation. The
question is how, and under what conditions do different
modifications appear. Further, there is the question of
how different modifications between specialization and
the structure of decision-making effect social relation-
ships among specialized subsections of the organization
and their association with other participants at the same
level. These associations, it will be argued, can be
determined in part from how participants at one level

relate to those in succeedingly higher positions in the

10

organization. Integration at one level of the school
system then might actually facilitate conflict at other
levels. Or, integration between levels of the school
organization might reduce integration among members

within a single level, or even facilitate conflict.

These relationships, because of their central character

in all themes of organization theory, represent a fruitful
point of departure for exploring these relationships.

In the succeeding chapters a review of the relevant
organizational literature will be presented and discussed
in light of the educational system. Building upon this
review, a theoretical framework will be presented and
hypotheses for test will be set down. Data on fifteen
high and junior high schools, representing five distinct
school districts, will be used to test the hypotheses
and conclusions will be drawn to orient future research

into the area of school organizations.

 

 

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND

DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES

The Special Purpose Organization

Special purpose organizations are as old as societies
themselves.l Special purpose organizations are contrived
groupings of individuals designed to efficiently coordinate
tasks in the achievement of the corporate goal. By
dividing tasks into specialized subparts, and by coor-
dinating the efforts of the participants greater efficiency
can be achieved through increased production. Adam Smith
was one of the first writers to record the relationship
among these components of a special purpose organization.
In his words: "The division of labour, however, so far
as it can be introduced, occasions, in every art, a
proportionable increase of the productive powers of

labour."2 Organizations are thus designed to encourage

 

1S. N. Eisenstadt, "Social Change, Differentiation,
and Evolution," American Sociological Review, Vol. 29
(June, 1965), 375-386. For evidence dealing with the second
point see Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man (New York:
The Modern Library, 1937), 5.

2Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (New York:
The Modern Library, 1937), 95-76.

 

ll

l2

cooperative actions among participants in order to com-
plete some task more efficiently than would be possible
if each participant were to work alone.

The concept of efficiency suggests, at least within
western thought, a rational relationship between partici-
pants and their assigned tasks. This feature of organiza—
tions signifies their contrived nature; participants do
not associate with one another based upon mutual liking,
but rather through each participants relationship to the
productive process. Rationality then relates individuals
to organization tasks. Weberis contribution to the study
of organizations was his recognition of the importance
of rationality in establishing organizational relation-

ships.3

Contemporary students of organizations have tended
to ignore specialization as a relationship between man
and tasks, they have instead concentrated on the socio-
logical relationships among participants. By ignoring
this functional relationship between man and task,
researchers were forced to examine only disjunctions in
social relationships. An example of this is the formal-

informal dichotomy posed by early researchers. More

 

3Talcott Parsons, Max Weber: The Thegry of Social
amid Economic OrganizationsTTNew York: The Free Press,

“F. J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson,
Inanagpment and the Worker (Cambridge: Harvard Univer-
§Ity Press, 1939) .

13

recently, researchers have again given particular atten-
tion to the type of tasks in which participants are
engaged. This approach recognizes the importance of
specialization and coordination as relationships between
participants and their tasks.5
These comments point to the necessity of separating
specialization and coordination as functional relation-
ships from the normative attributes which define social
relationships among participants in special purpose
organizations. This dissertation will focus upon special-
ization and coordination; it will investigate how the
relationship a participant has with his task affects its
coordination with other tasks, and what impact coordina-
tion has upon the social relationships he develops with
his peers and with other positions in the organization.
In reviewing the literature on specialization and coordi-
nation it is hoped that a more precise understanding of
the terms and their relationship with other principles

of organization will be achieved.

 

5Eugene Litwak, "Models of Organization Which
Permit Conflict," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 67
(July, 1961), 177-18A; and Richard Hall, Intraorganiza-
tional Structural Variation: Application of the
Bureaucratic Model," Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 7 (December, 19627, 295—3082

1A

Specialization

 

Differentiation of Tasks

 

In the previous section the special purpose organi-
zation was described as a method of relating individuals
to collective tasks. In this section the literature on
specialization will be reviewed, its impact upon social
relationships assessed, and its relationship with other
principles of organization examined.

The confusion which surrounds the concept of
Specialization is due primarily to its usage in disparate
contexts. Specialization in one sense refers to the L/fi
division of tasks into their simplest components. This
is essentially the usage described by Smith in his dis—
cussion of the production of pins. Here specialization
involves the division of work into simple routine tasks:
which permit easy accountability, and can be coordinated
to achieve the corporate goal. Both the scientific and
administrative schools of management assumed that tasks
were simple and routine, and thus Open to a wide range
of workers regardless of their prior experiences with
the procedures. Together, these schools emphasized
efficient performance and administrative coordination;
the individual was taken as a constant and his ability
assumed.

6For an excellent discussion of these two schools of

thought see James G. March and Herbert Simon, Organiza-
tions (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957), 12-33.

 

l5

Contrasted with this usage of the term, is Weber's
discussion of specialization which emphasizes different
types of tasks and assumes different human attributes.
For Weber, bureaucratic organizations were also premised
upon specialized tasks, and responsible to the hierarchy
of control. However, the ability of the individual is
not taken as a constant, it is his training and expertise
which qualify him for the position. In Weber's words:
"Office management is distinctly modern--usually pre-

"7 In this sense

supposes thorough and expert training.
specialization refers not only to the division of tasks
but also to the qualifications which a participant must
possess.

What is at issue in this discussion is the speciali-
zation of tasks versus the specialization of peOple.
Victor Thompson has asserted that these two features are
fundamentally distinct, and their separation alleviates

some of the confusion surrounding the concept of speciali-

zation. Specialization of tasks is a process referring

 

to the dividing up of the organizational functions.

Specialization of people refers to a social process going

 

on in the society at large, in order that complex tasks

can be completed by adequately trained personnel.8 In

 

7Hans Gerth and c. Wright Mills (eds.), From Max
Egber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Galaxy Books, 1958),
198.

 

8Victor Thompson, Modern Organizations (New York:
Alfred Knopf, 1961), 25-39.

 

Jeri-mt.“ l:

 

 

 

16

this study then, the problem becomes how specialized
personnel are fitted to organizational tasks in order to
achieve a corporate goal.

This is fundamentally the problem which faces
secondary education. How can a teaching staff, trained
outside the school system in a particular specialized
area of competence, be integrated into the school system
and coordinated with a large number Of other specialists,
in order to achieve a unified educational program? The
fact that teachers are trained outside of the school
system means that potentially they may not be geared to
the level of task specialization of any given system.
The highly trained teachers may be required to teach
courses outside of their major area of specialization.
These kinds of discrepancies may engender certain con—
flicts within the school organization. The fundamental
problem facing organizations, including school systems,
is how can an organization assess and controli the
activities of specialists trained outside the organiza—

tion'.9

Differences Between Specialists
and Professionals

 

 

The sociological literature presents some varying

perspectives concerning the organizational control of

 

9Corwin, A Sociology of Education, 23u—237.

l7

specialists employed in its behalf. If one assumes, as
Parsons does, that technical knowledge implies a profes-
sional orientation, then, because of differing bases of
authority it is possible to conclude that administrative
control will lead to conflict. If however, a specialist
can be viewed as something other than a professional,
then control can be subsumed within the logic of rational
administrative authority.

Parsons, in commenting on Weber's discussion of
bureaucracy, notes that organizations founded on the
legitimacy of rational authority differ from professional
institutions founded upon technical competence. He argues
that Weber's use of technical competence suggests a pro-
fessional orientation as Opposed to a bureaucratic one.
But a professional orientation cannot be assumed merely
from technical competence.10

An expert can exist independently from a professional,
and thus not be subject to the entire range of character-
istics associated with that institution. Blau and Scott

in describing the similarities between professionals and

bureaucrats reCOgnize that both types may have undergone

 

loParsons, Max Weber: . . . , 59. For a point by

point elaboration of the conflicts between professional

and bureaucratic forms of organization, see W. Richard
Scott, "Professionals in Bureaucracies--Areas of Conflict,"
in Professionalization, ed. by Howard Vollmer and Donald
Mills (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1966), 265-275.

 

 

18

specialized training and thus possess a certain expertise,
but this does not mean that the two types are strictly
comparable. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest
that teachers, while possessing certain skills cannot be

considered professionals.ll

 

llPeter Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Organi-
zations (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1962),
60—61. Whether a person views himself as a professional,
or subject to the control of the organization depends to
a large extent upon which offers the most clearcut
incentives for career development. Goldner and Ritti
found that the professional label is in some instances
a method of freezing individuals at a particular level
in the organization. Fred Goldner and J. Ritti, "Profes—
sionalization as Career Immobility," American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 72 (March, 1967), A89-503.

Furthermore, as Gouldner has argued, professional
norms come about through extended periods of training and
are responsive to a wider range of influences than the
bureaucrat. Alvin Gouldner, "Cosmopolitans and Locals,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 2 (1957-1958),
281-306, AAA-A80; Gail Inlow, "Is Teaching a Profession?"
School Review, Vol. 6A (Summer, 1956), 256; Morris Cogan,
"A Definition of Profession," Harvard Educational Review,
Vol. 23 (Winter, 1953), 33-50; Louis Edinberger, "The
Challenge of Professionalization," High School Journal,
Vol. 51 (November, 1968), 151.

Also Colombotos found that teachers tended to
exhibit certain service characteristics of a professional
but did not hold strong peer group standards for per-
formance, or as points of reference. The professional
characteristics which he did find tended to be an artifact
of the sex roles Of the teachers. John Colombotos,

Sources of Professionalism (Cooperative Research Project
No. 330. Department of Sociology, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1962).

In this study specialization will refer to teaching
functions in secondary schools requiring a certain expertise
which is obtained outside the school system. The teacher
will be viewed as a specialist possessing technical
knowledge, but nevertheless responsive to the control
structure of the educational organization. Not treating
teachers as professionals does not mean that conflicts
cannot emerge within the system. Viewing teachers as
specialists, but not professionals, is a fundamental

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19

This suggests that teachers may be legitimately
treated as specialists, but do not possess the entire set
Of characteristics commonly associated with professionals.
Their attachment to the organization as a source of
rewards and mobility, and their lack of control over the
teaching situation represent at least two points where
teachers differ from the commonly assumed professional
orientations.l2

Specialization does not necessarily imply profes—
sionals; experts may be employed who are responsive to
the demands of the organization. Teachers represent one
example of the expert who becomes responsive to the
organization through the rewards it extends, and the
opportunity for mobility it offers him.

Specialization is a functional requisite for
attaining organizational objectives. As indicated above,
however, functional relationships relate workers to tasks,
but social relationships interrelate workers. Given the
functional requirements of specialization, the inquiry

now turns to its impact upon relationships among workers.

 

assumption upon which much of the theory of this study
is based. The empirical research available, however,
suggests that such an assumption is correct. Teachers
are specialists but not necessarily professionals. This
distinction is extremely important and has not been given;
adequate consideration in the literature to date. _
I ‘I
l2Blanche Geer, "Occupational Commitment and the Lfl”f,fi
Teaching Profession," School Review, Vol. 7A (Summer, '
1966), 31—u7.

u-u- a...
,.... nu.--
.~
.....-u

 

 

 

2O

Specialization has been recognized as one of the
major forces leading to social integration. Durkheim's
famous argument, while derived from the study of
societies, may have application to organizational
relationships. Participants in an organization working
within specialized sub-parts may come to develop inte-
grative ties as a result of the increased communication
which specialization necessitates. Further, as communica-
tion is required to solve similar problems it promotes
the establishment of a common identity.13

In contrast to this argument there is some
evidence to suggest that specialization, when applied to
different types of tasks leads to a variety of social
relationships. It was found that the most routine tasks
were associated with task oriented relationships, but
more complex tasks were associated with close integrative
bonds while the most uncertain tasks, such as basic
research, were again associated with task specific rela—
tionships.14

Other factors have been found to affect the degree

of integration. Location and ability to communicate

with other members of the specialized unit were

 

13Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society
(New York: The Free Press, 196”), 260-266 and 2-7.

l“Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch, Organization and
Environment (Boston: Graduate School of Business
Administration of Harvard University, 1967), 30-34.

 

 

 

21

associated with the degree of integration. Likewise,
age, sex, marital status, and ethnic background, as well
as the prestige of the specialized task, all affect the

degree of integration.15

Thus, there are a series of
contingencies which have an impact upon the integration
of specialities in a complex organization. The general
proposition, as established by Durkheim, must be scruti-
nized in light of these contingencies if the social
relationships which flow from specialization are to be
understood.

In summary, specialization was defined as a func-
tional relationship between the individual and his task.
It can be applied to a variety of tasks ranging from the
simple and routine to the most complex and uncertain.
When applied to the latter the question of expertise must
be considered. Expertise to deal with complex tasks does
not necessarily mean a professional vested with all the
structural and attitudinal characteristics associated
with that institution. Expertise may be viewed as a
characteristic of participants working within complex

organizations and subject to their norms of rational

authority. Experts become allied with the organization

 

l5Leonard Sayles, The Behavior of Industrial Work
Groups (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958), 113; and
Edward Gross, "Social Integration and the Control of
Competition," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 67
(November, 1961), 270-277.

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

22

through the incentive it offers them for rewards and
mobility. It was decided that teachers seemed to cor-
respond with this definition of an expert; they are
trained in a specialized area yet are responsive to the
organization and its demands for control. Finally,
specialization fosters integration among the members of
a specialized sub-part of the organization. The degree
to which members of specialized sub-parts become socially
integrated depends upon a number of contingencies, which
limit their ability to interact, and affect the desir-
ability of interaction. From this discussion of
specialization it is now possible to turn attention to
coordination as another functional relationship found in

special purpose organizations.

Coordination

 

Development of Coordinative
Decisions

 

 

Coordination is distinct from control; coordination
emphasizes the functional relationships among activities
while control is concerned with the restriction or
limitation of activities.16 Coordination is particularly

suited to complex and non-routine tasks since it

emphasizes their interdependence while at the same time

 

l6Poul Meyer, Administrative Organization (London:
Stevens and Sons Ltd., 1957), 55- 57.

 

23

avoiding scrutiny of their actual performance. Arranging
complex tasks so that one facilitates the completion of
another does not require an understanding of the task
itself, but only of the functional relationship it
holds with other tasks leading toward the attainment of
the organization's goal. Simon has commented upon, and
clearly distinguished the coordination of tasks from the
expertise required to perform them:

Coordination should be clearly distinguished from

expertise. Expertise involves the adoption of a

good decision. Coordination is aimed at the adoption

by all members of the group of the same decision,

or more precisely of mutually consistent decisions

in combination attaining the established goaLl7

This statement implies that at least two types of

organizational decisions can be distinguished. One type |
is concerned with interrelating activities and could be
termed, following Simon, coordinative. A second type
deals with decisions an expert makes in the course of
working through a complex set of tasks. In this study
attention will be focused upon the first of these two
types. Coordinative decisions may be made by all levels
of personnel, including the specialist, they are linking
in character so as to involve other participants or
tasks in a specified commitment to a certain course of

action. While specialists may engage in coordinative

decisions their ability in this area is limited by their

 

l7Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York:
The Free Press, 1957), 139-

 

2H

expertise which distorts their perception of larger
organizational goals.
Metron, building on the writings of Veblen,
describes this distortion as a trained incapacity.
Trained incapacity refers to that state of affairs
in which ones abilities function as inadequacies
or blind spots. Actions based upon training and
skills which have been successfully applied in the
past may result in ag inappropriate response under
changed conditions.1
Thus specialists tend to develOp a myopic view of
the larger organization to which they are responsible.
They impart to their task an importance beyond its real
value for the organization. Downs has also commented
upon this phenomenon.
Each official's view of the public interest cannot
be completely divorced from the way his self interest
is influenced by incentive of the specialized
bureaucracy. To some extent the Job makes the
man because the incentives facing the man in Job
lead him to exaggerate its true importance.l
Thus the experts' myopia gives rise to the need
for the coordination of specialized sub-parts. Coordina-
tive decisions are designed to interrelate tasks with a
view toward attaining organizational goals. To make

coordinative decisions, positions are invested with

 

18Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Struc-

ture (New York: The Free Press, 1957), 198.

19Anthony Downs, Inside Bureaucragy (Boston: Little
Brown and Co., 1967), 105. For an example of this in
school systems see Edward Gross and Samuel Popper, "Ser-
vice and Maintenance Orientation in a Junior High School,"
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 1 (Spring,
1965), 29—42.

 

 

25

authority. It is the responsibility of the hierarchy of
authority, however, to determine where each coordinative
decision should be made. In some cases coordinative
decisions are made at the upper most level of the
organization, in others, authority may be delegated to
lower positions making them responsible for the inte-
gration of specialized tasks.20

In this study, by investigating the positions
associated with making coordinative decisions, the focus
is upon the structure of decision-making, and not upon'
the psychological processes which take place in actually
formulating a decision. The structure of decision-
making refers to positions in the organizations where
different decisions are made. In this way a variety of
coordinative decisions are related to the positions
responsible for their execution. By associating different
decisions with a hierarchy of positions a profile of the
decision—making structure can be formulated.
Differences Between Participation

in Decision-Making and the Making
of Coordinative Decisions

 

 

Before continuing, the differentiating of coordinative
decisions as special type will be considered. There is
a seeming contradiction in the literature between those

authors who argue that administrative and expert decisions

 

2OMeyer, Administrative Organization, 57-59.

 

 

 

26

are basically incompatible, and those who assert that
they are complementary and facilitate the attainment of
organizational goals.

On the one hand it is argued that decisions are
different, and so long as administrative decisions are
made by administrators and specialized decisions by
experts, no incompatibility will emerge. Others argue,
however, that this represents a fundamental incompatibility
making conflict inherent in those organizations employing
experts. Under such conditions there arises what Blau
and Scott View as a basic dilemma between the necessity
for administrative control and specialists' demands for
freedom.21 This contradiction, is in part, a result of
the confusion in the literature between the degree to
which decisions are centralized and participation in the
making of decisions. These terms are not strictly
synonymous; by equating them, authors arrive at erroneous
conclusions concerning the relationship between the expert
and the administrator.

Participation in decision-making is generally taken
to mean inclusion in the process by which decisions are

made. This suggests that decisions concerning specific

areas of an organization are collectively determined

 

21Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, 247—249.
Another article which describes this dilemma, as well as
offering a review of the literature on this tOpic is
Michael Aiken and Jerald Hage, "Organizational Alienation:
A Comparative Analysis," American Sociologgcal Review,
Vol. 31 (August, 1966), A97-507.

 

 

27

through group consultation. But, as the argument runs,
where specialization increases, decisions become more
centralized in order to control a wider range of
specialized activities which excludes the experts from
participation. Thus, it is assumed that specialization 9,
creates greater centralization. Where specialization
leads to centralization decisions will be made at high
level positions which ignore the interests of the
specialists they are supposed to coordinate.22 As a
result, the ensuing decisions cannot be accepted by the
specialist since they do not reflect the problems which
he encounters in the performance of his tasks. This in
turn leads to conflict between the specialist and the
administrator. But this argument should not be reserved
exclusively for specialists, since the making of any
decision which does not reflect the problems of the
subordinates who must carry it out will create vertical
conflict within the organization.

In the case of coordinative decisions, however, the
emphasis is on functional integration and not on reducing
the ability of the specialist to perform his assigned
tasks. Exclusion from making coordinative decisions is

not the same as exclusion from participation in making

 

22There is some evidence to indicate that as

organizations become more specialized their decision-
making structure becomes more decentralized, not less.
See Peter Blau, "The Hierarchy of Authority in Organiza-
tions," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 73 (January,
1968), 453-467.

 

28

decisions. First, in the case of participation, it is
automatically assumed that the decisions being made are
affecting the specialist and his role in the organization.
Secondly, it implies that new decisions are emerging
through the exercise of authority. Coordinative decisions,
however, refer to the integration of organizational tasks.
The decision in question may have nothing to do directly
with specialists, in fact it may be strictly an administra-
tive decision which specialists would not want to make in
the first place. Also the decisions in question here are
not new ones in the process of being formulated but may

be routine conclusions reached by that position many

times before.

Finally, it is not sufficient to simply postulate
that the lower the decision is made in any organization
hierarchy the more compatible it will be with specialists'
demands. In fact the alternative could well be argued.
Corwin has emphasized that the more coordinative decisions
made by teachers the greater is the potential for con-
flicts among them.23 There is evidence to indicate that
this is not entirely an administrative bias in the
literature; experts also prefer to be relieved of

coordinative decisions which interrupt their attention

 

23Ronald G. Corwin, Development of an Instrument
for Measuring Staff Conflict, lll.

 

 

M‘T‘im ..

 

 

 

29

to matters they consider more relevant. Moreover, they
realize that authority to make decisions is essential
to any organizations' operation.2u

Thus, it is not correct to equate participation in
the making of decisions with the making of coordinative
decisions. They refer to two entirely different sets of
conditions. In the case of participation in decision-
making, conflict is endemic to the relationship. Under
the conditions described above the centralization of
coordinative decisions does not exclude specialists, it
is instead a method of inquiring into the level at which
a range of decisions are made. Depending, however,
upon the decisions and where they are made, the potential
for conflict exists, but is not endemic to the relation-
ship.

Coordination of Organizational
Relationships

 

 

Now that the nature of coordination has been
established, and its relationship to decision-making
considered, it is now necessary to review the literature
that relates coordination to the social relationships
among participants in the organization. Three factors
will be reviewed: the degree of specialization, the
communication among positions, and the legitimacy invested
in each position for making coordinative decisions.

éuMary Goss, "Influence and Authority Among Physicians

in An Outpatient Clinic," American Sociological Review, Vol.
26 (February, 1961), 39-50.

 

 

 

 

 

3O

Coordination and Specialization

 

Victor Thompson has noted that the proliferation
of functional specialities tend to outstrip the admini-
strative roles which must coordinate them. Old lines of
status and authority become outmoded in the light of new
specialities which challenge their legitimacy and subvert
more traditionalized relationships. Thus, at the func-
tional level, new specialities may fit into the existing
lines of control, but socially these new specialities
may engender conflicting relationship with the administra-
tive hierarchy.25

In some respects Thompson's argument is a summary
statement on much of the literature concerning the
relationships between specialists and administrative per-
sonnel. The degree of conflict which is experienced
between two or more levels of an organization may
approximate the number of factors around which they can
disagree. Where decisions tend to be made at higher
levels of the organization lower positions may exhibit
integration. However, as decisions come to be made at
lower levels, conflict arises among these positions.
Thus it might be expected that conflict between two

positions will be a function of the number of decisions

made at those levels. If school systems execute

 

25Victor Thompson, "Hierarchy, Specialization,
and Organizational Conflict," Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 5 (March, 1961), H85.

 

 

31

decisions at the superintendent level then integration
between teachers and principals will be closer than where

26

more decisions are executed at the principal level.

Coordination and Communication

Communication among positions also tends to affect
the social relationships between various levels of the
organization. Where specialization involves complex
non-routing tasks communication between the specialist
and the administrator are essential for effective coordi-
nation.27 The problem is, however, as specialization
increases, decisions may be made at higher levels in the
organization which in turn exCludes upward communication
from subordinates. This creates conflict between vertical

28

positions in the organization.

 

26Herbert Simon, Donald Smithburg, and Victor
Thompson, Public Administration (New York: Alfred Knopf,
1950), 16A-166.

27Morris Janowitz, "Changing Patterns of Organiza-
tional Authority," Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 3 (March, 1959), A73; and Thompson, "Hierarchy,
Specialization, and Organizational Conflict."

28Claggett Smith, "Comparative Analysis of Some
Conditions and Consequences of Intra-Organizational
Conflict," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10
(March, 1966), 504-529; William Evan, "Superior-
Subordinate Conflict in a Research Organization,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10 (June, 1965),
52-6A; and Louis Pondy, "Organizational Conflict:
Concepts and Models," Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 12 (September, 1967), 296L320.

 

 

 

 

 

 

32

Status differences also affect organization communi-
cation. One author found that as the hierarchical dif—
ferences between positions increased,communication between
them created conflict. By contrast communication between
similar positions, tended to increase the liking, between
incumbents of different positions.29 If this is correct,
then it might be inferred that the greater the communica—
tion between teachers and central administration the
greater the conflict between them. But the greater the
interaction between teachers and principals the closer
the integration between these two positions. If, however,
decisions are executed at one level, in the face of con-
siderable communication between that position and ones
subordinate to it, then the relationships may become suf-
ficiently close to embody both elements of conflict and
integration. So long as the flow of communication is
maintained integration will be relatively high between
adjacent positions. Where no decisions are executed by
a superordinate position however, integration will be
relatively high between that position and the ones sub-
ordinate to it despite any lack of communication. But
if superordinate positions execute a relatively large
number of decisions, without communicating with subordi-

nate positions then conflict will develop between those

 

29Pelz",'"Interaction and Attitudes: Scientists
and Staff," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. A
(December, 1959), 321-336.

 

 

33

two positions. Thus communication becomes an intervening
variable determining the quality of relationships between
different levels of the organization.

This leads to the question of assessing Just how
the decision-making structure affects conflict and inte-
gration between the teachers and other vertical positions

in the organization.

Coordination and Legitimacy

 

As stated above the authority to make coordinative
decisions is vested in the hierarchy of the organization.
But authority is a two sided proposition. It eminates
from the top of the organization down, but it is based
upon the legitimacy which subordinates invest in their
superiors through accepting their commands or directives.
If subordinates refuse to accept directives then they in
fact withdraw their legitimacy, and thus the authority
relationship breaks down. Weber viewed legitimacy as the
basis for normative rules of behavior. Norms, as
defined by Williams, are "rules of conduct; they
specify what should and should not be done by various
kinds of social actors in various kinds of situations."30

Where different positions in the organization share

common norms concerning the legitimacy of each position

 

3OParsons, Max Weber: . . . , 32A-339; and Robin
Williams, American Society (New York: Alfred Knopf,
1963), 2A.

 

 

 

 

3A

to make certain decisions,there will be less conflict
among those positions than where norms are not shared,
that is, where the "should" is not equated with the
"actual." Thus by relating a range of coordinative
decisions to different positions in the organization
it is possible to determine where those decisions are

actually made, and then to assess where subordinates

 

perceive those decisions should be made. Dealing with
social relationships between administrators and special-
ists in this manner does not assume that either conflict
or integration exists. Instead, it lays the question
before the data and makes it subject to empirical

proof. Not only can the ideal be compared with the
actual decision—making process, but the strength of the
norms for determining where each decision should be made
can also be investigated.

In summary then, coordination was defined as
essentially integrative rather than restrictive in
character. Coordinative decisions were designed to
relate one set of tasks to another in order to achieve
the organization's goal. By introducing coordinative
decisions the confusion surrounding participation in
decision-making, could be eliminated. In_the case of
coordinative decisions vertical conflicts may arise
through the withdrawal of subordinate legitimacy but it

is not endemic to the relationship. In fact coordinative

35

decisions tended to free specialists from bothersome
tasks and permitted them to focus their attention upon
the solutions of their own problems. Finally, it was
found that specialization and communication can effect
the social relationships between positions. Further,
each had an impact on determining the manner in which
legitimacy was extended to or withdrawn from superiors

for making certain coordinative decisions.
Integration and Conflict

Background of the Concepts

Integration and conflicthave become two of the
conceptual cornerstones of modern sociological theory.
Each represents a particular method for examining social
life, and for focusing upon the relationships among
social units. Their importance has been raised to the
point that each concept has become a tool for categorizing
sociological theories.31 Nisbet, in exploring the roots
of nineteenth century social thought, indicates how
integration and conflict came to occupy pivotal points
in explaining societal organization and human behavior.32

Integration theories are concerned with explaining

how man comes to accept the dominant roles, norms, and

 

31Donald Martindale, The Nature and Types of Socio-
logical Theory (Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Co., 1960).

32Robert Nisbet, The Sociological Tradition (New
York: Basic Books, 1966), 3-20.

 

m —

 

36

values which the larger society extends to him. Theories
of this type are concerned with such questions as con-
sensus, equilibrium, and cohesion which emerges among
individuals.33

Conflict theories have focused upon an opposing set
of questions. They have been concerned with how differ-
ing social experiences lead to conflicting interests, and
a rejection of the dominant norms and values. These
theories are concerned with dissensus, disequilibrium,
and thus conflict between societal sub-parts. Further,
conflict theorists have criticized theories of integra-
tion for not including dissensus and varying interests

into their explanation.3l4

While there has been a tendency
for one type of explanation to be counterposed against

the other, this need not be the case as several authors
have argued. They assert that one explanation complements

the other.35

 

33For a first statement of the relationship between
roles, norms, and values, see Talcott Parsons, "The Place
of Ultimate Values in Sociological Theory," International
Journal of Ethics, Vol. “5 (April, 1935), 282-316. For
a discussion of consensus, equilibrium, and the problem
of integration see Alvin Gouldner, "Reciprocity and
Autonomy in Functional Theory," in Symposium of Socio-
logical Theory, ed. by Llewelyn Gross (New York:
Harper and Row, 1959), 2A8-255.

 

 

 

3uRalf Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in
Industrial_Society (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
1959), 157-165;and David Lockwood, "Some Remarks on the
Social System " British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 7
(1956), 13u-1fi6.

35Pierre Van Den Berghe, "Dialectic and Functionalism,"
American Sociological Review, Vol. 28 (June, 1965), 372.

 

 

37

These two concepts have carried over into the
area of formal organization. Because of the contrived
nature of organizations, however, there has been con—
siderable attention given to promoting integration and
to reducing conflict. In order to achieve a corporate
goal it is essential that all positions responsible for
achieving the goal be integrated to some degree.

This has led most theories of industrial management
to focus upon methods of integration. Krupp has com-
mented on the role of integration in organizational
theories:

through integration, the parts of a system merge

into unity. More than a process, integration is

a goal of human activity. It is a mechanism for

control, a method of decision-making and a

behavior characteristic.36
For organization theorists, then, integration represents
a social unity emerging from the functional relationShips
between participants and their tasks. These authors
assume that social integration will have a direct
positive bearing upon the functional relationships speci-
fied by the organization.

Just as social integration is given a positive

evaluation by organizational theorists, conflict is

 

372; Gehard Lenski, Power and Privilege (New York:
McGraw Hill Co., 1966), 17—22; and Merton, Social Theory
and Social Structure, 39-Al.

36Sherman Krupp, Pattern In Organization Analysis
(New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Inc., 1961), 88.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38

viewed as pathological and thus detrimental to the
achievement of organizational goals.37 These arguments
fail to consider the alternative relationships that

exist between integration and conflict and the achieve—
ment of organizational goals. Conflict may promote
certain goals just as integration may be detrimental to
their realization. By treating neither variable in a
neutral manner organization theorists may have limited
their ability to explain the complex set of relationships

that comprise the organizational tasks.38

Social Integration

 

Towards a Definition of
Integration

 

 

Social integration is an important sociological con-
cept which has been subjected to a variety of interpre-
tations. Some authors have used it to describe the rela-

tionships between an individual and the system, others,

 

37March and Simon discuss conflict in reference to
ways that it can be eliminated from the organization.
Dalton also views conflict as pathological and thus
describes methods for its reduction. March and Simon,
Organizations, 113-135; and Melville Dalton, "Conflict
Between Staff and Line Manager Officers," American Socio-
logical Review, Vol. 15 (June, 1950), 342-351.

38Parsons, Max Weber: . . . , 132-135; Lewis Coser,
The Functions of Social Conflict (New York: The Free
Press, 1966); and Robert C. North, et al., "The Integra-
tive Functions of Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolu—
tion, Vol. A (September, 1960), 355—374.

 

 

 

39

employ it to describe the quality of the system.
Theoretically integration is a summarizing concept
describing system characteristics which would otherwise
require the use of several more limited concepts. Its
use as a summarizing concept depicts its value for
sociological theory, while at the same time pointing to
its limitations for empirical research.

In this study integration will be used to define
the quality or "degree of systemness" among constituent
parts of formal organizations. According to Morse, this
definition of integration is consistent with Parsons'
use of the term, and he summarizes Parsons' description
of the concept in the following way:

The integrative problem is that of holding c00pera—
ing units in line of creating and maintaining
solidarity despite the emotional strains involved
in the processes of goal attainment and the manner
of sharing the fruits of cooperation.39

If integration describes the quality of a system,
that is, the extent to which smaller units can be viewed
as components of a larger social unit, then the question
must be raised as to what are the operational components

of integration.“0

 

39Chandler Morse, "The Functional Imperatives," in
The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, ed. by Max Black
(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1961), 114.

qut this point an important strategy judgment must
be made. There are a variety of theoretical approaches
to the study of integration, each using slightly different
concepts and arriving at different theoretical structures.
In this study it was decided to draw upon the works of

MO

After reviewing Parsons writings, as well as many

of the authors who have attempted to explicate his

 

Talcott Parsons and the many authors who have attempted

to clarify and elaborate his works. This decision was
made for the following reasons. First, Parsons views
integration as a quality of a social system. It is
important to have this system perspective in order that a
point of reference is constantly within view. Further, it
permits researchers to look for indicators of system boun-
daries, and for the attributes which maintain those
boundaries. This point may be summarized by saying that
Parsons' work has been raised to a higher state of
development than other theories employing integration.
Secondly, and this point flows from the first, by drawing
upon a single theory as the basis for building the concept
of integration it will hopefully be possible to focus some
indirect empirical attention upon Parsons' schema. It is
one of the key points of inquiry to pursue a single line
of theory at any one time. While the desire to "pull
together" a number of incomplete theories is often
enticing, the fruits from such an effort leads in no
single theoretical direction. At this point then, it
seems unwise to develop new amalgams without first having
exhausted the ones which already exist. The third reason
for adopting Parsons' approach is that the alternatives
seem to be even less precise in their language and points
of reference.

Holzner has provided an excellent review of the
literature on the concept of integration. He notes that
there are three distinct levels at which integration may
operate--the sociopersonal, the social, the societal, and
the sociocultural. Burkart Holzner, "Integration in
Sociological Theory," Sociological Quarterly (Winter, 1967),
51—62. At the first level, integrating personalities with
social systems, there is a considerable amount of litera-
ture on the subject of cohesion. Integration as used
by these authors is not a quality of a social system, but
a mechanism for assessing the "fit" between the individual
and the social system. The quality of that system is then
measured through the cohesion which it exhibits. See
Peter Blau, "A Theory of Social Integration," American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 65 (May, 1960), 5A5—556.
Marshall Clinard, The Group Approach to Social Re-
Integration," American Sociological Review, Vol. 1A (April,
1949), 257-262. James Davis "Structural Balance, "Mechani-
cal Solidarity and Interpersonal Relations," American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 68 (January, 1963), HRH—H62.
Neal Gross and Walter Martin, "On Group Cohesiveness,

 

 

41

theories, three dimensions of integration were selected
for this investigation. Parsons discusses integration
through the concept of system. Thus some attention must
be given to this concept in order to show how the com-
ponents of integration flow from a system. Martel
has completed one of the most precise analyses of Parsons
work on the social system. Based upon an intense review
of Parsons and Shill's Toward a General Theory of Action,
Martel asserts that a social system is based upon inter-
active events exhibiting three characteristics.

1. The participants in the system are committed

to a collective goal orientation or common values.

2. They are further committed to complementary

interaction involving a conception of legitimacy

in terms of accepted values, and 3. The partici-

pants engage in concerted action at least to the

extent of supporting one another in negatively

sanctioning role violations by others.

Given these characteristics Martel concludes that:

 

Comment by Schachter, and Rejoinder by Gross and Martin,"
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 57 (September, 1952),
5A6e56fl. All of these approaches deal primarily with
integration into informal groups on an interpersonal
level. Further, as Holzner has observed, much of the work
at the social and societal levels dealing with integration
has operationalized the concept through common orientations.
But, the problem of integration is not how similar parts
fit together, the question is how do different parts
become integrated into the system. This is essentially
what this study considers; how specialists with different
orientations, different tasks to perform, and different
perspectives on the organization, become integrated into

a system of social relationships. This question does

not become a viable alternative in other discussions of
integration. For these reasons this study will develop
the concept of integration based upon the work of Parsons
and those who have discussed his writings.

 

 

“2

A social system, thus formulated, exists to the
extent that actors possess a cooperative orienta—
tion based on shared commitments to goals and role
expectations having normative significance.ul
These quotations suggest two dimensions of integration——
support and communication. Since communication seems
most basic it will be examined first.

Communication is central to the development of
expectations and obligations associated with a given role,
without some form of communication through which units
of the system can make their expectations known to others
there is little opportunity for the development of inte-
grated relationships. Thus Parsons principle of "double
contingency" implies communication for the development
of role behavior.“2 Communication does not automatically
assume integration, though in some cases increased com—
munication will promote increased integration. The
argument here is that without communication there is not
likely to be any social integration among constituent
units, and as a result no system will emerge. Communica-
tion does not have to be direct or personal, although in
this study it will be treated as such. A second com-

ponent of integration which the above quotations suggest

is support. Underlying an integrated social system is

 

ulMartin Martel, "Some Controversial Assumptions
in Parsons' Approach to Social System Theory," Sociologi—
cal Inquiry, Vol. 34 (Spring, 196“), 55.

u2Edward Devereaux, Jr., "Parsons Sociological
Theory," in Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, ed. by
Max Black, op. cit., 25.

 

 

 

"3

some element of COOperation in the playing out of system
roles° Further, cooperation implies that there is support
for a role performance in that others play out counter-
roles and thus assist in making the performance a reward—
ing experience. Not only will units in a system support
positive performances of role behavior but they also
cooperate to sanction and thus withdraw support for
violations in role performance. Thus there is some
evidence to indicate that support is an essential part

of system integration, and that it emerges through com—
munication among constituents of the system.

There is a third component of integration which
can be inferred from his description of a social system.
Communication and support in the playing of system roles
is based upon a shared commitment to the role expecta-
tions set out by the system; this implies that consti-
tuent units come to identify with the system into which
they are integrated. Thus, a relationship between each
unit and the system as a whole becomes a third component
of system integration.

Bronfenbrenner in discussing Parsons' theory of
identification draws on the following quote:

The end product of this phase of the socialization
cycle seems to be the appropriate place to use the
term identification. This essentially means that
internalization of the new object system has been

successfully completed . . . that from now on
ego's major 'predispositions' or 'orientations'

44
are to act in terms of the internalized object ”3
system and the motives which are organized in it.
This quotation indicates that through the process of
identification, roles become internalized and thus con-
stituent units of the system become committed to the
social arrangements of that system.

Identification with the role expectations and
patterns of normative behavior which compose a social
system implies that constituent units come to regard
that system as a point of reference for their behavior.
Identification with a system suggests that the system
becomes a reference group for guiding the behavior of
its constituent units. Thus the third underlying dimen-
sion of an integrated system is that it acts as a reference

group in guiding the behavior of the constituent units.uu

 

u3Urie Bronfenbrenner, "Parsons' Theory of Identi-
fication," in The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, ed.
by Max Black, op. cit., 199.

uuThe concept of a reference group has proven to
be a valuable explanatory variable in social research.
Its importance derives from its use as a linking concept
between a given individual or unit and the larger social
order of which the individual or unit are a part. The
value of this concept for research is best depicted in
the following works. Robert Merton and Alice Kitt,
"Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior,"
in Continuities in Social Research, ed. by Robert Merton
and Paul Lazarsf31d (Glencoe: Free Press, 1950), A0-106;
S. N. Eisenstadt, "Reference Group Behavior and Social
Integration," American Sociological Review, Vol. 19‘
(April, 195“), 175-185; and E. J. Baur, _"Public Opinion
and the Primary Group," American Sociological Review,
Vol. 25 (April, 1960), 208-219. Other theoretical
treatments of the concept can be found in the following
works. Harold Kelley, "Attitude and Judgements as Influ-
ence by Reference Groups," in Readings in Social

 

 

 

45

Thus, communication, support, and identification
underlie the more general concept of integration by
specifying the relationship among sub-parts of a potential
system. To reiterate, however, no claim is made that
this listing exhausts the components of integration.
Investigating these dimensions of integration does, how-
ever, facilitate an understanding of its use in the
theoretical literature. To determine if these concepts
are important indicators of integration, their use in
the formal organization literature will now be reviewed.

Social Integration and Organizational
Relationships

 

Communication

 

Communication is a basic mechanism for the operation
of complex organizations. Barnard has argued that accom-
plishing a cooperative purpose, which is the basic goal
of all organizations, can be achieved only through the

“5

communication of that purpose. Recent inquiries into

 

Psychology, ed. by G. Swanson T. Newcombe and E. Hartley
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1952). For an
article outlining the concept as it will be used here see
T. Shibutani, "Reference Groups as Perspectives," American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 60 (May, 1955), 562-569. Other
discussions of the subject include: M. Sherif, "Reference
Groups in Human Relationships," in Sociological Theory: A
Book of Readings, ed. by L. Coser and Bernard Rosenberg
(New York: The Macmillan Co., 1964), 270-275; and M.
Sherif”and C. Sherif, Reference Groups (New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1961).

 

 

 

 

 

uSChester Barnard, The Functions of the Executive
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938), 89.

 

46

the role of communication in organizations indicate that
communication flows through the channels of authority,

and within the areas of expertise. These two networks

may not overlap, thus creating coordination problems

for the organization.)46 Geutzkow notes that, what he
calls "information exchanges" tend to flow in the oppo—
site direction of the authority networks, yet this observa—

A7 Cyert

tion is largely discredited by empirical work.
and March believe that information flows in the same
direction as authority, since information is assessed
at higher levels and then diffused downward to the relevant
sub—parts of the organization.“8

The hierarchy of authority seems to best describe
the directions and channels by which communication flows
through an organization. There is at least one other
area of research which corroborates this conclusion. A
review of the small group literature indicates that as

status differences emerge, changes occur in the way

collective tasks are solved. Status differences were

 

“6Simon, Smithsburg, and Thompson, Public Administra—

tion, 235; and Thompson, Modern Organizations, 111.

 

”7Harold Geutzkow, "Communications in Organizations,"
in Handbook of Organizations, ed. by James G. March
(Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1965), 5A3.

u8Richard Cyert and James March, Behavioral Theopy
of the Firm (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc.,

1963), 10A.

.z'..‘;~‘-

 

 

 

A7

found to reduce communication and support between super
and subordinates in the group. Further, status differences
encouraged subordinates to choose friends who were of a
higher status, but superordinates did not reciprocate in
their selections, and instead chose people of equal or
higher status. This factor may have been instrumental
in leading to the decline in support and communication
between these positions.“9
There is little evidence to indicate what form
communication takes among experts. One author does point
out that conflict arises when administrators attempt to
impose directives that experts consider irrelevant or
disrupting to the performance of their tasks.50 This
implies that status based on formal authority and status
based upon expertise may be antagonistic and lead to
conflict where the two channels of communication become

joined. It is an open question, however, as to whether

differing orientations, or simply differences in social

 

ugHarold H. Kelley and John w. Thibaut, "Experi—
mental Studies of Group Problem Solving and Process," in
Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. by Gardner Lindzey
(Reading: Addison Wesley Co., 195A), 736-76A, and
especially 772—776; Harold Kelly, "Communication in
Experimentally Created Hierarchies," Human Relations,
Vol. A (February, 1951), 39-56; and Jacob Horowitz, g3
al., "Some Effects of Power on the Relations Among Group
Members'in Group Dynamics, ed. by Dorwin Cartwright and
Alvin Zander (Evanston: Row Peterson Co., 1953), A83-A92.

50James D. Thompson, "Organizational Management of
Conflict," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 5,
(March, 1961), A85-52l.

 

A8

status lead to conflict between administrators and

51 But if open lines of communication

specialists.
exist, in conjunction with alternative systems of status
rewards, integration may increase among the specialists.
This in turn could lead to a discounting of the admin-

istrative hierarchy.

Social Support

 

The organizational literature on social support
indicates that it is closely associated with communica-
tion. The importance of support for improving social
relationships among organizational participants is well
documented in the organization literature. Blau and
Scott found that increased support among participants
at the same level of the organization tended to reduce
anxiety toward their tasks and to increase integration
among members. Likewise subordinates react favorably to

52 In general,

supportive behavior from their superiors.
supportive relationships tend to integrate organizational
members, regardless of differences in positions, and to
improve their performance and attitudes toward the organi-

zation.53

 

51Pelz, "Interaction and Attitudes Between Sub-
ordinates and Staff."

52Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, 98.

SBCgis Argyris, "Understanding Human Behavior in
Organizations," in Modern Organization Theory, ed. by
Mason Haire (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959), 115—
15A; and Renis Likert, New Patterns of Managgment (New
York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1962).

49

There are some data taken from the study of school
organizations which also reCOgnize the importance of
supportive behavior for eliciting positive responsiveness
from teachers toward administrators in their building.
Halpin, in a study of school superintendents, found
that there were differences between the degree of con-
sideration which the superintendent thought he should
exhibit and what teachers perceived him as displaying.
Consideration was equated with supportive behavior on
the part of the superior. Teachers in general tended to
desire more individual consideration than superintendents
were willing to demonstrate. ‘However, Sweitzer found
that teachers desired less individualized attention and
support than the principal offered. This indicates that
there are some discrepancies in the type of relationships
teachers desire to maintain with administration. It
also evidences a desire on the part of some subordinates
to relate with superiors in more formalized and impersonal
ways. Neither study considered the relationships among
the teachers themselves to determine the existence of
other systems of status and rewards which might offset
the need for attention from superiors.5u

This literature suggests that support among

participants in an organization positively affects their

 

5“Halpin, Theory and Research in Administration;
and Sweitzer, Role Expectations and Perceptions of
School Principals.

 

 

 

50

social relationships. As with communication, however,
there is some indication that where other status systems
or sources of rewards exist, they may reduce subordinates
desire for support from superiors. In this case meaning—
ful support becomes limited to the peer group and thus
integration follows horizontal rather than vertical

directions.

Reference Groups

Like the other components of integration, reference
groups have an important impact upon the direction which
integration takes in formal organizations. Gouldner
found that cosmopolitans tended to identify with their
professional colleague group, and thus to exhibit a low
identification with the organization in which they
55

worked.

Other studies indicate that this holds true only
so long as the rewards from professional colleague group
exceed those which the organization can offer.56 Thus
identification with reference groups serves to integrate
the individual or group with a common point of reference.
In a study of teacher organizations, Corwin found that

identification with the administrative hierarchy led to

 

55Gouldner, "Cosmopolitans and Locals."

56Warren G. Bennis, et al., "Reference Groups and
Ixxyalties in the Out—Patient Department," Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 2 (March, 1958), A8l-500.

‘ V‘v-r-t

....,
z-“

 

 

 

51

conflict if teachers perceived the administration as
not acting in their best interests. Professionals on
the other hand, exhibited less conflict with the admin-
istration since their point of reference was oriented
toward the colleague group.57

In another study, Eisenstadt found that subordinates
identified with authority positions only so long as those
positions legitimated the aspirations of the subordinates.
This finding summarizes much of the literature described
above, subordinates identify with administrative positions
only so long as those positions offer significant rewards
for them. When no such rewards are forthcoming, or
where they are exceeded by rewards from other groups, or
organizations, subordinates tend to shift their loyalty
to those units.

Blau and Scott, in their study of governmental
agencies, found that as workers improved their informal
status, and became more integrated into their work group,
they also came to identify more closely with their peers.
This finding related identification with peers to the
development of informal reference groups within the
organization. These findings, like the ones for communi-

cation, and to a lesser extent for support, indicate the

 

57Ronald Corwin, "Militant Professionalism:
Initiative and Compliance in Public Education, Sociology
of Enucation, Vol. 38 (Summer, 1965), 310—331.

 

52

relationships among participants at the same level of
an organization tend to emerge through both the social
and technical relationships they have with superiors.

In summary, this section has dealt with examining
the components of social integration as they are sug-
gested by Parsons' approach to the problem. Three com-
ponents of integration were gleaned from discussions of
the subject. They were communication, support, and
identification with a reference group. No claim was
made that this listing exhausted the range of components
of integration, but their relational character implicates
them as important components of the concept.

In reviewing the organizational literature on
these components, it was found that communication networks
were restridted by the hierarchy of authority, and the
degree of expertise in an organization. The authority
and expertise networks seemed to operate independently;
when they did cross, however, it engendered conflict
between the administrative positions and the specialists.
Support was viewed as an important component of integra-
tion. Supportive behavior, when initiated by superiors,
increased subordinates willingness to comply with organi-
zational demands. Finally, reference group identification
was closely related to the reward structures of the
organization. Where subordinates gained rewards from the

organization they tended to identify with it. Where such

m_r
-

 

53

rewards were withdrawn, subordinates either came to
reject superiors, or to engage them in conflict. Where
no such identification existed, the subordinates were
not concerned with the activities of the organization.
Identification with a peer reference group was found to
be dependent upon the status an individual could Claim
in the peer group. Those of high status were more
closely integrated into the group and thus identified
with it. This finding, like the others, indicates that
rewards determine how individuals come to identify with
and to take on certain reference groups in the organiza-
tion. In the next section the nature of conflict within

the organization will be examined.

Conflict

 

Towards ayDefinition of Conflict

Just as the vitality of a system can be measured
by the degree of subunit integration, the breakdown of
the same system can be viewed in terms of the conflict
between incumbents of various positions. From Parsons'
perspective then, where conflict prevails there may be
meaningful interaction but no social system can exist.
There are a variety of reasons why conflict arises between
social units. Theories eminating from the Marxian

tradition focus upon basic differences in interests and

5A

social experiences as the root of conflict.58 Other
discussions of conflict focus upon the distinctions
'between organizational expectations and individual needs.
Argyris believes that organizational expectations require
more of an infantile passivity rather than the initiative
and independence associated with adulthood.59
Conflict also emerges when various reference groups
hold inconsistent expectations for the occupant of one
position. This type of conflict recognizes the importance
of the audiences before which individuals carry out their
activities. At another level it implies that conflict
may arise from the inconsistencies between the role
requirements and what the individual personally believes
to be correct.60 Finally, Seeman describes several
intrapersonal dimensions of conflict experienced by
school superintendents. First, is the status dimension

which involves conflict between the success ideology

and the equality ideology. Second, is the contradiction

 

58Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, The German
Ideology (New York: International Publishers Co., 19A7),
Al-A3; and Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in
Industrial Societies, 173-179.

 

 

 

 

59Cris Argyris, Personality and Organization (New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), 50—51.

60Ralph M. Stodgill, "Personal Factors Associated
with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature," Journal
of Psychology, Vol. 25 (January, 19A8), 35-37. Also
see Samuel Stouffer and Jackson Toby, "Role Conflict and
Personality," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 56
(March, 1951), 395; and Jackson Toby, "Some Variables in
Role Conflict Analysis," Social Forces, Vol. 30 (March,
1952), 323.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55

between dependence and independence; individuals demand
more voice in the direction of a system but reject the
responsiblity which must accompany the giving of
directions. A third dimension of conflict is the choice
between universalistic criteria versus personalized
criteria of judgment.61

At a more abstract level, some theorists have
argued that conflict is essentially a competition for
scarce resources and positions. This argument equates
conflict and competition and draws no distinction between
the two concepts. Competition cannot be equated with
conflict, since societal organization establishes
parameters governing the exerCise of competition. Thus
sporting events are competitive, but they have specific
rules governing their enactment. Two organizations
vying for a large contract are competing for a resource
but there are also norms governing how this is to be
conducted. In contrast, however, conflict has no
rules for its enactment. Opponents devise strategies
designed to inflict injury upon each other; the element
of destruction thus looms large in the realm of conflict.

No such desire to destroy seems associated with

 

61Melvin Seeman, Social Status and Leadership: The
Case of the School Superintendent (Columbus Bureau s?‘
Educational Research, The Ohio State University, 1960),
1—35. For a general discussion of role conflict in the
educational system see J. W. Getzels and E. G. Guba,
"The Structure of Role and Role Conflict in the Teaching
Situation," Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 29
(September, 1955), 30-A0.

 

56

competition, and, in fact, prescription for the execution
of competition is designed specifically to prevent such
occurrences.

From this review there appears to be a number of
ways in which conflict can arise, it may be intra-personal,
interpersonal or intergroup, in each case however, it has
similar consequences for the social system in question.

Regardless of the level at which conflict appears,
it disrupts the vitality of the social system in which
the actors are participating. Conflict calls into
question the roles, normative patterns and the goals of
the system; refusal to comply with these social pre—
scriptions is indicative of the incompatibility between
the components. Thus, whatever the source of the dis-
agreement, the consequences which it has for the functions
of a system remains the same. Deutsch has summarized the
relationship among parties to a conflict by focusing upon
the degree of incompatibility between the expectations,
and goals associated with each party to the conflict.

Incompatibility between two acting systems can
be measured in terms of the sum of the probable

changes-—that is, the probable changes in inner
structure-—that would occur in System A, and of

 

62For a discussion of conflict as competition see

Raymond W. Mack and Richard C. Snyder, "The Analysis of
Social Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 1
(June, 1957), 215—2A8; and Kenneth Boulding, Conflict
and Defense (New York: Harper Torch Books, 1962), 8.

 

 

57

the changes in System B, if the inner programs

of each of these two systems were carried out.63
In pointing to incompatibilities between parties to a
conflict the emphasis is upon the amount of disagreement
and not upon its source. Thus by conceptualizing conflict
in this manner, it becomes a summary term for the perceived
incompatibilities between participants in the organization.
Based on this review of the literature, organizational
conflict can now be considered.

Organizations are generally conceptualized in

terms of the authority structure and the cooperation
achieved through functional interdependence. This per—
spective, however, avoids many of the internal problems
which organizations must resolve. One author has observed
that organizations might be more meaningfully conceived of
as an amalgam of interest groups each bent upon pursuing
its own goals to the exclusion of others.6u The rela-
tionship between functional and social interdependence
is always problematic. Improper functional relation-
ships lead to social conflict between components of the
organization. But as March and Simon point out, for
intergroup conflict to arise,there must first be an

absence of individual conflict. Thus, by implication

 

iw

63Karl Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York:
The Free Press, 1966), 112.

6A

 

Krupp, Pattern in Organizational Analysis, 169-

 

171.

58

they recognize that social conflict can promote inter-
personal integration. In general, they assert that
conflict grows out of the need for joint decision-making
and differing perceptions of reality. Thus, as inter-
dependence increases, there is a greater potential for
conflict over the goals to be pursued, the perceptions
of reality, and over scarce resources.65
Just as interdependence creates conflict among
similar levels of the organization the authority structure
creates conflict between levels. Vertical conflict
between supervisors and subordinates arises from the
lack of legitimacy which subordinates invest in superiors
direction. Much of the literature on this question has
already been cited but one study of particular importance
deserves more consideration at this point. Scott has
observed that certain organizations employ participants

who exhibit varying degrees of expertise. Variation in

expertise leads to problems of structuring. Organizations

 

65On this general point of interdependence and con—
flict see the following: March and Simon, Organizations,
112-122; James D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (New
York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1967), 138; Henry Landsberger,
"The Horizontal Dimension in Bureaucracy," Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 6 (December, 1961), 299-332; and
Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch, "Differentiation and Inte-
gration in Complex Organizations," Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 12 (June, 1967), 1A9. Jules Henry, "The
Formal Structure of a Psychiatric Hospital," Psychiatry,
Vol. 18 (May, 195A), 139-152; and Michel Crozier,
"Human Relations at the Management Level in a Bureau-
cratic System of Organizations," Human Organization,
Vol. 19 (Summer, 1961), 5l-6A.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59

must cover all contingencies established by the least
expert of the participants. In so doing, however, they
incur hostility from the more expert participants who
demand greater autonomy over their work. This sets in
motion conflicting relationships between the most valued
employees and the administration. To resolve this
dilemma supervisors are expected to treat subordinates
in an individualized manner thus taking into account
their differential expertise. Such conflict reducing
mechanisms may, however, serve to subvert organizational
objectivity and lead to even greater conflicts as
participants learn they are being treated differentially.66
In summary, by viewing Conflict as incompatibility
between the social prescriptions to which individuals or
social units subscribe, allows researchers to focus upon
the consequences of conflict rather than its sources.
More important however, is that such a conception allows
for an analysis of the breakdown of a system just as
integration permits an examination into the quality or
vitality of a social system. Thus, by considering
conflict and integration as moving along a single
dimension it is possible to investigate the degree of
"systemness" between and among participants at various

levels of the organization hierarchy. Thus, the impact

 

66W. Richard Scott, "Reaction to Supervision in

Heteronomous Professional Organizations," Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 10 (June, 1965), 65.

 

0‘ ~00-— ..oc-o.‘ -4-.-o..-o..~

 

 

60

of functional relationships such as specialization and
centralization of decision-making can be assessed in
terms of the way they promote integration or incur con-
flict among the participants.

Statement of the Theory and the
Development of the Hypotheses

 

In this chapter the four concepts to be used in this
dissertation were developed. The discussion was often
polemical pitting one school of thought against another.
The effort was designed to uncover contradictions and
weaknesses in the arguments posed by the different schools.
Often the arguments were long and complex, and the
counter—arguments equally abstruse; as a result the reader
may have lost and regained, only to lose again the slender
thread of reasoning running through these discussions.
Being the case, it is thus necessary to summarize the
logic of the dissertation. In attempting to put down a
single line of reasoning from which hypotheses emerge
one argument is implicitly given more currency than
another. The logic, however, like all argument in the
social science, is a series of strategy judgments con-
cerning which school of thought speaks most pertinently
about the problems under investigation. Thus, when the
hypotheses are accepted, the strategy judgments are
temporarily confirmed. But when the hypotheses are

rejected, all is not at a loss, alternative arguments

61.

must then be pursued and elaborated. Rejected hypotheses,
though never satisfying, should not lead to an admission
of failure, instead they hOpefully point the way for new
reasoning and exploration.

Specialization is a fundamental attribute of
organizations, it divides functions into component
elements and hopefully provides for their interrelation-
ship at some succeeding point. Organizational tasks vary
according to their complexity and the skills they require
for completion. To perform complex tasks individuals must
have prior training in that specialized area. Such
independent training outside the organization, coupled
with the standards established by the larger society,
immediately suggest a professional orientation. In this
chapter, however, it was argued that specialized training
did not alone qualify a person as a professional. One
important difference was that the specialist was limited
to working in certain organizations which demanded his
services, and in turn provided him with rewards. School
teachers were regarded as specialists trained to perform
a limited set of functions. They did not, however, meet
the entire range of institutionalized requirements
associated with a professional orientation.

Inherent to specialization is a functional inter-
<dependence of tasks. Functional interdependence relates

specialists to tasks, but it also relates specialists

62

socially. This has led traditional themes in the organi-
zational literature to associate specialization with
horizontal integration among the experts assigned to
interdependent tasks. But specialization, if it is to

be effective, depends upon more than the integration of
experts, it involves all personnel associated with the
completion of the interdependent sets of tasks. This
suggests that integration may extend vertically as well
as horizontally through the organization. It will extend
horizontally only so far as the personnel are directly
associated with the specialized tasks. Because of the
complex and non-routine nature of the specialists'
responsibilities, administrative positions which facili-
tate the completion of such tasks also become integrated
into the social unit. By contrast, administrative posi-
tions which are Oriented toward controlling the activities
of the specialists will create a hostility between the
specialists and themselves. This arises because higher
administrators fail to recognize the unique and non-
routine qualities associated with specialists' tasks.

In attempting to routinize the non-routine, it is the
specialists who cannot comply, and therefore become
hostile toward directives which restrict rather than
facilitate their activities. By the same token, they
become integrated with lower administrators who facilitate

the completion of specialists tasks.

 

35‘13. W‘s-r V‘mwst' WT.“ - ' , , i ' , 3' i .. ""-'-

   

 

63

Specialization creates greater functional inter-
dependence among related sub-parts of the organization.
This calls for increased coordination of the various
specialities in order to efficiently reach some larger
goal. The traditional argument in the sociological
literature has been that specialization, when accomplished
through the use of experts, leads to conflict between the
expert and the administrator. This line of reasoning was
premised upon two assumptions which this chapter has tried
to refute. First, experts are not necessarily profes-
sionals; experts possess specialized skills but they may
still remain loyal to the organization which demands
their talents. Second, specialization does not auto-
matically lead to a centralization of the decision—
making process. The alternative to this argument was
that experts were members of the organization, and
responsive to the rewards which it extends to them. As
a result they participate in executing a range of
coordinative decisions which organizations must make in
order to meet and solve the problems which arise in
the course of achieving its espoused goals. These co-
ordinative decisions may be executed at all levels of the
organization, and hierarchical positions may be invested
“with subordinate legitimacy to make certain decisions
‘which would free experts for more pertinent activities.

'This argument has received considerably less empirical

 

6A

attention and as such has not been refined. The theory
presented here attempts to extend and refine this argument.

If specialization creates greater interdependence,
then it should make experts more aware of the decisions
which they themselves must make, as well as what decisions
must be made at higher levels, if the larger goals of the
organization are to be achieved. Thus, as specialization
increases, experts should extend more legitimacy to their
own coordinative decision—making roles. Further, they
should extend greater legitimacy to those decision-
making roles of the first line personnel who directly
assist them in the completion of their tasks. Finally,
as specialization increases, they should extend less
legitimacy to higher administrators since in the face of
specialization higher administration will attempt to
standardize the requirements for tasks and outputs.

Such procedures oppose the specialists who must work
through complex non-routine tasks which are not subject
to standardization.

If specialization clarifies the decision-making
roles, as exhibited through the increased legitimacy
which subordinates extend to their own and selected
other positions, then increased legitimacy should also
promote integration among those positions closely
associated with the execution of specialized tasks.

Extending legitimacy to one's associates is indicative

6.5

of the support communication and identification manifested
among specialists. By contrast, where less legitimacy is
extended to higher administrative positions there is a
lack of confidence, on the part of experts, in the coordi-
native decisions which these higher positions are likely
to make.
In the above argument specialization referred to
the manner in which tasks were divided into constituent
elements. As such different positions in the hierarchy of
the organization will come to have different functional
relationships with the tasks. The differing functional
relationships each position has with the performance of
a series of tasks will also effect the social relation—
ships which develop among these positions. This argument
can be summarized in the following general proposition:
As the degree of specialization increases, the
greater the social interdependence among all
positions associated with the completion of a
series of tasks.
From this general proposition three specifying propositions
can be deduced.
1. As specialization increases, the legitimacy
extended to positions charged with carrying
out tasks increases.
2. As specialization increases, the integration
among positions charged with carrying out tasks
increases.
3. As the legitimacy extended to positions charged

with carrying out tasks increases, the integration
among those positions increases.

 

 

 

66

From the argument above, and by implication from the

general proposition, three additional propositions are

suggested.

A.

As specialization increases, the legitimacy
extended to central administrative positions
will decline.

As specialization increases, the integration
between positions charged with carrying out
tasks and the central administrative positions
will decline.

As the legitimacy extended to central administra-
tive positions, by subordinate positions charged

with carrying out tasks declines, the integration
between these positions will also decline.

From these six specifying propositions nine hypotheses

for testing can be derived.

1.

As the degree of specialization increases, the
legitimacy which teachers extend to their own
coordinative decision-making roles will increase.

As the degree of specialization increases, the
legitimacy which teachers extend to principals
will also increase.

As the degree of specialization increases, the
level of social integration among teachers
within one specialized area of organization will
also increase.

As the degree of specialization increases, the
level of integration between teachers and
principals will also increase.

As the legitimacy which teachers extend to their
own decision-making roles increases, the level
of integration among teachers will increase.

As the legitimacy which teachers extend to
principals increases, the level of integration
between teachers and principals will increase.

 

6'7.

7. As the degree of specialization increases the
legitimacy which teachers extend to higher
administration-—superintendents--will decline.

8. As the degree of specialization increases,
the level of integration with administrative
personnel--superintendents--will decline.

9. As the legitimacy which teachers extend to
superintendents decision-making roles increases
the integration between teachers and super-
intendents will decline.

Investing positions with legitimacy to make certain
coordinative decisions does not in fact mean they will
actually be made by that position. The discrepancy between
where certain decisions legitimately ought to be made,

and where they actually are made, will engender conflict

 

between subordinates and superiors, if the superiors fail
to recognize the normative mandates of the subordinates.
Thus, as principals attempt to usurp the legitimacy
extended to them by the teachers, the greater the conflict
between the teachers and the principal. Likewise, as
superintendents attempt to exceed their legitimized
decision-making roles they too will incur conflict with
the teachers. Finally, as superintendents exceed the
decision-making roles which teachers invest in the
principal they will create conflict between the principals
and the teachers. These relationships may be summarized
in the following proposition.

As the actual decision-making roles assumed by

superordinate positions exceeds the legitimacy

extended to these positions by subordinates, con-

flict will arise between the subordinate position
and each of the superordinate positions.

   

 

 

68

From this general proposition, three hypotheses for
test can be deduced.

10. As the discrepancy between the legitimacy which
teachers extend to principals, and the actual
decision-making roles which principals assume,
increases, conflict between these two positions
will increase.

11. As the discrepancy between the legitimacy which
teachers extend to superintendents, and the

actual decision—making roles which superintendents

assume, increases, conflict between these two
positions will increase.

12. As the discrepancy between the legitimacy which
teachers extend to principals, and the actual
decision-making roles which superintendents
assume, increases, conflict between teachers
and principals, and teachers and superintendents
will increase.

Thus, as the lines of legitimacy are violated by
superordinate positions, conflict is generated among the
subordinates who must adhere to these enforced decision-
making channels.

The theory proposed here emerges from the review
of the literature in this chapter. It attempts to
specify how specialization and the structure of coordi-
native decision-making effects the nature of integration
and conflict within the school organizations. Not only
does this theory attempt to extend the present thinking
on these subjects but it also implicitly brings into
question certain arguments which have had wide currency

in the sociological literature. In the next chapter the

methods for operationalizing these concepts will be

 

6.9

discussed and the background factors which might be
effecting the variance along these concepts will be

reviewed.

 

 

 

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND OPERATIONALIZATION

OF CONCEPTS

Introduction

 

In this chapter the design of the research will be
outlined, the impact of each district upon the variation
among schools will be assessed, and the concepts
developed in the last chapter will be operationalized.

This research will assess the impact of two struc-
tural variables, specialization and the location of
decision-making, upon the social relationships in school
organizations. To meet a variety of demands, school
administrators change the functional arrangements of
their organizations, which in turn effects the social
relationships among the participants. Logical changes
in functional relationships may have the unwanted conse-
quence of altering the social relationships among
teachers, principals, and the central administration.
This research will focus on two functional relationships
and how they effect the social relationships in the
school system.

The hypotheses formulated in the previous chapter

require a sample of school organizations which vary in

70

 

 

 

 

71

the degree of specialization and in the location of their
decision-making. To meet these two broad constraints, 15
public secondary schools from five districts in Michigan
were selected for a comparative analysis of how specializa-
tion and the structure of decision-making affected the
levels of integration and conflict among their partici—

pants.

The Research Design

The sites for this research were selected in order
to control for environmental variables that might contami—
nate or confuse the analysis. The comparability of the
research sites is particularly important since American
education has been characterized by "grass roots"
control. Where educational policy is formulated at the
local level, the wealth of the community, its industrial
base, as well as its occupational and ethnic composition,
and the level of education of its residents all become
important factors in shaping the educational policies of
the district. Depending upon how the residents of a
district value education, one would expect to find varying
physical plants, tax base, and salary ranges, as well as
other incentives for teachers and administrative staff.
These factors will in turn have a significant affect upon
the quality of the educational experience to which

students are subjected.

 

72

To eliminate extreme variation, larger districts
serving urbanized areas were selected because they would
most likely have a diversified industrial base, a broad
occupational composition, similar tax bases and state
equalized valuation per resident student, and a comparable
set of values towards education. Since most large urban
school districts correspond roughly to city boundaries,
the Michigan census was used to select cities where the
study could be undertaken. Michigan, in 1960, had six
urban places where about 100,000 or more people live,
with five of these containing districts of about the same
size. Five of these places were utilized for the study
since the sixth urban area was disproportionately larger
than the others (see Table 2 for statistics).

While the five districts are not entirely comparable
on all dimensions there is sufficient similarity to carry
out the study. Moreover, the differences are not con-
sistent along all dimensions. As an example, population
differences do not seem to be indicative of otheri
differences among the districts, though differences in
size are reflected in the number of certified teachers
employed in the district. Most important, there is close
comparability on the pupil-teacher ratio and the minimum
starting salary for teachers. These figures reflect the
quality of teachers that these districts can attract,
and more indirectly, they reflect each community's com-

mitment to education.

73

an on omhsmmos on Haas macaspmfio nusomoocomx

.mammess :wEom

.mwma acmwasoas .wcamcmq

ummm .cofipwaoomm¢ cofiumosom cmwfizofiz mmmmalpwma «sumo pofispmao Hoonom
ofiansm cmwfinofiz mmmma .cofipmfioOmm< soapmosom cmwfinoaz .znpsoz .9 new
moxomm .m an .wmlwmma zUSpm sumo possumfia cmwacofiz mmSmcwo cmmfinoaz coma "moonsom

 

 

s: mm mm am am poahpmfis cH muses
m>HpmnpchHEom popes: Hmpoe
mo.oa om.m oH.oa mm.m om.m mafia: wsfipssmso sapwooafia
oom.m ooo.m ooo.m omo.m oom.m mmmausmma soc
moasoonom mpmHMm ESEHGHS
smm.ma mmm.ma :sm.ma sow.sa mom.:m .Hfisss adsmsmssms sms
coaumsam> omufiamsum opmpm
s.sm m.om H.2m m.mm m.mm oapsm nonesseuafissm
:mo.a oms.a oom.H omo.m :mm.a msmsosmp
oofiwfiphoo mo nomads Houoe
Hmm.m ss:.m moo.o o:m.m mma.m ssoosH gasses
o.H: w.m: m.m: :.mm :.mm mcoapwdsooo meHoo
opfiss CH oomoadsm pcco pom
m.oa m.HH m.oa m.oa ma smpsassoo spams Hoosom asses:
ooo.mm ooo.moa ooo.ssa ooo.sma ooo.mHH swam sass:
msfissm
zmcfiwmm wcfimcmq pumps chHm sponswmm
*s >H HHH HH H

 

.mospm on» CH pom: muoaspmao

Hoosom o>fim wchHsQEoo mmfipfio mo moapmfipmpomsmno oHEocoom cum Hmfloomll.m mqm¢e

 

 

7A

The most significant difference among the districts
is the state equalized valuation for the Dearborn
District. This high valuation reflects the high property
values of that district. Contributing most to this dif-
ference is the large automobile manufacturing concern
located within that district. Since industrial concerns
contribute to schools based upon their assessed value
this feature distinguished Dearborn from the other
districts.

These data then suggest that differences among
districts should be considered prior to viewing all
schools as representing independent samples from a larger
population. The differences, while they exist, do not
seem sufficiently great to exclude the schools from any

one district.

The Sample

Once the cities and districts were selected, the
individual schools were categorized in each district
into sampling levels. These levels were: kindergarten
through the sixth grade, seventh through ninth grades,
and tenth through twelfth grades. To insure comparability
in drawing the sample several schools were eliminated
which did not conform to this gradation. In this research
only 7-9 and 10-12 grades were used. Only junior and

senior high schools were used because it was decided that

75

they would reflect a greater degree of Specialization and
a broader range of coordinative decisions. Moreover,
their increased size would permit a wider range of inte-
gration and conflict than would be possible in the
smaller elementary schools. A total of 18 high schools
and 28 junior high schools qualified to be included in
the sampling frame. The distribution of 7-9 grades and
10-12 grades by district and the range of faculty size

by district are presented in the following table.

Table 3.--Total number of usable administrative units in
grades 7-9 and 10-12 and their range of faculty size by

 

 

district.
District
I II III IV V

Total number of

usable adminis-

trative units

7-9 3 9 6 5 5

10-12 3 A 5 3 3
Range of faculty

size A0-103 68-78 17-86 71-101 51-89

Again the districts seem comparable with two
exxzeptions. First, district I has only three 7-9
adIninistrative units from which to sample. This is due
’00 the fact that five sampling units had to be drOpped

Since they did not correspond to the stratifying rules.

 

76

Each of these units was of the k-9 type and therefore
could not be included in the sampling population.

Secondly, the range of faculty is consistent with
one exception. In district three one of the junior high
schools had only seventeen faculty members. Because of
its small size, with respect to the other schools in the
district, conclusions based upon this school will have to
be evaluated in light of its small size.

From this sampling population it was decided to
select randomly two schools from each of the 7-9 level,
and one school from the 10-12 level. All of the selected
schools agreed to participate in the study, and the
following table (Table A) describes the size of the faculty
in each school, the number of questionnaires returned, and
the per cent of returns for each school.

The average per cent responding in the sampled
schools was 82.8% which was quite high. Other factors
which may influence later analysis include the proportion
of males in the schools, the length of experience, and
level of education which the faculties have attained.
Talale 5 presents these differences by schools and by

d1 strict .

The percentage of males in the schools varies
betrween 37 and 62 per cent. The range of the average
per~ cent males across the five districts varies from A6

tc> 59 per cent. With such a small range across different

 

 

 

 

 

so oo mm mo om so om as os so os mo mm so mo mssspms

mo pcoo pom

m: om oo so so om ma mm so oo as o: sm om so . mssspms
mo sonesz

 

Ho o: mo as so HQH sH mm oo oo oo os o: N: mos spasoss
7. so oNHm
7
mm mm Hm ms ms as mm mm Hm mm mm Hm ma ma as
s Hoosom s Hoosom s Hoosom s Hoossm s Hoosom

 

 

 

 

 

> poassmsa >H pofispmfio HHH ponspmso HH possomfio H posspmfio

 

.pofisumfio comm manna; Hoonom on cam
possumfio mp meadows mo pcoo Loo pcm .mcm3pos mo sobesc «muHSomm mo ouomnl.: mqm<e

 

 

 

TABLE 5.--Per cent male, per cent teachers with three or
more years experience, and per cent teachers with master's

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

degree.
Per cent Per cent
Per cent Teachers with Teachers
Males three or more, with
years experi- Master's
Degree
District I
11 62 89 69
12 57 81 57
13 5A 9A 78
District II
31 62 96 52
32 A7 75 2A
33 53 81 39
District_III
51 60 77 A6
52 52 76 31
53 AD 73 27
District IV
71 57 81 61
72 AA 78 51
73 A0 83 57
Egistrict V
91 A9 85 A6
92 37 9O 33
93 51 81 32

 

 

 

79

districts it would seem that the per cent males would
not significantly alter findings through a contamination
at the district level. Likewise, there is little dif-
ference between either schools or districts according

to the per cent of teachers with three or more years
experience in teaching.

In regard to the per cent of teachers holding masters
degrees there is some distinction across districts as well
as within districts. District I has the highest per cent
of teachers with masters degrees, it also leads other
districts in some other characteristics discussed in
Table 2. It has the highest median number of years of
school completed by its residents, the highest proportion
of white collar occupations, highest median income,
highest equalized valuation, and highest minimum starting
salary for teachers. However, it is not different from
other districts on overall size, size of faculty, or
allocated operating mills. Taken together these
differences do not seem sufficiently great to discard
lDistrict I from the sample.

A second factor which distinguishes schools
axzcording to the per cent of teachers holding masters
<1eegrees is the level of the school. Junior high schools
Vnsuld be expected to have a lower proportion of teachers
Vtith masters degrees than would the high schools. This
<1istinction is thus a function of the level of school

rather than the district in which they are located.

.25

' "‘4‘ (a,

 

 

 

 

80

In summary then, the differences in schools across
the districts does not seem so imposing that the schools
cannot be viewed as independent units forming a single
sample. What differences exist, reflect logical varia-
tion according to such factors as wealth and income and
even these differences are not sufficiently great to
warrant removing any of the districts from the sample.
In the next section, the independent and dependent vari-
ables will be operationalized and the impact of each
district upon these variables will be examined.

The Measurement of the Variables and the

Effect of the:District Differences Upon
Those Variables

The Independent Variables

Specialization.--In this section the operations used
to measure the independent variables will be described
and the effect which district differences have upon these
variables will be discussed.

To operationalize specialization it was decided to
use the proportion of subjects to teachers in each school.
Ifiius, as the number of teachers approaches the number of
Ccrurses taught in the school the teachers should become
mCrre specialized within one area of expertise. To
gather measures of specialization, directories for each
SCEhool district were obtained from the superintendents'

'Offdces. Contained in these directories is a listing of

 

81

the courses offered at each school in the sample accom-
panied by the teacher who teaches that subject. Some
teachers are responsible for several subjects making
them less specialized than the teacher responsible for
only one subject. By computing the number of subjects
assigned to each teacher, and by obtaining the number

of teachers in the school, it was possible to divide the
number of teachers into the total number of subjects and
arrive at a quotient relating teachers to subjects.
These quotients can then be ranked beginning with the
smallest and ending with the largest. The school ranked
first is the most specialized. The following table
describes the quotients and their rank according to
school. The schools are divided into their respective
districts in order to depict any district effects which
might influence the specialization ratios.

From this table it is possible to see that the
specialization proportions are quite small reflecting a
high teacher subject ratio. Most important, however, is
that in only one instance are contiguous rankings found
urlder one district. In all other cases there is at

lEBast a distance of one rank separating specialization
Scores by district. This indicates that the districts
themselves have little impact upon the ranking of the
sClhools according to specialization, and that factors
Other than those represented by the district are influ—

encing the distribution of specialization scores.

 

82

TABLE 6.--Specialization ratios and the ranks of those
ratios by school and by district.

 

 

Specialization Specialization
Ratios Ranks
District I
11 1.120 2
12 1.166 6
13 1.133 A
District II
31 1.380 11
32 1.110 1
33 1.130 3
District III
51 1.330 10
52 1.750 15
53 1.500 1A
IDistrict IV
71 1.260 8
72 1.160 5
73 1.AAO 13
District V
91 1.A10 12
92 1.190 7
93 1.290 9

 

MO 3 1: special

ized has lowest rank.

There is some evidence to indicate that the

Speeialization scores determined by this process are

cot'lssistent with other characteristics traditionally

as‘Sociated with specialization.

If the average per

83

cent of teachers in each school district with masters
degrees, found in Table 5, is ranked and compared with
district ranks on specialization a high degree of con-
sistency is found. District I ranks first on both the
percentage of teachers with masters degrees and on the
highest degree of specialization. While District II
is ranked second on degree of specialization, it ranks
third on per cent of teachers with masters degrees.
District IV ranks third on degree of specialization,
but second on per cent of teachers with masters degrees.
Districts III and V are ranked the same on both dimensions.
This consistency indicates that there is some relation-
ship between the percentage of teachers in each district
having masters degrees and the level of specialization
in that district. This relationship seems reasonable,
for as teachers gain more education they become more
specialized and thus focus their expertise on a more
limited range of tasks.
The location of coordinative decision-making,--
ASérveral facets of the school organizations' authority
structure will be investigated through an analysis of
positions associated with the making of coordinative
Caneaczisions. First, the legitimacy which subordinates
:ldrl‘Iest in superordinate positions to make decisions
w'35—11 be examined. Secondly, the discrepancy between

‘Srlei positions that subordinates invest with legitimacy

8A

to make a decision, and where it is actually made, will
also be analyzed.

To examine these aspects of authority, 38 questions
from the studies of both Corwin's and Charters' work on
control structure were administered to five judges who
separated the professionally relevant questions from the
professionally non-relevant questions.1 These five
persons were familiar with both classroom work and with
the broader aspects of public education. The judges
were either elementary or secondary school teachers,
with three of these five teaching in the sampled districts.
From the total list of 38 questions 1A were finally
selected for use. By proceeding in this manner, earlier
questions on educational decision-making were updated and
oriented to the particular setting of this study (see
Appendix for items).

Teachers from each school in the sample were asked
their perceptions of who actually made each of the
<iecisions, and who should make those decisions. All

teachers were required to associate each decision with

one of 12 different positions in the school organization.

 

1Ronald G. Corwin, The Development of an Instru-
£22£§331t for Measuring Staff Cbnflicts in Public Schools;
éaJrlci Moeller and Charters,I"Relation of Bureaucratization
t3”C> Sense of Power Among Teachers," AAA-A65.

85

The first step in analyzing the results from these
questions was to collapse several of the positions into
:3 single position. Since certain positions were checked
'very sparingly, and corresponded closely to other
positions it was decided to combine these positions.

For example, principals, and principals assistants were
combined into one position entitled principals.
Similarly, superintendent, and superintendents' assist-
ants were combined into a single position entitled
superintendents' office. By combining positions it was
possible to fill the cells and to enlarge the responses
to a sufficient degree to permit analysis. To analyze
the structure of coordinative decision-making with school
organizations two procedures were devised. First, the
legitimacy which teachers extend to their colleagues

and to superordinate positions for making certain coordi-
native decisions will be examined. By examining the
question of legitimacy it is possible to understand more
about the authority relationships between superordinates
and subordinates. Furthermore, legitimacy, as it is
extended by subordinates, details the manner in which
subordinates perceive a division of labor in the
decision-making process.

The second procedure is designed to compare the
legitimacy which subordinates extend to superordinates

with the actual decision-making roles performed by the

86

superordinates. To do this two manipulations will be
completed. First, the legitimacy which subordinates
confirm upon superordinate positions will be correlated
with the actual decision-making roles which superordinates
perform. Second, the legitimacy which teachers impart to
different positions for making certain decisions will be
combined with the actual decision-making performance of
superordinates on the same set of decisions to produce

a set of discrepancy scores.

Based upon the review and critique of the literature
on the structure of decision-making in organizations, it
was decided to examine how the various decisions were
divided according to which position should make them.

To investigate this question, the percentage of teachers
in all schools responding that they "should" make each of
the 1A decisions was arrayed from the high percentage to
the low for each of the 1A decisions. Next the percentage
of teachers in all schools responding that principals
should make each of the 1A decisions was arrayed from
high to low. Then the per cent of teachers responding
that superintendents should make each of the 1A

decisions was also arrayed from high to low. This manipu-
lation produced three sets of arrays corresponding to the
per cent of teachers who said they themselves should

make each of the 1A decisions, the per cent of teachers

stating that principals should make each of the 1A

87

decisions, and the per cent of teachers stating that super-
intendents should make each of the 1A decisions.

By selecting the highest median scores according to
the legitimacy that teachers invest in themselves to make
certain decisions, and by the same token, the low legitimacy
they invested in other positions for making these same
decisions, a set of teacher decision-making items was estab-
lished. Second, the median scores on other items were
assessed according to the high legitimacy teachers invested
in principals for making certain decisions, and at the same
time the low legitimacy they invested in both themselves and
other positions for making those same decisions. This pro-
duced a set of principal decision-making items based upon the
legitimacy which teachers invested in principals for making
those decisions. Finally, the same procedure was repeated
for selecting superintendents' items. This produced a set
of superintendents' decision-making items based upon the
legitimacy which teachers extended to superintendents for
making certain decisions. Finally, the same procedure was
repeated for selecting superintendents' items. This pro-
duced a set of superintendents' decision-making items based
upon the legitimacy which teachers extended to superinten-
dents for making certain decisions. These manipulations
produced three independent sets of items. Teachers', princi-
pals' and superintendents' set of items were all based upon
the high median legitimacy scores which teachers invested

in these positions. Not all of the 1A decision-making items

88

were used in establishing the teacher, principal, and super-
intendent legitimacy items. Only those items where the
median.scores were high for the position in question and
low for all other positions were used (see Appendix for
decision—making items associated with each position).

Once the 1A decision items were grouped according
to the positions teachers invested with legitimacy for
making those decisions, the sets of items could then be
applied to each school. This was done to determine the
extent to which teachers in each school in the sample
invested legitimacy in their own and other positions
to make each set of decisions. The per cent of teachers
in each school who invested legitimacy in themselves
for making the teacher set of decisions was recorded.
Next the per cent of teachers in each school investing
legitimacy in the principals decisions were also summed,
and finally the legitimacy extended to superintendents
was treated in the same manner. Each of the schools
was then ranked according to the legitimacy they gave
to reachers decision-making items. Each of the schools
was also ranked according to the legitimacy teachers ex-
tended to principals and superintendents decision-making
items. These ranks represent the legitimacy which teachers
in each school extended to their own decision-making items,

as well as the legitimacy they extended to the principal

89

and superintendent items. These operations completed
the first procedure described above.

To complete the first part of the second procedure
described above the legitimacy which teachers extended
to their own positions was compared with which positions
actually made those decision that teachers believe
"should" be reserved for them. Thus while teachers
believe they "should" have the right to make certain
decisions, other superordinate positions could actually
have control over the making of these decisions. To
examine this the following steps were taken.

1. The per cent of teachers in each school
responding that principals actually make
those decisions over which teachers believe
they should legitimately have control was
recorded.

2. The per cent of teachers in each school
responding that the superintendent actually
make the decisions which teachers feel they
are legitimately entitled to make, was
recorded.

3. The per cent of teachers in each school
responding that superintendents actually
make those decisions which the teachers
believe "should" be made by the principals
was recorded.

A. Each of the schools was then ranked on one,
two, and three above.

5. The ranks of the schools according to the per
cent of teachers in each school responding
that teachers should have legitimacy over
their decision-making items was then correlated
with one and two above.

 

90

6. Finally the ranks of the schools according to
the per cent of teachers in each school
reporting that principals should have legiti-
macy over principal decision-making items was
correlated with three above.

Through these manipulations it was possible to compare
the legitimacy which teachers extended to their own and to
principals decision-making items, with the actual
decision-making control which principals and superinten-
dents have over these decisions. Where the resulting
correlations are high and negative there is some indication
that there is little discrepancy between the positions.
Since a high negative correlation indicates that as the
legitimacy which teachers extend to themselves increases,
the actual control by other positions on those same items
declines. Where the correlations are high and positive
this indicates that conflict between the positions is
prevalent. A correlation which approaches zero indicates
there is no relationship between the legitimacy teachers
invest in themselves and the actual decision-making
authority of various superordinate positions.

The second part of the second procedure involves
the development of discrepancy scores which are composed
of the differences between the legitimacy and actual
decision-making items. To arrive at these scores the

following steps were taken.

91

l. The legitimacy which teachers in each school
invest in themselves for making their decision-
making items was summed.

2. The actual authority which principals have over
teacher decision-making items was summed for each
school.

3. Two was subtracted from one in order to obtain
the difference between the legitimacy which
teachers invest in their own decisions as
opposed to the actual authority of the principal
over those same decisions.

A. The actual authority which superintendents have
over teacher decision-making items was summed
for each school.

5. Four was subtracted from one in order to obtain
the difference between the legitimacy which
teachers invest in their own decisions as opposed
to how much authority superintendents have over
those teacher decisions.

6. The legitimacy which teachers extend to principals
decision-making items in each school was also
summed.

7. The actual authority which superintendents have
over principals decision-making items was also
summed for each school.

8.- Seven was subtracted from six in order to obtain
the difference between the legitimacy that
teachers extend to principals as opposed to the
actual decision-making power of the superintendents
over principals decision-making items.

3
The results from steps three, five, and eightiformed the
discrepancy scores which could then be correlated with
other organizational variables.

In general, the larger the differences between any
two positions'on "should" and actual scores, the less the

discrepancy between them. Since a high score on "should"

and a low score on actual reflects a lack of competition

92

between the two positions for authority over that particu-
lar set of decisions. By contrast, where the differences
between "should" and actual are quite small there is
reason to believe that competition exists between two
positions for control over that set of decisions. In
this manner the differences between the legitimacy
extended to superordinate positions, and the actual con-
trol which they have over the making of these decisions,
can be assessed.

District effect on legitimacy and discrepancy in
school organizations.--To determine if there is some
factor operating at the district level which may confound
the relationship among schools on these items the ranking
of schools according to their legitimacy and discrepancy
scores must be assessed. Where schools in one district
cluster together in their ranking on these dimensions
some outside influence might be operative. To examine
this, though no direct test is used, the ranking of the
schools on their legitimacy and discrepancy scores are
provided in the following table (Table 7).

In examining the ranks fo the legitimacy items
across various districts there are only two sets of com-
pletely contiguous rankings. These occur in the ranks
of the superintendent legitimacy items. There are only
five sets of two contiguous ranks across the remaining

districts. In all others there is a spread of at least

93

.xcms pmwann on homon mzmsz H

 

NH O 5

MH m.N :

MH 3 N

a m HH

0 :H mH

NH :H

HH 2H

MH mH

:H

mH

NH

mH

mH

mH

m H mH OH MH

NH :H H OH m

OH MH HH m 5

HH

OH

m

m unoccopCHstsm
IHwQHoCHsQ

monoom hocmdoso

ImHU mo xcmm

HH pcopcochmeSm
Isosomop
mocmaomo

ImHo mo xcmm

OH HwQHochQ
Isonomop

mosoom mocmmoho

ImHU mo xcmm

m mEouH zomEHproH
pcoocoqu
ILCQSm mo xcmm

o mEopH momEHprmH
HmQHocqu so xcmm

m mEopH zomEHpHmoH
hmgomop mo mxcmm

 

mm mm Hm

ms ms

Hs

mm

mm Hm mm mm Hm

 

> posspmfla

>H osssomflo

HHH

poasomflm HH posssmso

mH
H

NH
possomfia

HH

 

.osoom zocodosomHo pQCOCochsoQSmIHmQHocHsQ was .osoom

mommaosomHo pcoocochsomzmlsonomop .osoom hocwdosome HwQHocHLQILonomop ho xcwh
so Ucw .momoow momEHpHmoH sogomop co Hoopom psopqochsoQSm paw .Hddpom HmmHocHsQ mo
xzms map .mosoom mowEHproH uncooochmodsm cam HonocHso .sogommp so xcmmll.s mqm<e

 

 

9A

one rank separating one school from another. This brief
analysis indicates that there does not seem to be any
pronounced district effect upon the rankings of the
schools according to the legitimacy which teachers invest
in themselves for making certain decisions, as well as
the legitimacy Which they invest in other positions for
making different decisions.

In examining the discrepancy scores across districts
by positions there are only five contiguous rankings in
all three rows indicating that discrepancy scores for
each of the positions is not strongly affected by the
districts from which the sample was drawn. In analyzing
these discrepancy scores by columns across discrepancy
rankings the potential impact of the district becomes
more pronounced. School 72 has the fourteenth rank on
each discrepancy score. In considering those features
of this school that might distinguish it from the others
in the sample, none were found. It did not rank smallest
in size nor in per cent of males. Further, the other
schools in this district did not have consistent rankings
which indicates that it is not a function of the district,
but remains unexplained, and thus may actually be a
random variation. None of the other schools have
similar ranks on all three discrepancy scores. Some
of the districts have two similar ranks but they occur

for different schools.

   

 

95

Finally there is no apparent relationship between the
discrepancy scores and the schools which are high on the
number of teachers with masters' degrees. Some of the
literature on school organizations has argued that as the
level of education rises among the teaching staff there
will occur a comensurate increase in the demands for
greater freedom and autonomy by the teaching staff. This
is not born out by the evidence here.

The absence of any strong relationships among the
districts as to their level of discrepancy indicates that
the fifteen schools may be considered representatives from
a larger population. Since variation does not seem to be
an artifact of the districts there is no need to withdraw

any of the schools from the sample.
Dependent Variables

Integration

 

As will be recalled from the previous chapter, inte—
gration was viewed as a multiedimensional concept. In this
dissertation three dimensions will be operationalized to
determine their relationship with other properties of the
organizations under study. To inspect these dimensions
an index of integration will be developed. An index is
characterized by its ability to absorb related dimensions
into an overall measure, or empirical referent, for a

particular concept. It is particularly suited for concepts

96

such as integration which embody a number of more funda-
mental concepts. It differs from a scale in that a
scale requires unidimensionality, whereas the index
focuses on bringing related dimensions together into an
overall measure.

There are a series of steps to developing an index.
In general they deal with assessing some measure of agree-
ment among the items to be included. Three questions
were used to measure the degree of support, communication
and identification with different reference groups. For
each question a similar set of positions was used. For
each position the respondent was permitted a set of forced
choice categories varying from "very great," to "not
important at all". The positions ranged from teachers
within a specialty to district superintendent (see Appendix
for questions and an entire list of the positions).
Certain positions were omitted from this analysis since
they did not deal with positions or categories with
which this study was concerned.

The first step in constructing the index was to
obtain a mean for each school on all the relevant posi-
tions. These means were computed separately for positions
on each of the three questions. Once the means were com-
puted each school was ranked according to its distribution
on each of the positions. Then these ranks were inter-

correlated to determine the extent to which schools ranking

97

high on one position ranked high on another. After com-
pleting this for each of the three questions separately
the following matrices were produced (Table 8). From
these matrices several observations can be made. First,
there seems to exist a qualitative difference between
teachers in speciality and other positions in the school
organization. Second, there seems to be a rather strong
association between teachers not in specialty and princi-
pals on the support, communication and identification
dimensions. Along all three dimensions, however, once

the relationship moves beyond positions within the school
building, and to the higher administration of the schools,
the degree of association between teachers, principals, and
these high positions declines. In fact as communication
between teachers in specialty increases communication with
higher positions declines. Likewise, as identification
among teachers in a specialty increases, the identification
with higher positions in the organizations declines. These
correlations do not become strongly positive again until
one moves beyond the school organizations altogether, and
into the community. There is a strong relationship among
teachers, and between teachers and principal, and between
teachers and members of the P.T.A. and parents. This
relationship is weakest on the identification dimension.
This might be expected, however, since teachers may find

parents supportive, and they may communicate with them,

 

98

TABLE 8.--Inter~position correlation of support, communication, and reference
group identification.

 

 

 

 

Support 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 9
1. Teachers in Specialty

2. Teachers not in Specialty .57'

3. Principals .65' .58“

U. Superintendent .39 .5h‘ .05

5. Superintendent Assistants .35 .L3“ .1“ . 8

6. School Board .08 .31 .Jl .0) .15“

7. Teacher Organization Officials .18 .70” .ll .79“ .29 .30

8. PTA .58” .73‘ .U)‘ .3“ .35“ NO .3“

9. Parents .52“ .52“ .N3 .11 .69* .2“ .26 .80“
Communication

l. Teachers in Specialty

2. Teacners not in Specialty .12

3. Principals .13 .UB‘

9. Superintendent .l7 -.Ji .33

5. Superintendent Assistant; —.93 -.19 .0) -.U“

6. School Board —.lb -.;L .J) .37 -.30

7. Teacher Organization Officials .13 .{i* .0) 33 —. ‘ -.C7

8. PTA .1“ .“u* .3?“ .31 -.17 .;J .11

9. Parents .1» .79“ .H5* -.l? -.13 .11 .“3' .hB‘

 

Reference Group Identification

 

1. Teachers in Specialty

2. Teachers not in Specialty .50“

3. Principals -.Ol .30

U. Superintendent -.20 .3: -.30

5. Superintendent Assistants

6. School Board .1: .37 .33 .U1

7. Teacher Organization Officials .09 .S2* .30 .US* .80*

8. TPA

9. Parents .23 .39 .02 .23 .b5* .66’

 

1
Significant at .05 level.

 

 

99

but because teachers are specialists they would not be
expected to identify with them.

These similar findings are sufficiently encouraging
to warrant pursuing the next step of the index. To com-
plete this step, the rankings of the schools on each
position are compared across the three dimensions. Thus
the ranking of the schools on the teacher in specialty
position for each of the three dimensions was inter-
correlated. This produced a correlation coefficient
showing the relationship between teachers in Specialty
on support, and teachers in specialty on communication,
and identification. These intercorrelations of positions
across the three dimensions produced the following matrices
(Table 9).

In observing these matrices it becomes evident that
the identification dimension is not correlating signifi—
cantly with either support or communication. The corre-
lations between teachers in specialty, teachers not in
Specialty, and principals, on support and communication
are all quite high. These same positions do not correlate
highly on the identification dimension. Since this is
one of the focal points of the analysis it was decided to
drop the identification dimension and to proceed with
only the two dimensions for the integration index.

As was observed in the inter-position correlation,

there is a split between those positions within the

10C)

TABLE 9.--Inter-item correlations for index of integration between support,
communication and identification.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Communications 1 2 3 Suppgrt 5 6 7
1. Teachers in Specialty
2. Teachers not in Specialty .u3
3. Principal .63 ~77
u. Superintendent .OO '27 '19
5. Superintendent's Assistants -.O9 '08 -'03 —'3O
6. School Board -.08 '07 -‘26 '27 'u6
7. PTA .50 .67 .38 .32 .uu .21
8. Parents .53 .73 .36 .35 .50 .60 .61
Reference Group Identification Support
1. Teachers in Specialty
2. Teachers not in Specialty 28
3. Principal .32 .52
u. Superintendent .00 .u7 -.l7
5. Superintendent's Assistants
6. School Board —.06 US —.06 .37 .U7
7. PTA
8. Friends not in Education - 03 .20 —.3u .07 .U2 MS .15
Reference Group Identification Communication
.1. Teachers in Specialty
2?. Teachers not in Specialty .23
.3 - Principal .08 .67
L‘- Superintendent, -.39 .25 .28
55 ° Superintendent‘s Assistants
6 - School Board -.M3 .140 19 -.13 — on
7 - PTA
8- Friends not in Education —.1u .29 -.23 -.16 —.08 .10 .01

/

101

school building and those at the central administration.
Here again this difference is reflected in the inter—item
correlations. Because both dimensions operated similarly
in this respect, however, it was decided to combine them.
Using these two dimensions as an index of integration it
will be possible to examine the impact of the independent
variables upon the integration of the various positions.
After combining these dimensions into an index of integra-
tion it is now necessary to examine the impact of the

five districts upon this index.

District effect on integration index.--To assess
the impact of the districts upon the integration index
the ranks of the schools on each position are presented
in the following table (Table 10).

In examining the table several factors can be
assessed. First, there are only sixteen contiguous
rankings across all positions by districts. There are no
more than three contiguous rankings along any one position.
Secondly, the rankings of the position, when observed by

CListrict columns, are widely diverse, suggesting that the
_Cifi.stricts are not having a significant impact upon the
r’EaJikingsfacross the various positions. Third, each
E5chool within the five districts is ranked differently
C3r3- each of the dimensions again suggesting that the
€13~strict is not having an impact upon their order.

‘EVLnally, the distribution of first and last place rankings

 

w m m.mH : m m.mH m m.H 2H CH m ma 5 m.H HH ¢Bm

 

m.m m.N : m.w m.: NH m.N H mH HH m.: mH a 0 OH oododod

m.o m m m m H :H m mH m.o m.HH m.m m.HH MH m.m oooom Hoooom

o m mH m.OH NH m N : mH MH 5 N H m m.OH m.oooomwmmwmwmmm

m“ m N a HH MH m NH m.m m.o m.o m.m mH OH H :H odooooodHooosm
1 o m.: 3H N N mH m.: NH m.m HH a mH m H m.m HooHostN
H OH HH m.» o mH N m NH m.s : :H m m mH suHoHooom eH

no: mponowme

s 3H MH m N HH HH m mH N o HH H m.m m.m soHoHooom

CH muonomoe

 

mm mm Hm ms mu Hp mm mm Hm mm mm Hm ma NH HH

 

 

 

 

 

> ooHtooHo >H ooHoomHo HHH ooHoomHo HH ooHoomHo H ooHoomHo

 

.mpOHsumHo canflz Hoogom so one poahpmfio an .xoocH COHpmswmch
on» so «Em one .mpcosma .Upmoo Hooaom .mpcmpmfimmm mucoocoosHmoQSm .mpcoocopcfipoQSm
.mHmoHocHha .mpHmHomom 2H no: moonomou .muHmHooom as mnonommp mo mxcmmcn.0H mqm<e

 

103

seems to vary across districts with no one district having
a large proportion of either first or last place ranks,
again suggesting no district influence. Given all these
indicators it seems reasonable to conclude that the
districts are not having an impact upon the ranking of
schools along the integration index.

Conflict.--To develop a measure of conflict a question

 

concerning the amount of disagreement and tensions between
different positions in the school organization was used.
(See Appendix for the question and the positions.) By
employing a measure which emphasized disagreements and
tensions rather than overt conflict it was felt that
respondents would more readily express their differences.
Once the conflict between various positions was assessed
it was decided to collapse certain positions since they
seemed to reflect similar dimensions of conflict between
similar positions in the organization (see Appendix for
inter—position correlation). There was both face
validity and significant levels of association on the
rank order correlation between positions, both of which
provided evidence for combining these categories.

District effect on conflict variables.--To assess

 

the impact of district influences upon the measure of con-
flict the ranks of each school, according to the degree
of conflict between each of the positions in the school

organization, is presented in the following table (Table 11).

104

gems pmocan on whommp mzmsz H

 

N z m m m w mH MH H m :H b

s m m N w : m.oH MH w H m.0H m

m OH : mH :H MH 5 NH w HH 0 w

HH m h m :H m OH H N m NH 2

w NH m z N m mH :H MH 0 HH H

HH

mH

OH

:H

mH

NH

E

NH

mH

OH

mmonomou
oHMEmm was ons
coospoo uoHHmsoo

whosoomp
oHo new mcsom

cmozpon poHHmcoo

ohmoo Hoonom
paw mponomou
coozpop pOHHmcoo

pcoocmchthSm
pom mnonowop
coozpon pOHHmcoo

mHmQHocHLQ
osm whosomop
soozpon pOHHmcoo

muooHQSm
meow CH mnmnomop
somzpon poHHmcoo

 

mm mm Hm ms Np H» mm mm Hm mm mm Hm

 

 

 

 

> ooHtomHo >H ooHsomHo HHH ooHtooHo HH ooHopmHo

MH

NH

HH

 

H ooeooon

 

.oooHsomHo :Hnon Hoodoo

mo pom pOHmeHo mo moonomop oHNEom can onE zoozpon .mhonomou pHo one wcsom coozuon
.Upmon Hoonom pom moonomop coozpoo .ucoocochmoQSm cam moonommp coozpon «mHmQHocHLQ
cam mmonomop somzpmn .pooHQSm meow 2H mponomou cmozpmn uoHHcho mo mxcmmII.HH mqm<e

 

105

In examining this table there is some indication
that District I represents the extremes in the variation
by rank. These differences, while emphasized on the con-
flict variable, are not apparent on other variables in
this study. As a result this district will not be
excluded from the analysis. Instead, particular atten-
tion will be paid to it when this conflict variable is
compared with others during the course of the analysis.
By being cognizant of the differences which are possible,
due to the district influence on this variable, the rela—
tion between conflict and other variables will be dis-
cussed in terms of the district which is influencing
them. The only other suggestion of a district influence
exists in District V on the conflict between teachers
and superintendents and between teachers and school
boards. Again, however, contiguous rankings on these
two variables does not seem sufficient to exclude this
district from the sample. It does, however, call for
particular attention to be given to it when conflict
between these positions is discussed.

In summary then, there has been no clear cut sug—
gestion that district influences are operating similarly
across the variables of this study. Though certain
districts seem to have closer rankings on one variable
they do not exhibit this same influence over all

variables in the study. Certain differences are to be

106

expected since there are differences in size and other
characteristics among the districts in the study. Though
there was an attempt to match the districts, perfect
comparability is always lacking and the districts selected
do reflect only moderate variation.

The most significant aspect of the district dif-
ferences was the fact that no district varied the same way
across different variables. This lends considerable sup-
port for the fact that such differences as do exist are
themselves randomized thus nullifying their effect upon
the school variables. Because of these findings, none of

the schools will be removed from the analysis.

The Analysis Procedure

 

The analysis procedures for this dissertation were
in part dictated by the quality of the data and the unit
of the analysis. The data reflect ordinal quality
since there is no guarantee that the forced choice
responses are of interval level, or that the variables
are randomly distributed through the sample. In fact
the evidence above indicates that certain variables may
be clustered in specific districts. Taking these factors
into account it was decided to rely on measures of
association in order to determine the degree of relation-
ship between the variables. One measure of association
was finally decided upon. The Spearman rank order

correlation was used because it was consistent with the

107'

ordinal quality of the data. To reach the .05 level of
significance, with fifteen organizations, a Spearman rank

order correlation coefficient of r = .qu is required.

Summary
In this chapter the background characteristics of

each of the five districts involved in the sample were
examined in order to determine the comparability of

those districts. Some differences were found, but none

of the variations across districts seemed either suffi—
ciently great, or so widespread as to effect other character-
istics. Next the measures for each of the variables was
explained and the effect of district differences upon them
explored. There was some district influence found to be
operative in the measure of conflict. As a result it was
decided to pay particular attention to the impact of

the district upon the relationships between conflict and
other variables. In the next chapter the hypotheses
developed in Chapter II will be tested and the findings

examined.

 

CHAPTER IV

SPECIALIZATION, INTEGRATION

AND CONFLICT

Introduction
In the last chapter the district differences were
examined, the variables central to this study were opera—
tionalized, and the effect of these district differences
upon the variables were assessed. In this chapter the

hypotheses will be tested and the findings discussed.

Background Variables

Before entering directly into a testing of the
hypotheses the effect of certain variables must be
assessed. Since the unit of analysis is the school,
two variables loom as particularly improtant. The size
of the schools and the per cent of males in each school
may have a significant impact upon the relationships
between other variables in this study. Most studies of
complex organizations find that size has some impact upon
the variables in question. There is no clear evidence
exactly why such a relationship exists, or what more
fundamental variables are reflected by size. Most dis-

cussions of size center around the manner in which it

108

 

109

tends to retard certain relationships, most often those
associated with difference in authority or prestige,
while at the same time promoting coalitions among per-
sonnel or equal status.

Certain studies find that size has a generally
retarding effect upon the development of social relation-
ships. Others argue that size retards commitment to
an organization, as well as decreasing an individual's
willingness to contribute when he perceives his contribution
to be miniscule in comparison to the total product or
value of the organization. Though there is no clear cut
rationale for examining size,its impact must nevertheless
be assessed.

The impact of the per cent of males is particularly
germane to the study of school organizations. With the
increase in the per cent of males teaching in junior and
senior high schools there has been a commensurate increase
in the militancy, demands for autonomy, and increased
‘salaries. Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest
that males are more reticent: to establish close inter-
personal bonds with their superiors in the school
organization. They instead develop a collective conscious-
ness among themselves which in turn may have a negative
impact upon organizational operations. For these

reasons these two variables will be considered here.

llO

. Test of the Hypotheses

Before moving to a direct test of the first set of
laypotheses, the relationship between specialization,
integration and the size of schools and the percentage
<3f males must first be examined. The correlation coef-
ficients between these variables are presented in the
following table (Table 12).

The relationship between size and the percentage of

males does not reach the level of significance (r = .351

 

between size and per cent males) therefore any interaction
effect between the two variables is at best minimal.
Each of these variables seem to be effecting the index

of integration and specialization a different manner.

TABLE 12.—-Spearman Correlation Coefficients between
size of school, percentage of males and the index of
integration and specialization.

 

 

Size Percentage
of School of Males
Teachers in Specialty -.237 .139
Teachers not in Specialty -.685* -.528*
Teachers and Principal}‘ -.627* -.365
Teachers and Assistant Super-
intendent —.571* -.098

Teachers and Superintendent -.O93 -.l37
Teachers and School Board .288 -.275
Teachers and Parents -.524* -.625*
Teachers and PTA -.7H8* -.537*
Specialization .243 .017

 

p < .05 N = 15

 

111

The size of school has a definite negative impact
upon the degree of integration among various positions
in the school hierarchy. The impact is least among
teachers within a specialty. The relationship is most
pronounced between teachers not in specialty (r = —.685).
From this point on the negative relationship between
size and integration declines as the distance between
teachers and other positions in the hierarchy increases
(r = —.627, -.571 and —.093 respectively for the inte-
gration between teachers and principal, teachers and
assistant superintendent, and between teachers and the
superintendent). This finding suggests that the impact
of size upon integration is mediated by the proximity of
the positions. Where positions are of equal status
there are no formalized relationships between them. In
such conditions size tends to retard the development of
informal relationships, but not effect the formalized
relationships between positions of differing status.

Size then affects integration by removing the possibility
for informal relationships to develop.

Size also affects school community relationships
by making it more difficult for teachers to establish
close interpersonal relationships with parents and
representatives of the PTA (= -.52A and -.7A8 respectively).
Size in this case may reflect a larger community where

teachers and other members of the community tend to lead

 

112

separate lives, and where relationships outside the
school are not as closely intertwined.

Finally, size does not seem to have an impact upon
specialization, even though the relationship is in a
positive direction (r = .243). Specialization is not
an attribute of school size, but reflects instead the
relationships of teachers to courses taught.

With one exception, the percentage of males has
a negative impact upon the level of integration in the
school organization. This one case, integration of
teachers within a specialty, hardly represents a strong
diversion from the trend (r = .139). It implies that
there is little relationship between the per cent of
males and the integration of teachers within a
specialty. The existence of a series of negative cor-
relations between percentage of males and the integra—
tion of teachers into the hierarchy suggests that males
are reticent to become closely associated with the
administrative components of the organization. Further
males are particularly opposed to establishing integra-
tive relations with representatives of the community
(r = -.625 and -.537 with parents and PTA respectively).
This finding is in general accord with much of the
other evidence concerning the impact of males upon the
organizational structure of schools. First, their

reticence to establish close relationships with

 

113

administration reflects an increasing consciousness on
the part of males toward their position in the school
organization. Second, their negative relationship with
the community depicts the antagonisms between better
teachers salary and low cost education for the residents
of the community.

Now that the relationship between the size of
school, the per cent of males, and integration and
specialization has been examined, the discussion turns
to a test of the first set of hypotheses, which read as
follows:

1. As the degree of specialization increases,

the level of social integration among
teachers within one specialized area of the
educational organization will increase.

2. As the degree of specialization increases,

the level of integration between teachers
and principals will also increase.
3. As the degree of specialization increases,
the level of integration with administrative
personnel——superintendents and their assistants
--will decline.
To test these hypotheses the rank order of each school
on the specialization measure was correlated with the
rank order of all positions on the index of integration,
using the Spearman Rank order correlation formula. The
results of these correlations are presented in the
following table (Table 13).
There is a significant relationship between the

degree of specialization and level of integration, thus

 

114

TABLE l3.--Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
between specialization and the Index of Integration.

 

 

 

Index of Integration Specialization
Teachers in Speciality .447*
Teachers not in Specialty -.088
Teachers and Principals .307
Assistant Superintendents -.208
Teachers and Superintendents -.089
Teachers and School Board .046
Teachers and Parents -.l38
Teachers and PTA -.039
x

p < .05 N = 15

confirming the first hypothesis (r = .447). As school
organizations become more specialized, teachers within
one teaching unit become more closely integrated with
one another. This confirms the traditional relationship
between specialization and integration. The second and
third hypotheses, while more provocative, are not con—
firmed at the accepted level of significance. As
specialization increases, the level of integration
between teachers and principals also rises (r = .307).
This finding implies that the demands of specialization
create a need for developing relationships with certain

administrative personnel who are directly associated

 

115

with the carrying out of specialized tasks. This finding,
while not directly supportive of Blau's findings, does
complement his results.1

While the second hypothesis is not confirmed by
accepted levels of significance, there is some indication
that the relationship holds and that integration does not
move in strictly horizontal directions but involves
administrative personnel who are charged with the com-
pletion of certain tasks. This relationship may further-
more, be a function of the complexity of the tasks and
of the interdependence and mutual consultation required
among the experts. This task variable is not examined
here, but its investigation in future research might
prove worthwhile.

The third hypothesis is not confirmed by the data,
though the correlation is in the predicted direction.
The integration between teachers, assistant superinten-
dents, and superintendents does begin to decline as the

degree of specialization increases. Furthermore, the

 

lSee Peter Blau, "The Hierarchy of Authority in
Organizations," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 73
(January, 1968),—453-467. In his study Blau found that
the proportion of supervisors to personnel in organiza-
tions increased as the number of expert personnel
increased. From this he deduced that decision—making
under such conditions was more decentralized than where
there were fewer expert personnel in the organization.
The finding here indicates that the integration of these
experts--teachers-—with supervisors—-principals——
increases as tasks become more specialized.

 

116

negative correlations decline as the relationship moves
to successively higher positions in the administration

(r = 0.208 for assistant superintendents, —.O89 for
superintendents, and .046 for school boards). While
these relationships are extremely weak, if not altogether
non—existent, there is, at least, a thread of evidence to
warrant their investigation in other pieces of research.

In summary then, only the first of the three
hypotheses was confirmed at a level of statistical sig-
nificance. There was some evidence for both the second
and third hypotheses, but it did not reach the required
significance level. Nevertheless, these hypotheses were
discussed and their exploration in future research
encouraged. Based upon these findings, which are
admittedly tenuous, it still remains worthwhile to
explore them as far as is possible. Therefore the dis-
cussion now turns to an exploration of the meaning of
integration for the organization's participants.

Before exploring the relationships between
specialization and other dimensions of the school
organizations, the impact of integration upon certain
operational aspects of the organizations will be pursued
a bit further. In reviewing the literature in Chapter II
it became immediately evident that most researchers in
the area of complex organizations associated integration

with organizational health and vitality. Few, if any of

117'

these studies, explored what integration meant in terms
of organizational operation. One such dimension will be
pursued here. Influence within an organization is always
present, and though it may run contrary to defined
channels of authority, its existence cannot be denied.

By correlating the index of integration with the influ-
ence teachers have over the principal, it might be
possible to understand more clearly what meaning inte-

gration has for the organizations' participants.

TABLE l4.—-Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
between Integration Index and the influence which teachers
have over principals, and other teachers in their building.

 

Influence Influence over
Index of Integration over Teachers in

Principal their Building

 

 

Teachers in Specialty .601* .582*
Teachers not in Specialty .358 .029
Teachers and Principals .748* .063
Teachers and Superintendents'

Assistants .276 .225
Teachers and Superintendents .143 -.329
Teachers and School Boards .206 .526*
Teachers and Parents .453* .299
Teachers and TPA .688* .329
Size of School -.511* -.221

x

p < .05 N = 15

 

The high and negative correlation between size and

influence indicates that informal channels of persuasion
are not as effective in large organizations. As the
number of teachers increases, the ability of any one
group to exert influence begins to decline.

The high correlations between integration of
teachers in specialty and influence over the principals
(r = .601), and the integration between teachers and
principals, and influence over the principal (r = .748)
are both important findings. Integration among teachers
within a specialty represents a solidarity which seems
collectively manifested through persuasion. Under such
conditions, principals are likely to be more amenable to
teachers suggestions when they are in agreement about
certain problems. Integration may be a precondition for
the effective use of influence over superiors. At the
same time, solidarity between teachers and principals
can also assist teachers in influencing the principal.
Solidarity between teachers and the principal is
essential if the principal is to perform his functions
of direction and coordination. If the principal chooses
to ignore the influence exerted by the teachers he may
risk disrupting the integrative bonds between himself
and the teachers. Such action can only hinder the
principal since he will be forced to work with subordi—

nates who are not in agreement with him.

     

 

119

 

The high correlations between the integration of
teachers and parents and influence over the principal
(r = .453) and the integration between teachers and
PTA and the influence over the principal (r = .688)
draws some attention to the idea that integration may
have an individualizing effect on district operations.
As teachers become more integrated with one another,
and with representatives from the community, they tend
to increase their influence over the principal and thus
over operations of that particular school. Given the
complexity of the relationships in each school organiza—
tion, however, this association may be an artifact of
the variables selected for examination. Where disagree-
ments between principals, and teachers and the com-
munity might arise, there is some evidence to indicate
that highly integrated schools could exert influence
over the principal. Certain structural arrangements
might offer another possible explanation for this rela-
tionship between integration and influence over the
principal.

Principals are representatives of the higher
administration in each school, they are surrounded by
teachers whose cooperation and support they must gain
if they are to succeed in their position. This being
the case, it might be argued that principals become more

integrated with teachers in order to insure their own

 

 

 

120

 

success. This explanation is discredited by the relation-
ship between teacher-principal integration and speciali-
zation. There it was found that integration between
teachers and principals increased with the degree of
specialization. If this is so, it would seem that other
factors, beyond the principal's desire for solidarity,
are at work to bring teachers and principals into a
closer working relationship.

A final explanation for the relationship between
teacher integration and influence over the principal will
be mentioned at this point. Some readers might argue
that this relationship is simply a function of the geo-
graphic layout of school districts. Teachers and
principals occupy one building within an entire school
district, thus it would be natural for harmonious rela—
tionships to emerge among these positions. The central
administration is housed in the district headquarters
for that school system, as a result there is little if
any direct social contact between teachers and super—
intendents and their assistants. Since these positions
represent higher authority it may be reasonable to
assume that teachers associate their problems with these
higher positions. Since some of the evidence presented
in this dissertation represents a split between positions
located in one building and the central administration,

the reader should bear in mind that it is possible that

 

 

 

 

121

 

such differences reflect in part geographic differences
rather than organizational differences. This is not

an explanation held by this writer, there are too many
differences between teachers in a specialty, and
teachers and principals in general, to lend much
credence to this simplistic explanation. Later evidence
will also discuss this explanation.

In comparing the correlations between integration
and influence over the principal, with correlations between
integration and influence over other teachers in the
building, it becomes immediately obvious the integration
serves to increase influence over the principal far more
than it serves to influence other teachers. In only
one case is significance reached. Integration of teachers
within one specialty does serve to increase influence
over other teachers in the building (r = .582). Beyond
this point the correlations drop below significance, sug-
gesting that integration is more closely associated with
influencing the principal than attempting to influence
other teachers. Two alternative accounts of this finding
are possible. First, teachers within a building may be
of one mind, thus leaving the principal to be convinced.
Secondly, and this explanation is consistent with the
discussion of the second hypothesis; integration is
closely related to specialization, which increases the

need for establishing vertical relationships with the

 

,9. - .15.}

     

 

122

principal, rather than expanding horizontal relationships
among the entire faculty. Thus, integration among
teachers may lead to increased influence over the
principal in order to obtain his cooperation and support
for certain problems within a particular area.

The meaning of integration is well demonstrated
through the channels of influence which are associated
with it. Integration becomes a device for establishing
vertical relationships in the form of influence over
principals, rather than a method for expanding horizontal
influence among the faculty members.

To this point the discussion has attempted to
illuminate the relationship between specialization and
integration. Secondly, it has pursued the subject of
integration, attempting to determine what meaning it
might have for organizational participants. Integration
was associated with influence over the principal as
opposed to influence over other faculty members.

The analysis now returns to an elaboration of
specialization and:its impact upon the organization.
While the theory under test in this dissertation focuses
upon the relationship between specialization and integra-
tion, it might prove fruitful to also explore the effect
of specialization on conflict within the organization.
The rank order correlations between specialization and

conflict appear in the following table.

 

 

123

 

TABLE 15.-—Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
between specialization and conflict, and between conflict
and size of school and per cent of males.

 

Speciali- Size Percentage
Conflict zation of of
Schools Males

 

Between Teachers and
Principals —.457* .264 .229

Between Teachers and
School Board and
Teachers and Super-

 

intendent -.034 -.129 .391
Between Young and Old and
Male and Female Teachers .065 .699* .166
Between Teachers in the
Same Subject .254 .425 .246
a

p < .05 N = 15.

The size of the schools seems to have a direct
positive relationship with conflict among teachers.
Size of school is significantly related to conflict
among young and old and male and female teachers, as
well as among teachers within the same subject
(r = .699 and .425 respectively). No definitive explana-
tion of this finding is possible within the confines of
the analysis, yet two suggestions are offered. First,
as the size of school increases there is a potential for
a greater variety of teachers to become employed in the
school organization. As the age and competency of

teachers becomes more disparate it is likely that conflict

 

 

 

124

will increase. Second, as the size of the school increases
meaningful exchanges with other positions may decline,
leaving teachers within each specialty to solve their own
problems, and thus increasing the possibility for conflict
to arise. This speculation is corroborated by the high
negative correlation between size and influence over the
principal. As size increases, teachers may be unable to
meaningfully relate to positions outside their specialty,
and are thus forced to solve their own problems. These
explanations are, however, only speculative and must not
be taken as conclusions.

There is no significant relationship between the
percentage of males and conflict, therefore the subject
will not be discussed further.

The correlation between specialization and teacher-
principal conflict is significant and corroborative of
the second hypothesis (r = -.457). As specialization
increases, the demands for interdependence and coopera-
tion between teachers and principals overshadows any
conflict between these positions. Where specialization
increases, tfle demands for interdependence are such that
teachers involve principals in the solution of their
problems. Thus specialization promotes integration
between positions charged with carrying out a series of
interdependent tasks. The demands of the tasks take
precedence over any differences which might exist between

the positions.

 

 

 

125

Just as specialization promotes integration and
reduces conflict between teachers and principals, it
seems to facilitate the emergence of both integration
and conflict among teachers.

Evidence from this study indicates the distinct
possibility of conflict and integration occurring in a
single relationship. There is a positive, but not sig-
nificant relationship between specialization and conflict
among teachers within the same subject (r = .254).
Earlier a positive and significant relationship was found
between specialization and integration among teachers
within the same subject (r = .447). In both cases these
findings occur among teachers within a certain specialty.
Thus, where social relationships are closely tied to
completion of certain highly interdependent and complex
tasks there arises the possibility that aspects of both
integration and conflict can exist within a single social
grouping. The evidence here is more suggestive than con-
clusive, the point was raised only because so much of
the writing in the area of organizations has failed to
even speculate concerning this possibility.

In summary then, specialization seems to foster an
interdependence between teachers and principals leading
toward the integration of the two positions. Further,
this interdependence reduces conflict between the two

positions in preference for completing the tasks and

   

.---.---¢-... . ..-_“-04-OAOQ..“"~‘..~”HOO”-."

 

 

126

solving the problems at hand. Specialization does,
however, embody elements of both conflict and integra—
tion among teachers within a specialty. Here the

nature of the interdependence is such that many problems
must be resolved. This implies two separate types of
interdependence; one between teachers and principals
which might be called integrational, and another, among
teachers, which might be termed intensive. These rela-
tionships can be further elaborated during the discussion
of the second set of hypotheses dealing with specializa-
tion and legitimacy.

In the above discussion, specialization was
associated with the integration of certain positions in
the organization. Much of the subsequent discussion
centered around the relationship between this inter-
dependence and certain social phenomenon. Now the dis-
cussion turns to the impact which specialization has upon
the structure of coordinative decision-making in the
school organizations. The three hypotheses developed in
Chapter II are restated below.

4. As specialization increases, the legitimacy
which teachers extend to their own coordinative
decision-making roles will increase.

5. As specialization increases, the legitimacy
which teachers extend to the principals'
coordinative decision-making roles will
increase.

6. As specialization increases, the legitimacy
which teachers extend to the coordinative

decision—making roles of the superintendents
will decline.

   

127

Before entering into an examination of the hypotheses it
is first necessary to consider the impact of the size

of school and the percentage of males upon the legitimacy
scores for teachers, principals, and superintendents.

The table below shows the correlation between teacher,
principal, and superintendent legitimacy scores, and the
degree of specialization, size of school, and percentage

of males.

TABLE l6.--Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients

between legitimacy scores for teachers, principals, and

superintendents, and the size of school, the percentage
of males, and the degree of specialization.

 

Speciali- Size of Percentage

 

zation School of Males
Legitimacy on Teacher
Decision-Making Items .275 -.364 -.l22

Legitimacy on Principal
Decision-Making Items .586* .025 .149

Legitimacy on Super-
intendent Decision-
Making Items -.182 -.604* -.019

 

*
p <.05 N = 15.

The size of the schools is negatively related to the
legitimacy which teachers invest in their own decision
making roles, and to the legitimacy they invest in super-

intendents' decision-making roles. No relationship

128

exists between school size and legitimacy invested in
principals decision—making roles (r = —.364 for teacher
roles and -.604 for superintendent roles). These find-
ings imply that size has an ambivalent effect upon the
legitimacy which teachers impart to both their own, and
the decision-making roles of superintendents. As size
increases teachers extend less legitimacy to the super-
intendents (r = -.604 significant at the .05 level).
The negative correlation (r = -.364) indicates that
teachers do not extend more legitimacy to themselves as
the size of the organization increases, in fact they
seem to withdraw legitimacy from their own decision-
making roles. Thus size may have a confusing effect
upon the decision-making roles in the organization.
This argument is substantiated when one recalls that
size had a generally negative impact upon the degree of
integration in the organization, and level of influence
over the principal. In general then size seems to make
relationships in the organization less definitive and
more difficult for participants to discern, particularly
teachers, who in this case represent the lower most
position in the school organization.

The relationships between legitimacy extended to
teachers, principals, and superintendents, and the per
cent of males in the teacher force were so low that no

mention will be made of them at this point.

129

The relationship between legitimacy and specializa-
tion is particularly encouraging in view of the arguments
already made in support of the first set of hypotheses.
First, as specialization increases teachers tend to
extend less legitimacy to the superintendents' decision
making roles. Though the relationship is not significant
(r = -.l82), it corresponds with earlier arguments con-
cerning the position of the superintendent in the school
organization. In testing the previous set of hypotheses
it was found that specialization was related to a decline
in the integration between teachers and the central
administration. Together these findings represent two
separate instances where greater specialization leads to
a decline in the social relationships between teachers
and superintendents. This might be explained by two dif-
ferent perspectives toward the completion of organiza—
tional tasks. From the view of the central administration
increasing specialization and interdependence can best.
be managed through standardization and setting out per-
formance requirements. Such actions create hostility
among the teachers who must work through complex and non-
routine problems which are not subject to procedural
regulation. Thus, as specialization increases, the
legitimacy which teachers extend to superintendents
declines in the face of attempts to standardize the com-

plex and non-routine.

 

 

.1. .'

"nag

 

 

t1

 

130

Just as teachers withdraw legitimacy from super-
intendents, they at the same time do not necessarily
extend more legitimacy to their own decision—making
roles. The correlation between specialization and the
legitimacy which teachers extend to their own decision-
making roles is only r = .275 which does not reach
significance. Specialization may confuse teacher
decision—making roles, since the demands for inter—
dependence make it unclear as to who among the teachers
should make decisions. Moreover, interdependence may
make increased legitimacy to their own roles unwarranted,
as the burdens of making certain decisions are already
sufficiently heavy. It is clear that teachers do extend
considerably more legitimacy to the decision—making roles
of the principal as specialization increases (r = .586
significant at the .05 level). As specialization
increases, and the demands for interdependence increase,
the principals' decision-making roles become more legiti-
mate. This finding supports the relationship between
increasing Specialization and teacher-principal integra-
tion. Taken together these findings signify the importance
of the principals' decision-making roles as specialization
increases. This evidence indicates that as interdepen-
dence increases teachers come to recognize the importance
of the principals' position rather than to disregard it.

As teachers find their already complex tasks becoming more

 

131

tightly interwoven they come to accept the principals'
role rather than to reject him as traditional arguments
in the organizational literature purport.

In summary then, teachers withdraw legitimacy from
superintendents as their tasks become more specialized.
Superintendents make decisions based on premises which
do not reflect the demands for interdependence and the
complex non-routine nature of the teachers tasks. To
complete these tasks, in the face of increasing speciali—
zation, teachers extend greater legitimacy to the
principals who can assume part of the decision—making
responsibility for the achievement of their tasks.
Teachers do not extend more legitimacy to their own
decision-making roles as specialization increases,
since the demands for interdependence may actually con—

fuse the domains of decision—making authority.

Conclusion

In this chapter the relationship between specializa-
tion and integration in school organizations was explored.
The evidence presented was at times meager, making the
arguments more tentative than conclusive. Specialization
was associated with increased integration among teachers
within the various specialities. This conclusion is
hardly new and deserves little more discussion. Of con-
siderably more interest, however, was the finding

relating specialization with integration between teachers

 

 

132

and principals. Granted the weakness of the correlation,
the argument gained support through additional evidence
revealing how integration among teachers within a
specialty was related to influence-over the principal.
Integration was associated with influence over other
members of that specialty and with influence over
principals.

A second point which buttressed this argument was
the decline in conflict between teachers and principals
as the level of specialization rose. Both these points
substantiate the argument that specialization involves
both horizontal and vertical integration within the
organization. This occurs where lower administrative
personnel are charged with the completion of uncertain
and highly interdependent tasks. The sequencing of courses
within a particular subject, and working out the problems
of integrating these highly interdependent efforts,
create demands for integration between teachers and
principals as well as among teachers within the specialty.

A third piece of evidence marshalled on behalf of
this argument was the increased legitimacy which teachers
extended to principals in the face of increasing
specialization. Here again it would seem that teachers
come to recognize the function of the principal as
specialization creates greater demands upon their time

and effort. They are willing to extend legitimacy to

 

133

the principals' decision—making functions in order to
relieve themselves of certain burdens, and to allow
for effective cooperation between the two positions
as the demands created by interdependence become more
pronounced.

A second argument addressed in this chapter had
considerably less support than the first. The integration
between teachers and the central administration did tend
to drop off, at least minimally, as specialization
increased. Further, teachers tended to withdraw legi-
timacy from the central administration as specializa-
tion increased. This suggests that the solution to prob—
lems from the superintendents perspective became less
workable as the demands of interdependence increased.

The literature indicates that higher administration
prefers to standardize solutions as specialization
increases, but that teachers cannot meet these criteria
when confronted with the working out of the problems.

In summary, specialization polarizes social rela—
tionships. At the lower levels it fosters greater inter-
dependence among teachers and between teachers and
principals; while at higher levels it creates certain
hostilities between teachers and other lower personnel
and the central administration. To understand how
specialization will effect social relationships within

an organization it is necessary to focus upon how

 

134

various positions become involved in the completion of
non-routine and complex tasks. Those positions that must
see through the completion of the tasks tend to become
more integrated as specialization rises, regardless of
differences in status. For positions not directly
involved in such tasks, specialization seems to foster,
if not hostility, at least a decline in the degree of

integration between them and the positions charged with

carrying out the tasks.

 

 

 

CHAPTER V

THE LOCATION OF COORDINATIVE DECISION-
MAKING AND ITS IMPACT UPON

CONFLICT AND INTEGRATION

Introduction

In the previous chapter the relationships between
Specialization and integration and legitimacy of decision-
making were explored. These arguments were extended and
elaborated by bringing additional evidence into the
discussion. A similar procedure will be followed in this
chapter. The remaining hypotheses will be tested and
their relationship to the arguments in the preceeding
chapter will be explored.

In this chapter the impact of coordinative decision-
making upon the social relationship within the organiza-
tion will be examined. Two specific aspects of the
decision-making structure will be considered. First, the
effect of legitimacy upon integration will be scrutinized.
Second, the discrepancy between the legitimacy which
subordinates invest in a superordinate position and the
actual performance of decision—making roles by that super-

ordinate position will be examined.

135

 

 

 

.. 1
. 1 -1 1 1 .1 . 1.1 .u. . .. 1. ...01 L. .1
. ,. . -. . . . . ,. .... . 1...... .....o........
. m. .. ,. .. , . . «Asfiflyvsik. .1 I.-. .o;
b
l. I I 1 O1 11

 

fl

. .wwnwww... ""34... umifidflfl r... 5%,! in. . ...

 

 

 

136

Test of the Hypotheses on Legitimacy
for Decision-Making

 

To begin, the hypotheses from Chapter II will be
restated.

7. As the legitimacy which teachers extend to

their own decision-making roles increases,
the level of integration among teachers will
increase.

8. As the legitimacy which teachers extend to
principals' decision-making roles increases,
the level of integration between teachers
and principals will increase.

9. As the legitimacy which teachers extend to
superintendents' decision—making roles_increases,
the integration between teachers and super—
intendents will decline.

The data necessary to test these hypotheses is

presented in the following table (Table 17).

From the table it is éVident that increasing
legitimacy to teacher decision-making roles is closely
correlated with three aspects of organizational integration.
As teachers extended greater legitimacy to their own
decision-making roles; integration among teachers within
each Specialty increased, integration between teachers in
different specialties increased, and integration between
teachers and principals increased (r = .622, .421 and
.525 respectively).

As teachers come to agree upon the legitimized
decision-making roles they become more closely integrated.

This finding is not surprising in so far as a more clear

understanding of their own decision-making roles would

 

137

TABLE l7.--Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficient
between legitimacy scores for teachers, principals, and
superintendents, and the index of integration.

 

Legitimacy' Legitimacy Legitimacy
Index of on Teacher on Principal on Super-
Integration Decision- Decision— intendent

Making Items Making Items Decision-
Making Items

 

Teachers in

 

Specialty .622* .588* —.151
Teachers not in

Specialty .421 .024 .374
Principal .525* .302 .282
Assistant

Superintendent .310 -.185 .294
Superintendent -.632* . —.154 .305
School Board -.233 .153 -.6l6*
Parents .224 -.124 .281
PTA .323 -.007 .305

*

lead to teachers into a closer association with one
another. More significant is the relationship between
increasing teacher legitimacy and integration between
teachers and principals. One might expect that teachers
would not be so closely integrated with principals,
since the superior could overrule decisions made by the
teachers thus making him a threat to their domain of

control. In this case, however, teachers do not seem to

138

perceive the principal as a threat to their legitimized
spheres of authority. This finding evidences a passive
compliance on the part of the principal. The fact.that
principals are not viewed as a threat to teachers'
decisions implies that they generally support the decision-
making roles which teachers define for.themselves. This
is generally supportive of the argument presented in the
previous chapter. Principals prefer not to risk dis-
rupting the integrative bonds between themselves and
teachers. If they do so, it is at the expense of their
own job performance which is closely tied to gaining com—
pliance from teachers in their building.

While teachers do not See principals as a threat
to their legitimized decision-making roles, there is some
evidence that the central administration may be perceived
in this way. As the legitimacy which teachers extend to
their own decision—making roles increases; integration
with assistant superintendents increases (r = .310),
but integration with superintendents and school board
declines (r = -.632 and —.233 respectively). The high
and negative association between increasing teacher
legitimacy and declining integration between teachers
and superintendents implies that superintendents may
threaten the teachers' domain of control. These cor-
relations again point to the Split in relationships
between teachers, principals, and the central administra-

tion. The findings also indicate that principals may be

 

 

139

relatively passive in their relationships with teachers,
but that superintendents represent the major locus of
control within the school system.

The second hypothesis is not confirmed at the accepted
level of significance. As the legitimacy extended to
principals increases, the integration between teachers and
principals also increases, but the association is not as
strong as between increasing legitimacy to teachers, and
integration between teachers and principals (compare.r =

.302 with r

.525). Thus as teachers extend legitimacy to
principals the integration between those positions becomes
more restrained. Where principals hold legitimacy there is
always the possibility that this will be used to enforce
unpopular decisions. As‘a result teachers become less
closely associated with principals.

Interestingly enough, the only significant relation-
ship between increasing principal legitimacy, and integra-
tion, was among teachers within a specialty (r = .588).
This significant relationship between increasing principal
legitimacy and integration among teachers in a specialty
corroborates and extends earlier findings. While special-
ization was associated with greater integration among
teachers in a specialty, and with increased principal
legitimacy; it is now clear that increased principal legi-
timacy is also associated with increased integration among
teachers within a specialty. Thus it is possible that

specialization may be effecting both increased legitimacy

 

 

.b o .1 ..1..| H. 1 1 1.11 .1 . 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 . 111. 1 t 1“ . fl 1 .4. 111 41.1 1 0a... NJ 1 1
.. in -- . - ., 1......
.. _ . . , 1. M , , .. .ww£.~.b...it1.. S. 1. .. .1.

.t.

-3 . . 1. 1...... 3. “HmHHdMH‘fiWMWM-wfa1.,r1...-.w._1swm.h.ww<....u .3va j. 1 .

 

111.|| Ill-Illallllllll

 

 

140

to principals, and integration among teachers within a
specialty. As specialization creates demands for greater
interdependence, the legitimacy extended to principals in-
creases, thus facilitating the coordination and direction

of activities. Where tasks become more interdependent
teachers invest legitimacy in the principals' decision-
making roles to assist them in working through the complex
series of tasks which in turn promotes increased integration
among the teachers. It is important to remember that extend-
ing legitimacy to the principals may not enhance relation-
ships between teachers and principals. Increasing legiti—
macy to principals, while helpful to teachers in working out
complex interdependent tasks, and thus promoting integration
among them, may not in fact lead to greater integration
between teachers and principals. The evidence here suggests
that this does not occur.

Finally, the third hypothesis in this series must be
rejected. There is no evidence to indicate that as legiti-
macy which teachers extend to superintendents increases, the
integration between teachers and superintendents declines.

In fact the opposite condition seems to more closely approxi—
mate the evidence. While the integration between teachers
and superintendents is not significantly correlated with the
legitimacy which teachers extend to superintendents, the cor-
relations are in the proper direction (r - .294 and .305 for
assistant superintendents and superintendents respectively).

The only negative correlation is between the legitimacy

 

--.~““--‘~~>fl.'“~. , o.

 

 

141

which teachers extend to superintendents and the integration
between teachers and the school board.

If all these findings between legitimacy and integra-
tion are considered together an interesting series of relation—
ships begins to emerge. As legitimacy is extended to super-
ordinate positions, integration between teachers and that
position will also increase. At the same time, however,
integration between teachers and succeedingly higher positions
declines. Where teachers extend legitimacy to principals,
integration between teachers and superintendents declines,
and, as teachers come to extend legitimacy to superintendents,
integration between teachers and school boards decline. All
this serves to indicate how subordinates perceive the threats
to their legitimacy from superordinate positions. Moreover,
the fact that integration between teachers and principals
did not decline in the face of increasing legitimacy to
teachers decision-making roles, indicates that principals
remain relatively passive in the organizational structure of
the school.

Before continuing, it might prove useful to examine
the correlations between legitimacy and the measures of
conflict. By doing so the relationships which emerged
from the above discussion can be elaborated and extended
(Table 18). The correlation between the legitimacy which
teachers extend to their own positions and conflict
between teachers and principals is both negative and sig—

nificant (r = 0.550). This finding substantiates the

__ "warm wr- “'

1": (k ,W 1 7

 

 

 

142

TABLE 18.--Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
between legitimacy scores for teachers, principals, and
superintendents, and the measure of conflict.

 

Legitimacy Legitimacy Legitimacy on
Conflict on Teacher on Principal Superintendent

Decision- Decision- Decision-

Making Items Making Items Making Items

 

Between Teachers
and Principals -.550* -.339 .018

Between Teachers
and School Board
and Teachers and
Superintendent .077 .061 .407

Between Young and
Old and Male and
Female Teachers -.626* .026 -.379

Between Teachers
in the Same Subject -.086 .550* —.782*

 

*
p<.05 N=15.

relationship described above. As teachers extend more
legitimacy to their own positions they become more closely
integrated with the principal. Here, the negative cor-
relation between increasing teacher legitimacy and con-
flict between teachers and principals again buttresses

the argument. Increasing legitimacy to the teachers
positions serves both to integrate teachers and principals
and to reduce conflict between them. Further, this
finding documents the acquiescent position of the
principal. If the principals' position were particularly

strong, one might expect conflict between teachers and

 

 

 

 

143

principals to increase as the teachers began to extend
greater legitimacy to their own decision—making roles.
This is not the case however, indicating that principal-
teacher integration seems to improve as teachers extend
greater legitimacy to their decision-making roles.

It is also interesting to note that conflict
between young and old and male and female teachers
declines as the teachers take on greater legitimacy for
their decision-making roles. Finally, increasing teacher
legitimacy is only vaguely related to conflict between
teachers, and superintendents and school board, and to
conflict among teachers in the same subject (r = .077
and -.086 respectively). 9

In examining the correlations between increasing
legitimacy extended to the principal and conflict within
the school organizations some interesting findings emerge.
First, increased legitimacy to the principal is nega-
tively associated with conflict between teachers and
principal, though the correlation is not significant
(r = -.339). This finding provides a measure of
validity for the above argument. Where teachers face
greater interdependence they tend to extend greater
legitimacy to the principals' decision—making roles in
order to facilitate their own performances. In so
doing, they tend to reduce conflict between themselves

and the principal. On the other hand, the correlation

 

5
I
' -IWL. \

144

between increasing legitimacy to the principal and con—
flict among teachers in the same specialty is both
positive and significant (r = .550). Two alternative
explanations can be offered for this finding.

If the reader assumes integration and conflict to
be unidimensional, with integration measuring positive
aspects of the social relationship, and conflict the
negative aspects of the same relationship, then the
following explanation is offered.

AS teachers extend greater legitimacy to the
principals' decision-making roles, principals create
greater conflict within each specialty through their
inadequate coordination and direction. This argument has
considerable currency in the sociological literature, and
is based upon the above conception of the relationship
between integration and conflict. This line of reason—
ing argues that superordinates are unable to grasp the
problems which experts face, and thus are unable to
properly coordinate and integrate the tasks of these
specialists. Because of their inadequacy, they create
conflict among the specialists who must perform accord-
ing to these directives. At the same time improper
coordination leads to conflict between the experts and
their superiors who attempt to organize activities in
their behalf. Only half of this argument is substantiated

by the data presented here. Conflict among the teachers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

145

within a specialty does increase as the legitimacy which
teachers extend to principals increases, but conflict
between teachers and principals does not also increase,
in fact it declines. This part of the traditional argu-
ment is not confirmed then by this evidence.

A second explanation, and the one to which this
author subscribes, encompasses both aspects of the data
and attempts to re-orient thinking on the relationship
between integration and conflict. First, this argument
does not view integration and conflict as unidimensional.
In fact, under certain conditions elements of both may
exist in a set of social relationships. In this case,
as teachers extend more legitimacy to principals, inte-
gration between the two positions tends to also increase
(r = .302 between extending legitimacy to principals and
integration between teachers and principals). Secondly,
integration among teachers within a specialty also
increases as teachers extend greater legitimacy to the
principals' decision-making roles (r = .588 between
extending legitimacy to principals, and integration among
teachers within a specialty). At the same time, as the
legitimacy which teachers extend to principals increases,
conflict between teachers and principals declines
(r = 0.339). But, conflict among teachers in a particular
specialty also increases as teachers extend more

legitimacy to the principal (r = .550). Taken together,

 

 

 

146

these findings indicate that the legitimacy extended to
principals facilitates integration between teachers
within a specialty and principals, at the same time
however, it creates both greater integration and con-
flict among the teachers within that specialty. Greater
integration and conflict among teachers within a given
specialty is a product of the close and highly inter-
dependent relationships which exist. Where tasks are
interdependent, as well as being highly complex and
difficult to evaluate, it might well be expected that
the performers of these tasks would exhibit both aspects
of integration and conflict among themselves.

This explanation must be considered as tentative
and subject to additional tests. It does account for
the findings presented here and hopefully will lead to
a rethinking of the relationships between integration
and conflict.

As teachers extend greater legitimacy to the
superintendents' decision-making roles, conflict between
teachers and superintendents and school boards increases
(r = .407). This finding generally supports the argu-
ment put forth in the previous chapter. As super-
intendent legitimacy increases, conflict between
teachers and superintendents emerges from the exposure
of differing perspectives on the solution of organiza-

tional tasks. The central administration attempts to

147

solve complex and non-routine problems through standard-
ization and regulation. The experts who must work through
tasks to completion cannot comply with these directives.
Thus, as the two perspectives come to be exposed to

each other, conflict emerges between superintendents and
teachers.

Whereas increasing legitimacy to principals
decision-making roles tended to increase conflict among
teachers within the specialty (r a .550) increasing
legitimacy to superintendents' decision-making roles
serves to decrease conflict among teachers within the
specialty (r = —.782). This finding might be a function
of the relationship which each of the superordinate
positions holds with teachers. In general, the less the
vertical distance between teachers and another position
in the organizational hierarchy the more sensitized that
superordinate position will be to the problems which
teachers within a specialty face. This generalization
is clearly supported by the evidence in this study.
Principals seem far more able to elicit cooperative
relations from teachers than are superintendents.
Principals are even able to defer conflict from them-
selves and into the group of teachers within each
specialty. By contrast, superintendent-teacher relation-

ships are best characterized as conflictual. A brief

:m-‘A‘APH

 

 

 

-____.__ ._ L

 

 

 
   

I c .‘in

 

. ... -..¢-o gym-.00...“ - .—

 

148

comparison of the following correlation coefficients
verifies this argument.

As the legitimacy extended to principals increases,
the conflict between themselves and teachers within a
specialty declines (r = -.339). More importantly, by
being responsive to the problems which teachers face,
the conflict which exists emerges among the teachers
themselves (r = .550 between increasing principal
legitimacy and conflict among teachers in same subject).
By contrast, as legitimacy to superintendent decision-
making roles increases, conflict between teachers and
superintendents and school board increases (r = .407),
but the conflict among teachers within a specialty
declines (r = —.782). This suggests that as super-
intendents attempt to exercise their legitimized
decision-making roles, their solution to the problems
which teachers within a specialty face, leads them to
enact decisions which engender conflict between them-
selves and the teachers. More important, as this occurs
conflict among the teachers within that specialty
declines. This suggests that as conflict between posi—
tions increases, teachers tend to reduce conflict among
themselves in favor of venting their disagreements upon
the superintendents.

In summary then, by examining the relationships

between legitimacy and conflict it was possible to

   

 

 

 

 

   

d . ‘ .-
I ’-
. n K

_.“.I_--‘—.—/ “not-”Q ’ .-

 

 

149

elaborate and refine the impact of differing patterns of
legitimacy upon the social relationships within the
school organizations. The relationship between integra-
tion and conflict was called into question and two alter-
native explanations were posited for explaining the
seemingly contradictory findings between integration and
conflict among teachers within a particular specialty.
Secondly, the impact of extending legitimacy to different
superordinate positions was scrutinized and it was found
that the emergence of integration and conflict was
related to the vertical distance between teachers and
other superordinate positions in the organizations. In
the next section the impact 0f legitimized decision-
making roles and actual decision-making roles upon
integration and conflict will be assessed.

A Comparison of Legitimized Decision-

Makinngoles with Actual Decision-
MakingrRoles

 

 

 

Prior to testing the final set of hypotheses, it
might be worthwhile to compare the legitimized decision-
making roles with the actual decision-making roles
associated with each position. To do this, the legiti—
macy which teachers extend to their own decision-making
roles, as well as the legitimacy they extend to
principals' and superintendents' decision—making roles,
was correlated with the actual decision-making roles of

the principals and superintendents.

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

150

In correlating teacher legitimacy with the actual
influence of principals over those decision—making roles
the result was r = -.375. This negative correlation
indicates that as teacher legitimacy increases, the
actual influence of principals over those decisions
declines. Here again is an additional piece of evidence
supporting the passive role of the principal. Principals
tend not to interfere in those decision-making arenas
which teachers legitimately believe to be their own.

The relationship between the actual influence which super-
intendents exert over teacher legitimized decisions is
quite small (r = .186). This indicates that there is
little interference from superintendents in those
decisions which teachers legitimize for themselves. In
fact the weakness of the correlation indicates that
teachers and superintendents are not involved in the
same decision-making spectrum. Within school organiza-
tions then, there is a considerable range of agreement
between which positions have legitimacy to make certain
decisions, and which positions actually make those same
decisions. The negative correlation between teachers
and principals indicates that principals do not attempt
to usurp the authority of their position in order to
make decisions which teachers believe they themselves
have a legitimate right to make. Likewise, the low

correlation between teachers and superintendents

”at-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

151

indicates that they are not involved in the same decision-
making spectrum. The final correlation in this series is
the most interesting of the three. In correlating
principals legitimized decision-making roles with the
actual influence of the superintendents over those same
roles the :flnding is quite obvious (r = .711). There is
considerable conflict between principals and superinten-
dents over who "should," and who actually does have con-
trol over the principals'decision—making roles. Thus,
teachers perceive that superintendents actually control
the decisions which principals should be responsible for.
This finding further corroborates the split in relation-
ships between representatives of each school building and
the central administration.

In summary then, there seems to be considerable
agreement between teachers and principals as to who
"should" and who actually does make teacher legitimized
decisions. At the same time, teachers and superintendents
do not seem to focus upon the same decision-making
spectrum since there is little correlation between the
decisions which teachers invest with the legitimacy and
the actual influence of superintendents over those
decisions. Finally, the point of conflict lies between
the principals legitimized decision-making roles and the
actual making of those decisions by the superintendents.

These conclusions generally support two dominant themes

   

152

in this analysis. The negative correlation between
teachers and principals indicates the relative inter-
dependence between the two positions.

Secondly, the findings here support the basic con-
flict between the central administration and subordinate
positions charged with carrying out the organizational
tasks. The point of conflict is between the principal
who must coordinate the complex interdependent tasks of
the teachers, and the central administration which is
attempting to usurp the decision-making authority of the
principals' position in order tc: force certain decisions
upon subordinate elements in the organization. To do
this central administration does not deal directly with
the teachers, but attempts to effect their actions by
actually making those decisions which teachers perceive
as being legitimately made by the principal. This line
of reasoning can be explored more fully through the test-
ing of the final set of hypotheses concerning the discrep-
ancy between those positions invested with legitimacy
to make a decision and the positions which actually make

the decisions.

Discrepancies in Decision-Making

In the last section the correlations between the
legitimacy which teachers extend to certain positions was
associated with the actual decision-making authority of

those positions. The results implied that the greatest

   

‘ D -

.4o-o- o.-.W¢l—|-—-oto- o.-

 

 

 

153

point of decision-making conflict existed between the
principals and the superintendents' decision-making roles.
In this section of the analysis the impact of these
discrepancies upon integration and conflict within the
organization will be explored. Before moving directly

to a testing of the hypotheses, the impact of the size

of school and the per cent of males upon the discrepancy

scores will be examined.

Background Variables

 

Size has been shown to effect many of the social
relationships which exist within organizations. The
impact of size is generally manifested through the
manner in which it retards informal relationships and
promotes more formalized associations among various
positions. Further, size may retard coalition formation
and thus act as a neutralizing effect upon the develop-
ment of social groups within the organization. The per
cent of males is particularly germane to the study of
school organizations, since the literature in this area
suggests that as the percentage of males increases within
a school the general militancy of the teaching staff also
increases. Moreover, males seem more reticent to
establish close interpersonal bonds with superiors and
instead tend to develop group consciousness which in

turn may have negative effects for the working of the

 

154

TABLE 19.——Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
between size of school and the per cent of males and the
decision—making discrepancies for: teachers and princi-
pals, teachers and superintendents, and principals and

 

 

superintendents.
Discrepancy Discrepancy Discrepancy
Between Between Between
Teachers and Teachers and Principals and
Principals Superinten- Superinten-
dents dents

Size of

School .389 .078 -.l6u

Per cent

of Males .321 .070 .019

 

organization. For these reasons these two background
variables will be considered here.

From an examination of the above table it can be
seen that the size of school and the per cent of males
has some effect upon the discrepancies between teachers
and principals, but no effect upon the other discrepancy
scores. As the size of schools and the per cent of males
increases, the discrepancies between teachers and
principals over the making of certain decisions increases
(r = .389 and .321 respectively). This suggests as the
number of teachers increases, they come to attach greater
legitimacy to their own decision—making roles and tend to
see the principals as interfering with the execution of

these decisions. This is probably a logical outcome of

155

the size variable itself; since as the numbers of
teachers increases, principals feel they must make a
greater proportion of the decisions in order to insure
that coordination and integration of the various special-
ties is attained. Likewise, as the per cent of males
increases, they demand greater autonomy, and perceive
the principals' decision-making roles as an infringement
upon their authority. Neither correlation approaches
significance, however, indicating that the relationship
between the discrepancy scores and other variables in
this study are not being "washed out" by these back-

ground variables.

Test of the Hypotheses

 

The hypotheses developed in Chapter II can now be
restated:

10. As the discrepancy between the legitimacy
which teachers extend to principals, and the
actual decision-making roles which principals
assume, increases, conflict between these two
positions will increase.

11. As the discrepancy between the legitimacy
which teachers extend to superintendents, and
the actual decision—making roles which super-
intendents assume, increases, conflict between
these two positions will increase.

12. As the discrepancy between the legitimacy
which teachers extend to principals, and the
actual decision—making roles which super—
intendents assume, increases, conflict between
teachers and principals, and teachers and
superintendents will increase.

 

156

To test these hypotheses the following correlations
between discrepancy scores and the measure of conflict

are presented (Table 20).

TABLE 20.-—Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficient
between decision—making discrepancies for: teachers and
principals, teachers and superintendents, and principals
and superintendents and the measures of conflict.

 

Discrepancy Discrepancy Discrepancy
Between Between Between
Conflict Teachers and Teachers and Principals and
Principals Superin- Superin—
tendents tendents

 

Between Teachers
and Principals .604* .278 .271

Between Teachers
and Superin—
tendents .1u6 —.071 .354

Among Teachers in
the same Subject .11u —.040 —.614*

 

The correlations in the above table confirms the
first hypothesis. As the discrepancy between the
legitimized decision-making roles which teachers con-
firm upon the principal, and the actual decision-making
roles which the principal assumes, increases, conflict
between the two positions increases (r = .60” signifi-
cant at the .05 level). Prior to this finding, much of

the evidence suggested that the principal position was

 

 

 

157

basically a passive one, geared to the influences of the
teachers, and acquiescent to their demands. This result
tends to discount this implication. Teachers and
principals may work closely together, and their relation-
ships may be highly interdependent, but the principal

can act independently of the subordinates under his
charge. One might certainly question the wisdom of

such action, considering that the principals' performance
is closely attached to the performance of his subordir
nates. But nevertheless, the opportunity for him to act
independently is substantiated by the potential for con-
flict to exist between principals and teachers.

The discrepancies betWeen teachers and principals
does not seem to have a pronounced impact upon conflict
among teachers within a specialty. In fact, there is
little relationship between the two at all (r = .114).
Thus, even though the principal may usurp his legitimized
decision-making roles this fact alone does not create
conflict among teachers within a specialty. It is
possible that such actions might encourage teachers
within a specialty to unite in an effort to reduce the
authority of the principal. There is no evidence here,
however, to either accept or refute this speculation.

The second hypothesis must be rejected in the
face of the above evidence. As the discrepancy between

the legitimized decision-making roles which teachers

158

confirm upon the superintendent, and the actual decision-
making roles which he assumes, increases, conflict between
the two positions does not increase (r = -.O7l). In

fact there seems to be no relationship between the two
dimensions. This finding, while rejecting the

hypothesis under test, lends some support, though only

be implication, to the argument that teachers and super-
intendents do not operate within the same decision-
making spectrum. Even though superintendents usurp

their legitimized decision-making roles, they do not seem
to impinge upon the decision—making roles of the teachers.
Given that teachers and superintendents are at least

one position removed from one another, and that their
orientation to the problems which school organizations
face is quite different, it is likely that direct con-
flict over decision-making roles would not occur. There
is some evidence to indicate that superintendent-teacher
conflict is mediated through the principals' roles.

This is provided by the correlation between teacher-
superintendent discrepancy scores and the conflict
between teachers and principals (r = .278). It is
possible that as superintendents extend themselves beyond
their legitimized decision-making roles they affect
principals decision-making roles which in turn have some
impact upon the teachers. Again, this correlation does
not approach significance and therefore the interpreta-

tion is at best speculative.

 

 

 

 

159

The final hypothesis dealing with the discrepancies
between principals and superintendents, and the impact
which this gas upon conflict between teachers and
principals, and teachers and superintendents must also
be rejected. As superintendents extend their decision—
making roles beyond those legitimized by subordinates,
conflict between teachers and principals does increase
(r = .271) and conflict between teachers and super-
intendents also increases (r = .354) but none of the
correlations reaches the necessary level of significance
to be accepted. Admitting that these arguments are
tentative, it is still worthwhile to explore the relation-
ships among these variables in more detail.

Decision—making discrepancy between teachers and
superintendents did not produce conflict between these
two positions. However, as the discrepancy between the
legitimized roles which teachers defined for principals,
and the actual decision-making roles of the superintendents
increase, conflict between teachers and superintendents
also increases. This finding supports the argument that
superintendents affect the teachers through the manner
in which they impinge upon principals decision—making
roles. To a lesser extent, as superintendents impinge
upon principals legitimized decision—making roles con-
flict between teachers and principals also increases

(r = .271). Admittedly this correlation is not high,

 

 

160

yet it does, to some extent, explain how superordinate
positions impinge upon subordinates decision-making
roles and thus create conflict within the organization.

Superintendents do not impinge directly upon
teacher decision-making roles, instead, they impinge
upon those decision—making roles which teachers legiti-
mize for the principal, which in turn affects both the
teacher-principals and teacher-superintendent relation-
ships. These findings indicate that there is a
hierarchy of decision—making within school organizations,
and that superordinate positions do not impinge upon all
subordinates decision—making roles, but limit their
infringement to those subordinate positions directly
beneath them. This in turn, however, creates conflict
among all subordinate positions beneath them. Thus,
discrepancy in decision-making has a specific effect upon
each subordinate position, but a diffuse impact upon the
manner in which conflict is manifested in the organiza-
tion.

Discrepancies over decision-making between super-
intendents and principals has a significant impact upon
reducing the conflict among teachers within a specialized
area (r = -.61A). This finding serves to substantiate
the discussion concerning the relationship between
extending legitimacy to superintendents and its effect

upon conflict among teachers within a given specialty.

 

161

The argument stated that, because of the perspective
which superintendents had toward the problems of sub-
ordinates their decisions tended to incur conflict
between themselves and these subordinates. As a result,
conflict among teachers within a specialty declines in
favor of increasing conflict between themselves and the
superintendents. This argument seems to hold true for
conflict over discrepancies in decision—making also. As
discrepancies between positions arise, conflict among
teachers within a specialty declines in favor of
directing disagreements toward superordinate positions.
In summary, only the hypothesis relating discrepan-
cies between teachers and principals to conflict between
these positions could be accepted at the proper level of
significance. Discrepancies between teacher and super-
intendents was not related to conflict between these
positions. Conflict between them however was related,
though not at the level of significance, to the dis-
crepancies in decision-making between principals and
superintendents. Furthermore, it was argued that
discrepancies between superintendents and principals
lead to a general increase in the level of conflict
between all positions in the school organization.
Finally, this generalized conflict served to reduce the
level of conflict among teachers within a specialty

in favor of venting their disagreements upon -

 

 

162

superordinate positions in the school organization.
Before closing this discussion of discrepancies the
impact which they have upon integration within the
school organizations will be examined. The correla-
tions between the discrepancy scores and the index of
integration are presented in the following table

(Table 21).

TABLE 2l.—-Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients

between decision-making discrepancies for: teachers and

principals, teachers and superintendents, and principals
and superintendents and the index of integration.

 

Discrepancy Discrepancy Discrepancy

 

Between ‘Between Between
Integration Teachers and Teachers and Principals
Principals Superin- and Superin-
tendents tendents
Among Teachers
in Specialty -.u60* -.250 -.A12
Among teachers
not in Specialty -.S28* —.161 -.028
Between Teachers
and Principals —.u91* -.314 -.107
Between Teachers
and Superintendents .M8A* .H84* .279

 

*
p < .05 N = 15

As the discrepancy between the legitimized
decision-making roles which teachers confirm upon

principals, and the actual decision-making roles which

 

 

   

163

the principals assume, increases in integration among
teachers within a specialty declines, integration among
teachers not in specialty, and integration between
teachers and principals also declines (r = -.M60, -.528
and —.u91 respectively, all are significant at the .05
level). These findings suggest that discrepancies
between teachers and principals does effect the degree
of integration between teachers and principals, but it
also effects the degree of integration among teachers
themselves. This finding corroborates earlier state-
ments concerning the highly interdependent nature of the
teacher-principal relationships. Where principals usurp
their legitimized decision-making authority they disrupt
the balance of interdependence between themselves and
the teachers. More importantly, in disturbing this
balance between positions they also reduce the integra-
tion among teachers themselves. These interpretations
substantiate the argument, that teachers are dependent
to a large extent upon principals for facilitating and
Coordinating their activities, and that this function
cannot be performed when principals extend their
decision-making authority beyond the roles legitimized
by the teachers.

When these findings are compared with the correla-
tions between principal—teacher discrepancies, and con-

flict among teachers within the same subject, it becomes

 

 

 

164

ever more clear that integration and conflict are not
unidimensional. Where the correlations between
principal-teacher discrepancy, and conflict among
teachers in the same subject was r - .11“, the correla-
tion with integration was r = -.460. This suggests

that integration among teachers can decline without
leading necessarily to conflict among them. However,

as principal-teacher discrepancy increases, integration
among teachers and principals declines (r = -.M91) and

at the same time conflict between teachers and principals
increase (r = .60“). Taken together these findings

imply a further reworking of the argument concerning the
relationship between conflict and integration. The
evidence to this point suggests the following interpreta-
tion. Where certain structural relationships come to
approximate the social relationships in question,
integration and conflict become unidimensional. Where
these structural relationships do not directly involve
social relationships, elements of conflict and integra-
tion may exist simultaneously. Taking the case above,
where discrepancies between principals and teachers exist
-a structural relationship, directly involving these

same positions in a social relationship, in this case
conflict, then integration and conflict may be unidimen-
sional. But whereas discrepancies between teachers and

principals is associated with a social relationship which

—-~'—~——.___

 

 

 

165

does not involve the structural relationship directly,

in this case integration and conflict among teachers
within a specialty, then it is possible that elements of
both may be found in the social relationship. This is

a highly speculative interpretation, but one of the
asides of this analysis has been to explore all possible
avenues of examining the relationship between integration
and conflict.

There is no intention here that these speculations
be taken as anything more than hypotheses for future
research. What this researcthas indicated is that the
conventional explanations of the relationship between
integration and conflict are certainly questionable, and
as such demand more inquiry, something this analysis‘
has tried to provide.

Finally, as the discrepancy between teachers and
principals increases the integration between teacher and
superintendents also increases (r = .H84). This implies
that as integration between teachers and principals
declines teachers become more closely aligned with
higher superordinates positions, in this case the super-
intendent. Unfortunately, there is little other evi-
dence to either corroborate or refute this argument.
Thus it must stand as a tentative conclusion;

In correlating the discrepancies between the
teachers and superintendents' decision-making roles,

with the index of integration, the findings tend to

 

 

 

 

166

support earlier arguments. As superintendents exceed
their legitimized decision-making roles they have a more
pronounced impact upon the level of integration between
teachers and principals (r = —.31u), than upon the
integration among teachers within a specialty (r = -.250).
This again supports the argument that superintendents
affect social relationships among subordinates indirectly.
When they exceed their decision-making roles, the impact
is first felt by the principals who in turn alter their
activities which in turn affects the teachers within the
various specialties. This seems to hold true for both
conflict and integration between these positions.

The significant correlation between teacher-
superintendent discrepancies and the integration between
these two positions is quite unexpected. There seems to
be no explanation as to why integration between the posi-
tions would increase as the discrepancy between them also
increased.

The correlations between principal-superintendent
discrepancies, and the integration index, again supports
the argument that superintendents effect social relation-
ships through the way they effect subordinates directly
beneath them. As the discrepancy between principals
and superintendents increases, the integration among
teachers within a specialty declines (r = -.N12). This

suggests that superintendents limit the principals'

 

 

 

 

167'

domain of decision-making which in turn hinders his per—
formance with teachers in a specialty, and thus reduces
the integration among the teachers. At this point an
impressive number of correlations has pointed in this
direction, unfortunately, none of them has been of
sufficient magnitude to be significant, though some have
come quite close.

This argument gains additional support from the low
correlation between principal-superintendent discrepancy
and conflict among teachers not in the specialty
(r = -.O28). Where superintendents encroach upon the
principals' legitimized decision-making roles teachers
within a given specialty are deprived of the coordination
and directives which assist them in performing their
tasks. Furthermore, this finding indicates that rela-
tionships among teachers within a School are not as impor-
tant as the relationships which teachers within each
specialty have with the principal. This substantiates
the argument in the last chapter which stated that inte-
gration among teachers and principals was more important
for task performance than the integration among all
teachers in the school building.

In summary, the relationship between discrepancies
and integration tended to corroborate earlier arguments
presented in this, and the previous chapter. Teachers

feel the effect of superordinate infringement on the

I‘;"‘" ."_t ""‘ . . — O

 

168

decision-making process through the manner in which it
restricts subordinates actions making them less able to
meet the demands of their role. Finally, the relationship
between integration and conflict was explored a bit
further, the specualtions which were made again question

the wisdom of treating the two concepts as unidimensional.

Conclusions

 

The hypotheses presented in this chapter were
generally not confirmed by the data at the level of sig-
nificance. Nevertheless, the arguments were pursued,
and as a result they obtained some measure of support as
additional evidence was marshalled in their behalf. But
again, the conclusions arrived at must be treated as
tentative rather than with any degree of finality.

In examining the legitimacy which teachers extend
to different positions, this chapter was inquiring into
the basis of superordinate authority. The authority
which teachers extend to principals is closely associated
with the degree of integration among teachers within a
specialty. Teachers legitimize principals' decision-
making roles in exchange for certain types of assistance
in the form of coordination, and assistance in the per-
formance of their tasks. At the same time, when
principals attempted to exceed their legitimized decision-
making roles they created conflict between themselves and

the teachers, but did not create conflict among teachers

 

 

169

within a specialty. Thus, even though the principal can
act independently of the sanctions which teachers place
upon him, it is not in his best interest to do so.
Because much of the evidence in this analysis has shown
that the teacher-principal relationship is a highly
interdependent one, it would not be in the best interests
of the principals to generate conflict which will
ultimately be reflected in poorer relationships between
themselves and teachers. Authority which subordinates
extend to principals is basically manipulative; teachers
provide him with authority in return for assistance with
the performance of tasks.

At the same time, discrepancies between teachers
and superintendents leads to conflict between teachers
and principals. This occurs as superintendents infringe
upon principals decision-making roles thereby making it
more difficult for principals to carry out their functions
with respect to the teachers. As a result the principal's
position come to mediate disputes between the super-
intendents and the teachers. It is difficult for him to
intervene in behalf of one position without incurring
hostility from the other. These incompatibilities are
to some extent a product of the different perspectives
on the organizations which teachers and superintendents
hold. Superintendents attempt to standardize performance

but teachers find these unworkable, and come to manifest

 

170

their hostility through their relationships with the
principal.

These findings in general, corroborate the close
interdependent relationships which exist between teachers
in a specialty and the principal. Further, the findings
support the argument that a heirarchy of decision-making
exists, and that different positions execute different
decisions. This is manifested through the manner in which
superordinate positions tend to infringe only upon the
legitimacy of those positions directly beneath them.

But, this in turn creates problems in the social relation—
ships among these subordinate positions due to the fact

that neither can prOperly perform their assigned roles.

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER'VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

 

In the final chapter of any dissertation the con-
viction of the writer's conclusions become evident. It
is here that the findings from this research must be
fitted to the larger body of evidence from which it
sprang. Hopefully this involves modifying as well as
extending some of the prevailing arguments. For some
readers it may seem presumptuous that one writer, whose
arguments were often based upon data that did not reach
accepted standards of significance, would attempt to
contest the larger body of findings from which his own
research sprang. Such temerity, however, characterizes
the social sciences. To fly in the face of overwhelming
evidence is to offer new directions and courses of
inquiry. It is each writer's obligation to take his
argument as far as it will logically go; it is the
responsibility of his colleagues to check his argument
and to offer evidence for its validity or its rejection.
This writer, holding this belief as self evident, will
attempt to explore all possible conclusions which both

mind and evidence suggest. Like all who engage in

171

 

172

research, he believes he is on to something worthwhile,
and that it is at least worth the consideration of

others who also have an interest in this area.

Specialization

 

Research in the area of specialization has been
hampered by the findings which came from early industrial
contexts, and by the separate meanings which the concept
has taken on. Empirical work concerning specialization
was completed in industrial contexts, utilizing individuals
performing routine and repetitive tasks.1 In this con-
text increasing specialization was a devise to divide
tasks into their component parts,thus insuring more
accurate supervision, and a lower tolerance for error.
Under such conditions it is not surprising that researchers
found workers becoming more integrated as specialization
increased. Two forces were at work: one was the increas-

ing interdependence of the tasks, but the other was the

 

1The following references characterize much of the

thinking on specialization. They are presented in
chronological order beginning with the earliest writings
first: Luther Gulick and Luther Urwick, eds., Papers on
the Science of Administration (New York: Institute of
Public Administration, 1937); Chester Barnard, The
Functions of the Executive (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1938); Leonard Sayles, The Behavior of
Industrial Work Groups (New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1958); and Herbert Simon, Donald Smithburg and Victor
Thompson, Public Administration (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1950). Finally, there is one work that has given
particular attention to the newer problems associated
with specialization: Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch,
Organization and Environment (Boston: Graduate School
of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1967).

 

173

need to band together as a protection against standards
and supervisors who were threatening the work situation.
There is probably no research on the subject which
attempted to determine whether specialization created
functional interdependence leading to integration, or
whether it raised anxieties of workers to such an extent
that they formed coalitions to protect their interests.,

In any case, the once routine and repetitive tasks
are today the automated processes of the modern factory.
But neither research nor thinking on the subject has
extended much beyond the early days of industrial
sociology. The majority of writing concerned with the
specialization of the complex and non-routine tasks is
not informed by data, but represents instead an extension
of the findings from earlier research. It is curious to
note that even though the tasks have changed from routine
to non-routine, and the workers from unskilled to highly.
skilled, the conclusions are basically the same. Granted,
some of the logic arriving at the findings has been
revamped but the conclusions are the same. Such is
possible, but with both tasks, personnel, and context
altered, the probability of obtaining similar findings
seems remote.

Much of the problem with the specialization litera-
ture comes from the failure of writers to take into

account the separate usages of the term. Where tasks

 

 

 

 

1711

are routine the emphasis has been upon the specialization
of tasks; where they are complex the emphasis needs to

be upon the specialization of the personnel. The question
put forth in this research is a traditional one; how does
increasing task specialization effect the social relation-
ships among different positions in the organization.

The difference is not in the question, but in the context,
here the setting involves specialists and complex tasks.
The argument developed in this chapter is that these
settings will have a profound impact upon the social
relationships. The nature of the tasks determine the

type of personnel involved, and together these factors
will effect the relationship between increasing speciali-
zation and social relationships.

With these issues aside, how do the findings from
this research fit into the literature on specialization,
and more importantly how do they modify or extend the
prevailing arguments?

Specialization of school organizations refers to
the degree to Which schools reach a one to one ratio
between teachers and subjects. This means that perfect
specialization would be where one teacher is responsible
for only one course. But, where each subject is divided
into a number of courses, teachers become more specialized,
and their course must be made to fit with others in

that subject matter area. Thus interdependence among

“L.‘ N. .w'..

 

   

 

 

 

." - 0 1.

“i 1.....A7 _.~: ' ' _‘ _.-.‘ ---.---

175

teachers witnin one subject area increases as each
teacher becomes responsible for fewer courses.

The findings from this research suggest that as
specialization increases teachers within a specialty
become more socially integrated. This finding while
corroborative of much of the literature is in fact
important precisely because it supports that literature.
Where specialization increases, whether the tasks are
routine and simple or complex and non-routine, the
integration among participants also increases. Thus,
functional interdependence of tasks, regardless of their
complexity, seems to generate social integration among
those who perform the tasks.

Beyond this point, however, the social similarities
between complex and routine tasks seems to end. Many
early studies of informal work groups found that integra-
tion among interdependent sets of tasks had the latent
function of unifying workers into an integrated group.
Such groups were better equipped to withstand the
pressures eminating from their supervisors. The more
closely integrated groups could either reject or cooperate
with directives from foremen, thus giving them some measure
of control over the work setting. Because of this need
among workers to protect themselves against the adminis-
tration there was little integration between workers and

supervisors.

 

— 17* 7,7, 7 A

176

By contrast, this study found that specialization
encouraged social integration among teachers and
principals. This contrasting evidence can be explained
by the nature of the tasks and how this influences social
relations within the organization. As specialization
increased, the demands among teachers for interdependence
also increased. To meet these demands teachers turned
toward, not away from, principals in order to gain some
assistance in resolving the problems of working out
curriculum, setting out boundaries to each course, and
deciding who is to teach each of the courses. Thus,.
where non-routine complex tasks are concerned, specializa-
tion leads to social interdependence not only among the
specialists, but also between specialists and first line
administrative personnel. Three pieces of evidence were
brought forward in behalf of this conclusion. First,
as specialization increased,integration between teachers
and principals increased. Second, as specialization
increased, the legitimacy which teachers extend to
principals decision-making roles increased. And, third,
as specialization increased, conflict between teachers
and principals decreased. All of these correlations
when taken together lend considerable support for the
argument that specialization of complex tasks leads to
closer social relations between specialists and adminis-
trative personnel who are also charged with the completion

of these tasks. Thus as complex tasks become more

 

177

specialized organizational participants take on a more
positive perception of the first line personnel. They
are no longer seen as a threat to workers, instead, they
become an integral part of the process leading to the
completion of a series of complex tasks.

In this study specialization was not related to
either increased integration or conflict with the central
administration. This indicates that functional relation-
ships, such as specialization, have an impact upon the
social relationships which evolve directly from the per—
formances of certain functions, but it does not have any
particular impact upon social relationships which are not
governed to some extent by the completion of the tasks.

In summary then, a clear delineation of the meaning
of specialization is at first necessary before the concept
can be exploited in social research. This means that
not only must the tasks be divided into smaller segments,
but the complexity of those tasks must also be examined.
These interrelationships must be given attention in future
studies involving this concept. Findings from this study
indicate that as specialization increases among complex
tasks,first line adminsitrative personnel, in the form
of principals, are brought into greater social inter-
dependence with the specialists themselves. This is in
direct contrast to the situation where specialization
occurs among routine tasks. That literature suggested

that social integration was in part a response to closer

 

 

17.8

supervision and greater scrutiny of worker's jobs. In
this study, however, specialization was associated with
closer integration between teachers and principals.
Possibly then, the complexity of the task is itself a
form of protection for the specialists, since their
opinions and decisions may be taken into consideration
by the principals, which indicates to the teachers
that their interests are not jeopardized by his presence.
Thus, where there is no definitive solution to problems,
no standardized set of performance requirements, and no
methods for judging high and low quality performances,
the specialists see no reason to exclude the principal
from their circle, and may in fact welcome any suggestions
and direction he can offer.

In terms of school organizations, the direction and
impact of specialization makes the principal's position
a particularly crucial one. Specialization seems to
involve greater social interdependence between teachers
within a specialty and the principal, thus making the
principal's position a pivotal one between the central
administration and the teachers in each specialty. Not
only must he balance off a variety of conflicts which
might arise among the different specialties, he must also
mediate between the central administration and the
teachers. From other evidence in this study it would

seem that the principals are more closely related to the

 

 

179

teachers than to the central administration. This may
result from the fact that the quality of his performance
depends more upon the teachers than upon maintaining
close allegiance with the administration. In any case,
as specialization increases, the principals' roles
become more interwoven with the teachers and thus their
ability to play a mediating role becomes more threatened.
The implications for future research concerning
specialization should by this time be fairly obvious.
First, more studies are needed which involve the
specialization of complex tasks, or a continuum of com-
plexity, to determine how both task specialization and
complexity effect the social relationships among the
personnel charged with the performance of these tasks.
Secondly, the manner in which specialization and com—
plexity create social interdependencies among the
specialists and administrative personnel need to be more
thoroughly explored. Finally, the social interdependency
which specialization creates between superordinate and
subordinate must be assessed in terms of how it effects
the social relationships among a series of superordinate

positions.

An Aside on Professionals in Organizations

 

In the second chapter an extended discussion arose
out of a disagreement in the literature between those who

advocate that an inherent conflict exists between experts

 

 

180

and/or professionals and administrators, and those who
argue that the positions are essentially compatible.
This debate will not be resolved here, but possibly some
light can be shed on the issue. The very fact that
teachers were willing to extend legitimacy to various
administrative positions for the making of certain
decisions suggests that teachers did not view all
administrative positions with the same skepticism that
much of the sociological literature would indicate.

An important question must be pursued a bit further
at this point. The assumption was made in Chapter II
that teachers, while not professionals, were in fact
experts to the extent that they receive training in a
particularized area of competency. This raises the
issue as to whether only professionals, and thus the
professional orientation, accounts for the conflicts
with administration, or whether conflicts arise out of
the nature of the tasks to be performed. From evidence
in this study the professional orientation does not
seem as important as the tasks themselves. It is the
tasks which are complex, non-routine, and thus open to
different interpretations as to how they might be per-
formed. The conventional administrative approach of
dividing the tasks and seeking out standardized criteria
for performance, are all points which the literature

suggests form the basis for the conflict. If this is

 

 

 

.I

  

181

the case, then possibly it is not the professional
orientation which creates the differences so much complex
tasks can best be performed. Granted the professional
orientation cannot be completely divorced from the
beliefs as to how the tasks are best performed, the
point here is a matter of emphasis and one that needs
further consideration in future research. If the methods
for performing tasks represent the points of disagree—
ment, then there is some indication that these conflicts
may not be inherent, but a result of improper structuring
of the organization. Where administrators are executing
decisions which might be better left to the experts, then
conflict between the two positions is likely to arise.
Thus conflict is likely to arise wherever there is dis-
agreement between positions as to how complex non-routine
tasks should be performed, and that such disagreements
are not directly related to the professional-administrator
split as suggested by so much of the literature.

A second aspect of this disagreement concerned
the relationship between specialization, centralization,
and participation in decision-making. The evidence from
this study indicates that the making of certain coordi-
native decisions is entirely different from the par-
ticipation in decision-making. The sociological litera-
ture has argued that as tasks become more specialized

decision-making becomes more centralized, which in turn

, .. .-
I-- ”5..

   

I I '
‘19-. 81,, .

182

leads to conflicts between professionals and adminis—
trators, as the professionals are excluded from the
decision-making process.2 The evidence, there indicates
that as specialization increases, the principals'
positions become more, not less, closely interdependent
with the teaching staff. Further as tasks become more
specialized the principals decision-making roles are
extended greater legitimacy by the teachers, again
suggesting that if there is any centralization of
decision-making it is forced upon the first line adminis-
trators by the teachers, as Opposed to being taken from
the teachers. Corroborative of this point was the fact
that there was little association between specialization
and relationships with the central administration. 8
The findings call into question the traditional
arguments concerning the relationships between experts
and bureaucrats. There does seem to be points of dif—
ference as to how complex tasks are best performed, but

these problems can be alleviated through proper structuring

 

2Three recent works most clearly depict the problems

between professional and organizational forms of control.
George Miller, "Professionals in Bureaucracy: Alienation
among Industrial Scientists and Engineers," American
Sociological Review, Vol. 32 (October, 1967), 755-767;
Michael Aiken and Herald Hage, "Organizational Alienation:
A Comparative Analysis," American Sociological Review,
Vol. 31 (August, 1966), 497-507. A more general dis—
cussion of the problems involving professionals in
organizations is provided in Howard Vollmer and Donald
Mills, eds., Professionalization (Englewood Cliffs,

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967).

 

 

 

 

183

of the decision-making process. Where superordinates
remain within the legitimized arenas of authority they
can forestall conflicts between themselves and the
experts. Moreover, participation in decision-making
does not seem to be thwarted by increasing specialization,
in fact, it would seem that specialization creates
demands for interdependence rather than centralization.
Another factor which makes the traditional socio-
logical explanation suspect is the historical pattern
through which it developed. Industrial organizations
historically met greater specialization--specialization
of tasks, not of people--with increased centralization.
But in this case the tasks were routine and simple,
requiring little technical competence. This argument
was in many respects superimposed upon the "professionals
in organizations" literature, which caused theorists
to deduce logical, if not empirical, conflicts between
experts and administrators. Where tasks were complex and
demanding of experts, there seems little evidence to
indicate that the administration has attempted to
centralize control. In fact this and other studies are
finding just the opposite to be the case. The arguments
growing out of industrial organizations, geared to one
type of task, cannot be extended to different types of
organizations which perform complex tasks and employ

experts in their behalf.

 

 

 

 

38A?

Together these arguments strongly suggest that the
traditional writings need considerable revision on at
least three counts. First, increasing specialization,
which involves experts, is not necessarily associated
with greater centralization of the decision-making
process. Second, and flowing from the first, if there
is no added centralization then there is probably no
reduction in participation in the decision-making process.
Third, the demands which specialization produces may in
fact draw subordinate positions into closer ties with
administration as both attempt to work through the complex

set of tasks.

Legitimacy

 

Legitimacy represents the social approval necessary
for authority relationships. As Weber has suggested,
an act of authority depends upon some "minimum voluntary
submission" on the part of subordinates. Subordinate
obedience to a Set of commands imparts legitimacy to
superiors' authority. ‘In one way, commands eminate from
superordinates, but legitimacy, and thus authority, is-
imparted to those directives through subordinate com—
pliance. In this respect authority is differentiated

from power; for in power relationships compliance depends

 

185

upon coercion, whereas authority is imparted to the

relationship through voluntary compliance.3
Building upon the work of Weber, Blau has argued

that authority relationships depend not upon the relation-

ship that a superordinate has with each subordinate,

but the relationship that he maintains with the group.

In this sense compliance is voluntary for the group but

it is compelling for the individual. It is not the

superordinate which compels the individual to comply, but

his relationships with other subordinates, and his

desire to follow the group norms which:specify compliance.

Viewed in this way, it is the collective approval on the

part of the subordinates which legitimizes the commands

of the superordinate. This feature of authority relation-

ships, Blau argues, raises the issue of consensus among

group members. When commands are issued it becomes a

question of whether these commands are consistent with

the normative relationships between superordinate and sub-

ordinate. Where they clearly fall within the bounds of

the relationship there will be little question as to sub-

ordinate compliance, and legitimization of the directives.

Where the norms are less clear it becomes a problem as

to whether subordinates will invest the commands with

legitimacy through their compliance. As consensus

 

3Parsons, Max Weber: . . .', p. 234.

 

 

186

declines,the authority aspect of the relationship is
called into question by the group, and thus forebodes the
possible exercise of coercion which transforms the
relationship from one of authority to one of power.

In this study both the questions of legitimacy and
consensus were examined through focusing upon the
decision—making process. The consensus which teachers
impart to both their own and to other superordinate
positions was determined through the percentage of
teachers in each school investing legitimacy in a position
for making certain decisions.

Concentrating on the legitimacy of decision-making
is admittedly only one dimension through which these
processes operate. As was argued in Chapter II, however,
where tasks are complex and non-routine, such as teaching,
the decision-making process becomes an important method
for limiting subordinates actions. Under such task con-
ditions direct supervision, and the making of rules
cannot affectively control subordinates. Superordinates
cannot directly control teachers activities in the
classroom, but they can, through the manner in which they
either assume or delegate certain decisions, limit the
activities of the teachers. For these reasons it was

decided to focus upon the manner in which legitimacy was

 

”Blau, Exchange and Power in Social Life, 199-212.

 

 

 

187

extended to different positions for making coordinative
decisions.

The impact of legitimacy upon social relationships
in the organization cannot be divorced from the manner in
which it is effectedtnrspecialization. As specialization
increases within the organizations,teachers imparted
greater legitimacy to the principals' decision-making
roles. This suggests that the authority of the principal
increases with specialization, which in turn makes teachers
more aware of his functions as their tasks become more
closely interdependent. This finding is at odds with
much of the literature presented in Chapter II. Here
the implication was that subordinates did not extend
legitimacy to superiors in the face of specialization,
but instead conferred it upon their colleagues or peers.
This in turn resulted in conflicts as superiors attempted
to give commands which were not legitimized by subordi—
nates. In this study subordinates extended legitimacy to
their immediate superiors as specialization increased.

The traditional arguments impute a type of ethno-
centricity to subordinates, in that they see themselves
as the ones most capable of accomplishing the tasks,
and thus do not extend legitimacy to superordinates.
Traditionally subordinate legitimacy has been conceptual-
ized as a scarce and valued commodity in the eyes of

subordinates, and something not to be given away,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

188

particularly to superiors who can then use it to control
teachers actions. But where tasks are non-routine, com-
plex, and have no definite standards of right and wrong
attached to their performance, subordinates may be anxious
to extend legitimacy to superiors in exchange for assist-
ance in the completion of their tasks.

A re-interpretation of legitimacy in light of evi-
dence from this study seems now in order. Where teachers
gain greater consensus among themselves as to the
legitimacy of their own decision—making roles they be-
come more closely integrated with the principal. In
this case both legitimacy and the integration between
teachers and principals protect the teachers from any
arbitrary action on the part of the principal. Where
there is high consensus among the teachers as to their
decision-making roles, they can meet any infringements
with a common set of sanctions. One of the most potent
sanctions is to withdraw from any close social relation-
ships with the principal. Since principals' tasks are
dependent upon gaining cooperation from teachers, a
decline in integration might well reflect less coopera-
tion, therefore jeopardizing principals' performances.

As a result, principals do not interfere with
decisions which teachers legitimize for themselves.
Thus high consensus among teachers acts as a protective

device against principal interference with their

 

 

legitimized domain of control. Through these relations,

principals become involved in a set of compliant
exchanges; in return for control over certain areas of
decision-making, teachers become more cooperative with
principals,making their job both easier and their per-
formance appear more positive to the central administra-
tion. These findings and interpretations point to the
advantage of examining legitimacy within organizations.
This aspect of authority has not been given the empirical
attention which other dimensions of the concept have;
using it,however, reorients the perspective of the inquiry
from looking down to subordinates to looking up to
superiors. Legitimacy focuses attention on the ways in
which subordinates can subvert the formalized relation-
ships which are the basic operating principles of the
organization. The fact that authority is based upon
legitimacy, and legitimacy upon consensus of the sub-
ordinates, suggests that where numbers of subordinates
can achieve consensus concerning certain aspects of
their activities,they can subvert much of the formal
organization. Consensus can be used as a bargaining
tool by subordinates in that their superiors are to a
large extent dependent upon subordinates for positive
evaluations. If this is correct, then subordinates can

use their consensus to dictate to superiors how they wish

 

 

 

190

to be treated and what directives will be complied with
and which ones will be ignored.

The chain of events described above becomes even
more interesting as teachers extend a high degree of
consensus to the legitimacy of principals' decision-making
roles. The general direction of the relationships
described above still hold true but to a lesser extent.
First of all, as teachers extend a greater amount of
legitimacy to the principals' position their integration
with the principal increases, and the conflict between
the two positions declines. In both cases, however, this
occurs to a lesser extent than was observed when teachers
extended legitimacy to their own positions. As teachers
legitimize principals' decision-making roles the social
interdependence between themselves and the principals
become somewhat more restrained. In View of the above
interpretation this finding is not surprising. Where
teachers reinforce superiors authority one might expect
social interdependence to decline, since that authority
might be used to effect decisions and actions to which
the teachers do not fully subscribe. Furthermore, under
such conditions, close interdependence with the principal
does not serve the teachers in the same way as when they
held the authority. Where principals have both legi-
timized authority and close interdependence with the

teachers, they might utilize this interdependence to

 

 

 

 

 

 

191

influence teachers, just as teachers used it to influence
their actions. In any event, both of these factors

taken together account for the reduction in interde-
pendence between teachers and principals when authority
is invested in the principal.

What is of more interest at this point is the sig-
nificant increase in both conflict.and integration among
teachers in a specialty when greater legitimacy is
extended to the principal. At this point nothing will
be said of the relationship between integration and
conflict since that will be taken up in a separate section
at the end of this chapter. What is salient here, are
the factors which might account for this increase.
Recalling that legitimacy to the principal increased
significantly as specialization increased, there is some
support for the argument that specialization leads teachers
to invest more legitimacy in the principals as demands
upon the teachers increase. Thus, as principals attempt
to assist teachers in the solution of their tasks, social
interdependence between teachers and principals increases,
but conflict and integration among teachers in each
specialty also increase. The functional interdependence
brought about by increased specialization creates demands
for a more refined working out of each teacher's role
within the specialty resulting in an intense social

setting which could conceivably lead to elements of both

 

 

 

192

conflict and integration. Though these conclusions might
appear tentative, there was an impressive number of cor—
relations all of which pointed in this direction. Based
upon them, it does seem reasonable to conclude that
specialization in some way affects teachers within each
specialty; it leads toward a greater legitimation of the
principals' decision-making roles, and it increases the
level of both integration and conflict among teachers in
those specialties.

Moving now to a consideration of other aspects of
legitimacy; there was a close association between the
legitimacy which subordinates extended to a superordinate
positions and the integration between teachers and that
position. This increase in integration was accompanied
by a comparable decline in integration between teachers
and that position directly above the one to which legi—
timacy was extended. These findings depict the hier-
archical mechanism at work; where teachers legitimize
the decision—making roles of one superordinate position
they cannot comply with demands from successively higher
positions which represent different perspectives and
alternative methods of operation. These findings
indicate that integration between positions is somehow
tied to the investing of legitimacy in that position.
Where subordinates invest legitimacy in superiors they

in turn become integrated with them. At the same time

193

that subordinates invest legitimacy in one superordinate
position they in turn become less integrated with succeed—
ingly higher positions. This suggests that as legitimacy
and social interdependence emerge between teachers and
one position the threat which higher positions pose is
reflected in the manner in which teachers reject any social
relationships with them.

This discussion of legitimacy has focused upon the
manner in which subordinate positions impart authority
to superiors through the manner in which they submit to
certain directives and commands. Looked at in this
manner, authority no longer can be viewed as simply the
right to give commands. From the perspective of legiti-
macy, authority becomes a set of compliant exchanges.
Subordinates invest legitimacy in superiors to make
certain decisions, in turn for these rights superiors
must not infringe upon those areas to which no legitimacy
extends. On the part of the subordinates, investing
legitimacy means submitting to a set of commands which
superiors impose. At the same time, by submitting to
those commands subordinates are hopefully guided toward
the most efficient means for executing their tasks.

To speculate on the future role of legitimacy as
a concept for organizational research one needs to con-
sider the increasing importance of the expert as a sub-

ordinate. Historically legitimacy was of little concern

194

in organizations. Where tasks were routine, and the
requirements for their performance standardized, the
rewards—contribution relationship between the organization
and any individual worker could be affected through a
proper wage rate. Where performance was not adequate,
or failed to meet the accepted standards, employees were
released from the organization.

In comparison, today's organizations are employing
a greater proportion of experts and specialists; they
are hired because of their specialized training which
allows them to perform certainvcomplex and non-routine
tasks for the organization. The nature of the tasks
preclude clearcut standards of right and wrong in their
performance, which in turn eliminates any arbitrary
decisions on the part of superiors as to the quality of
the performance. Moreover, and this is the crucial
point, the demand for experts is high and likely to
increase, at the same time superiors must take into
account the way in which their actions and commands ef-
fect the experts, since most organizations can 111 afford
to lose experts whom they cannot easily replace. Also,
,the intrinsic joy of the work which experts attach to
-their tasks cannot be measured in monetary terms, there-
fore organizations must effect a rewards-contribution
relationship through more than monetary standards. One

standard likely to emerge, is the way in which

 

 

195

organizations define superordinate-expert relationships.
Under such conditions the legitimacy which a group of
experts imparts to an administrative superior is likely

to be of central concern to both the organization and to
the experts. Of concern to the organization since adminis-
trators will want their first line supervisors to be
sensitive to the legitimacy which experts invest in their
position; and of concern to the experts since this will
represent part of the rewards-contribution relationship
binding them to the organization.

These speculations made here involve the changing
nature of the task structure and how it will effect the
concerns of administrators and change their orientation
toward subordinates. The concept of legitimacy,and the
reciprocity which it implies within an authority rela-
tionship,has historically been ignored in favor of con-
cerns which were more central to the completion and
attainment of organizational goals. But, with the
changing conception of the subordinate, from an unskilled
laborer to a talented expert, will also come changes in
the way administrators evaluate performances, set
standards, and condition the interrelationships between
experts and the organization. Where the changes are
toward increasing numbers of experts the question of
legitimacy will become more central to an understanding

of authority. The consensus of experts and how they come

 

196

to legitimize certain normative standards of performance,
will be of critical importance to administrators who must
balance administrative demands with the concerns which
experts have for the performance of their tasks. The
importance of legitimacy is well documented by the
findings from this study. As consensus over legitimacy
increased there was a comensurate rise in the integration
between the positions and a similar reduction in conflict.
At the same time there arose both integration and conflict
among the specialists. Deferring conflict from between
positions in the organization, where there is always a
potential for it to polarize into an administrator-~
expert conflict, to among experts where both elements of
integration and conflict exist, is far safer for the
organization. In this case it is easier to control con-
flict among specialists than between specialists and the
administration. In the first case, the administration
can act as a mediator, in the second its involvement in
the conflict precludes its role as a mediator. Thus, an
awareness of the legitimacy which subordinates confer
upon superiors roles may enable the administration to
invoke certain tactics which will forestall the types of
organizational conflicts which they cannot resolve

because of their involvement in them.

 

197

Discrepancy

 

The question of legitimacy leads directly to an
interpretation of the findings concerning the discrepancy
between the actual making of a decision and the legitimacy
invested in a position for making that decision.

An examination of the discrepancies between the
decisions which superiors make, and the legitimacy
invested in them by subordinates, indicates that there
is a hierarchy of decision-making which subordinates both
recognize and legitimate. The findings also point to the
interdependent nature of the decision-making process. In
correlating the actual interference of superiors in the
making of those decisions which teachers reserve for
themselves some interesting observations were made.
First, neither principals nor superintendents interfered
with teachers in exercising their decisions. The
principals tended to defer to teachers, while super—
intendents were not involved in the same decision-making
spectrum. Second, superintendents did interfere in the
making of those decisions which teachers reserved for
the principal. This has profound effects upon the
relationships among the positions. Superintendents, by
infringing upon those decisions which teachers reserved
for the principals, created conflict between teachers
and principals, and between teachers and superintendents.

This indicates that the structure of decision-making is

 

198

a highly interdependent one. It is of little use for
principals to adhere to the decision-making roles
legitimized for them by teachers if they at the same
time cannot encourage superintendents to comply with the
decision-making roles which teachers have legitimized for
the principals. Compliant exchanges between superiors
and subordinates at one level is of little value if
higher superiors do not also adhere to a similar set of
exchanges. Such findings again document the precarious-
ness of the principal's position. He must restrict his
actions to comply with the roles legitimized for him by
the teachers if he is to elicit their support for his
directives. At the same time he must somehow insure I
that superintendents do not infringe upon his decision-
making roles. If he cannot control the superintendents,
he jeopardizes his relationships with the teachers.
Where conflict emerges between positions beneath the
superintendent it is the principal who is held responsible
and accountable for the problems between himself and the
staff.

These observations again point to the importance
of legitimacy as a dimension in the authority relation-
ship. The process by which legitimacy is extended may
indicate an almost profound knowledge on the part of
the teachers concerning organizational operations.

Teachers seem to extend legitimacy to various

 

 

superordinate positions in a way that will permit these
positions to facilitate them in accomplishing their

goals. Unfortunately, this research cannot answer the
question as to whether conflict arises because of the way
in which :uperiors disrupt the flow of work in the organiza-
tion, or whether it arises simply because superiors have
ignored the legitimacy which teachers have invested in
them. If the first explanation is correct, then much

of the literature dealing with the myopia of the expert
seems illfounded. If on the other hand the second
explanation is correct, then ways must be found to manipu-
late experts in order not to incur their hostility.
Regardless of which case approximates reality, the impor—
tance of legitimacy as a vehicle for examining organiza-
tions remains. The findings and the manner in which they
lend themselves to interpretations, indicate that
legitimacy has a profound impact upon the social relation-
ships within an organization. Because of the nature of
the tasks, and the employment of experts, the questions

of legitimacy will take on increasing importance in

future research since it reflects the way in which sub-
ordinates submit to organizational directives and to

the goals of the organization.

Integration and Conflict

 

Evidence from this study has been at odds with

much of the writings on organizational integration and

 

 

.1200-

conflict. The effect of specialization upon integration
seems better understood in terms of how each position is
related to the completion of a series of tasks. Speciali-
zation does encourage integration among teachers within
each specialty, but it also seems to create integration
between teachers within a specialty and the principals.
This finding indicates that the demands for interdepen—
dence create an atmosphere for the integration of teachers
and principals. Traditional arguments indicate that
integration moves horizontally within the organization,
and that specialization serves only to increase vertical
conflict between specialists and administrators. This
case seems overstated. One must first understand what
roles the administrators perform in terms of the special-
ists. In the case of educational organizations, princi-
pals roles are closely associated with teachers in the
performance of their functions. This being the case,
principals become more integrated with teachers as the
degree of specialization increases. More importantly,
however, as this occurs, conflict between teachers and
principals declines. This finding also tends to run
against much of the existing literature in organizations.
Specialization tends to encourage both conflict and
integration among teachers within a specialty. But
conflict between teachers and other positions resulted
from the manner in which principals and superintendents

extended their actual decision-making authority beyond

   

201

those areas legitimized by the teachers. This was most
pronounced in the case of the superintendents. Where
superintendents exceeded their legitimized decision—
making roles conflict among teachers within each
specialty declined, and conflict between teachers and
superintendents increased. Thus, superintendents, by
exceeding their legitimized decision-making roles,
tended to alter the basis of conflict within the organi—
zation. As was suggested above, conflict among
specialists was not particularly harmful to the adminis-
tration since it could act as a mediator among teachers.
But, where conflict shifts from among teachers to between
teachers and superintendents, the organization becomes
party to the conflict and thus loses its position as
mediator. Thus superintendents, by over-extending
their decision-making roles encourage teachers to
forego conflict among themselves in favor of engaging
the superintendent. This arises because of the different
perspective which these positions have upon the per-
formance of tasks within the organization. In general,
the closer an administrative position to the actual per-
formance of a series of tasks the more likely that it
will adhere to its legitimized decision-making roles and
the greater the integration between that position and
the experts.

This general conclusion becomes clearer if the

reader will recall the interpretation provided above

202

involving social relationships as a set of compliant
exchanges. The closer a superordinate position to the
performance of a set of tasks, the greater the reward
offered him for complying with the legitimized decision-
making roles set out by subordinates. If he complies,
he is insured of maintaining closer social relationships
which will facilitate his performance, and thus superiors'
opinions of him. At the same time the more rewarding

it becomes for subordinates to comply with those direc-
tives he offers, because, he is in a position to inte-
grate their activities and to provide directions for the
efficient solution of their problems.

On the other hand, greater legitimacy to super-
intendents' positions leads to conflict between teachers
and superintendents, precisely because by following the
directives set out by the central administration teachers
are not assisted in the performance of their tasks. In
fact, instead of rewards for compliance, they are faced
with the costs of following decisions which do not meet
the exigencies demanded by the tasks. Moreover, there
is no reward for superintendents in observing the legiti-
mized decision—making roles set out for them by the
teachers. Their tasks and performance are not dependent
upon the teachers, on the contrary, they may be
dependent upon not observing the legitimized roles set

out by teachers. As a result, the further an

203

administrative position is from the completion of a series
of tasks the less the reward for observing legitimized
decision making roles, and thus the more likely they will
be ignored. Likewise, the greater the conflict between
teachers and superintendents. Where teachers follow the
commands of the superintendent his directives lead to
costs rather than rewards for the teachers. Both integra—
tion and conflict then seem largely dependent upon the
manner in which superordinates recognize, and involve
themselves in, sets of compliant exchanges with sub-
ordinates.

Before concluding this discussion of integration
and conflict, a final word might be in order concerning
the usefulness of the concepts in social research. The
concept of integration has proven to be one of the most
theoretically important concepts in sociology, yet its
use in empirical research has been severely limited.

This is not strange, the very feature which makes it so
valuable to theory construction at the same time spells
its doom for empirical research. The broad global

nature of the concept, and the manner in which it is

able to account for a number of attributes in any social
relationship, makes operationalization of that concept
almost totally impossible. In this study an index was
employed to bring together several dimensions of integra—

tion. The value of even this procedure seems particularly

 

204

questionable. The findings reflect far more clearly
support and communication than the level of integration
among the various positions. This is evidenced by the
fact that integration represents considerably more
dimensions of a social relationship than simply communi-
cation and support. In fact it could be easily argued
that these two dimensions are not part of integration at
all, rather, they are preconditions which must exist
before integration can emerge. This argument does not
detract from the findings, or from the relationships
which were found to exist, it does however, make suspect
part of the theoretical structure upon which they are
arranged.

Conventional solutions to this problem have been
the development of better measuring devices, with this
I would agree, but also there is considerably greater
need to work through the theoretical literature and in
turn specify more fully the dimensions of integration
and the logical processes by which it may be reduced to
a set of concepts amenable to test. Until such time as
this is done, it might be wiser for future research to
deal with concepts which are not as subject to a variety
of explanations and interpretation.

As for conflict, much of the same critiCism also
applies. Clearer distinctions between competition and

conflict are certainly necessary, as well as a clearer

 

 

205

definition of precisely what constitutes a conflict. Does
disagreement mean conflict or does it stop short of it?
There does not seem to be a clear agreement on this

point. In this research the notion of disagreements and
tensions was utilized to operationalize conflict, but
again the theoretical propriety of such an undertaking

is certainly Open to question.

The reader should not however, view these comments
as a tacit repudiation of the findings, and thus the
arguments which were presented in this dissertation.
What is said here is simply a caveat, warning future
researchers to consider carefully the use of global
concepts in the service of empirical research. More
limited concepts may lead to more realistic findings
in the sense that the correspondence between the theory
and findings is more tenable.

The relationship between integration and conflict
has been brought into question in this research. At
this point no definite conclusions are warranted, instead
speculation seems more in order. There are several
reasons why this relationship between integration and
conflict was brought up in the course of this research.
First, traditional literature in the areas has viewed
these concepts as unidimensional, with integration
measuring the positive aspect of a relationship, and

conflict the negative side. Second, the literature has

 

 

 

f
a... I4 __ ___ H‘p _ _ _ ‘

xv
/

   

206

focused attention upon methods for eliminating conflict
and increasing integration. Third, the findings in
this study report that integration and conflict may
exist simultaneously in only one setting, namely among
teachers within a specialty.

Though the findings from this research are cer—
tainly tenuous the relationships between integration and
conflict among teachers within each specialty is clear
enough to warrant some added consideration. Traditional
conceptions of integration and conflict in organizations
are certainly due for new perspectives and interpreta-
tions. The desire on the part of writers to show how
conflict can be eliminated has overshadowed any attempts
to understand how it might be put to use within the
organization structure. Eliminating conflict within a
contrived social grouping is, in this author's opinion,
a utopian dream which will never be fulfilled. Conflict
may not be ubiquitious as Dahrendorf and Krupp suggest;
a more worthwhile question may be: to what extent is
social conflict legitimate and useful to the organiza-

5

tion? This question is similar to the one taken up by

Lewis Coser in his book The Functions of Social Conflict.

 

The arguments presented there offer an interesting point

 

5Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial
Society; and Krupp, Pattern in Organizational Analysis.

 

207

of departure for the organizational analysis of conflict.
Coser's interpretations deal with social groups occupying
a similar social status and with comparable sets of
resources. In the case of organizations, differing bases
of authority, power, and other resources for exchange
must be added to this interpretation.6

In reformulating Simmel's propositions concerning
conflict, Coser argues that social conflict among members
of a group may actually foretell the strength of the
relationships. This is evidently the case with teachers
in a particular specialty. Even though conflict may
arise, social integration as well as the functional
interdependence brought on by the tasks they are performing
serve to hold the group together. Further, conflict may
actually be a safety valve permitting teachers to relieve
tensions before they erupt in a wholesale destruction
of the group.

In any case the areas of integration and conflict
are central to organizational functioning, they deserve
more attention and detailed analysis if headway is to be
made on understanding the organization as a complex

social unit.

 

6Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict.

 

208

Conclusions
In summarizing the concluding chapter, suffice it
to say that integration and conflict must be assessed
through the way that specialization relates positions to
the completion of tasks, and the manner in which
legitimacy is extended to superiors in the performance
of their functions leading toward the achievement of

corporate goals.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Articles

Aiken, Michael, and Hage, Jerald. "Organizational .
Alienation: A Comparative Analysis." American ‘5’
Sociological Review, Vol. 31 (August, 19665, 497-
507.

 

Argyris, Chris. "Understanding Human Behavior in
Organizations," in Modern Organization Theory.
Edited by Mason Haire. New York: John Wiley and
Son, 1959, 115—154.

 

Baur, E. J: "Public Opinion and the Primary Group."
American Sociological Review, Vol. 25 (April,
1960), 208—219.

 

Bennis, Warren, et al. "Reference Groups and Loyalties
in the Out-Patient Department." Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 2 (March, 1958), 4814500.

 

 

Bidwell, Charles. "The School as a Formal Organization."¥’
Handbook of Organizations. Edited by James G.
March. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1965,
972—1022.

 

"Some Effects on Teacher and Administrator
Behavior: A Study in Role Theory." Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 2 (September, 1957), 163—
181.

 

 

Blau, Peter. "A Theory of Social Integration." American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 65 (May, 1960), 545-556.

"The Hierarchy of Authority in Organizations."
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 73 (January,
1968), 453—467.

 

Carlson, R. 0. "Research on the School System as an fr”
Organization." School Review, Vol. 66 (Winter, ‘
1958), “73-475.

Clinard, Marshall. "The Group Approach to Social Re-
integration." Amerigan Sociological Review, Vol.
14 (April, 1949), 257-262.

210

 

 

 

211

Cogan, Morris. "A Definition of Profession." Harvard
Educational Review, Vol. 23 (Winter, 1953), 33-50.

Corwin, Ronald. "Militant Professionalism: Initiative
and Compliance in Public Education." Sociolo
of Education, Vol. 38 (Summer, 1965), 310—331.

 

Crozier, Michael. "Human Relations at the Management
Level in a Bureaucratic System of Organizations."
Human Organization, Vol. 20 (Summer, 1961), 51-64.

 

Davis, James. "Structural Balance, Mechanical Solidarity
and Interpersonal Relations." American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 68 (January, 1963), 444-462}

 

 

Edenberger, Louis. "The Challenge of Professionalization."
High School Journal, Vol. 51 (November, 1968), 151-
153.

Eisenstadt, S. N. Social Change, Differentiation and
Evolution." American Sociological Review, Vol. 29

(June, 1965), 375—386.

. "Reference Group Behavior and Social Integration."
American Sociological Review, Vol. 19 (April, 1954),

Evan, William. "Superior-Subordinate Conflict in a
Research Organization." Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 10 (June, 1965), 52—64.

 

 

Geer, Blanche. "Occupational Committment and the Teaching
Profession." School Review, Vol. 74 (Summer, 1966),
31"“? o

Getzels, J. W., and Guba, E. G. "Social Behavior and
' the Administrative Process." School Review, Vol.
65 (Winter, 1957), 423-441.

. "The Structure of Role and Role Conflict in the
Teaching Situation." Journal of Educational
Sociology, Vol. 29 (September, 1955), 33—40.

 

 

Goldner, Fred, and Ritti, J. "Professionalization as
Career Immobility." American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 72 (March, 1967), 489-503.

Gouldner, Alvin. "Cosmopolitans and Locals." Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, Vol. 2 (1957-1958), 281-306;
and 440-480.

 

 

 

' -H~ '- ‘ ‘5‘.“
d .‘ . I I

212

. "Reciprocity and Autonomy in Functional Theory."
In Symposium on Sociological Theogy, Edited by
Llewelyn Gross. New York: Harper and Row, 1959,
248—255.

Goss, Mary. "Influence and Authority Among Physicians
in an Outpatient Clinic." American Sociological
Review, Vol. 26 (February, 1961), 39—50.

Gross, Edward. "Social Integration and the Control of
Competition." American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 67 (November, 1961), 270-277.

, and Popper, Samuel. "Service and Maintenance
Orientation in a Junior High School." Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 1 (Spring, 1965),
29-“2.

Gross, Neal, and Martin, Walter. "On Group Cohesiveness."
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 57 (September,
1952), 546-564.

Geutzkow, Harold. "Communications in Organizations."
In Handbook of Organizations. Edited by James
March. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1965,
166.

Hall, Richard. "Intra—Organizational Structural Variation:
Application of the Bureaucratic Model." Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, Vol. 7 (December, 1962),
295-3080

Henry, Jules. "The Formal Structure of a Psychiatric
Hospital." Psychiatry, Vol. 18 (May, 1954), 132—152.

Holzner, Berkart. "Integration in Sociological Theory."
Sociological Quarterly (Winter, 1967), 51-62.

Horowitz, Jacob, et al. "Some Effects of Power on the
Relations Among Group Members.“” Group Dynamics.
Edited by Darwin Cartwright and AIVin Zandee.
Evanston: Row Peterson Co., 1953), 483-492.

Inlow, Gail. "Is Teaching a Profession." School Review,
Vol. 64 (Summer, 1956), 256-259.

Janowitz, Morris. "Changing Patterns of Organizational
Authority." Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 3 (March, 1959), 473-479.

 

 

 

213

Kelley, Harold. "Attitude and Judgements as Influenced
by Reference Groups." Readings in Social Psychology.
Edited by G. Swanson, T. Newcombe, and E. Hartley.
New York: Holt Reinhart and Winston, 1952.

. "Communications in Experimentally Created
Hierarchies." Human Relations, Vol. 4 (February,

1951), 39-56.

, and Thibaut, John. 'Experimental Studies of
Group Problem Solving and Process." Handbook of
Social Psychology. Edited by Gardner Lindzey.
Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley Co., 1954, 736-776.

Landsberger, Henry. "The Horizontal Dimension in
Bureaucracy." Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 6 (December, 1961), 299—332.

Lawrence, Paul, and Lorsch, Jay. "Differentiation and
Integration in Complex Organizations." Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, Vol. 12 (June, 1967),

149-153.

Litwak, Eugene. "Models of Organization Which Permit
Conflict." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 67

(July, 1961), 177-184.

 

Lockwood, David. "Some Remarks on the Social System."
British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 7 (1956), 134—
146.

Mack, Raymond, and Snyder, Richard. "The Analysis of
Social Conflict." Journal of Conflict Resolution,

Vol. 1 (June, 1957), 215-248.

Martel, Martin. "Some Controversial Assumptions in
Parsons Approach to Social System Theory."
Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 34 (Spring, 1964), 55—

59.

Merton, Robert, and Kitt, Alice. "Contributions to the
Theory of Reference Group Behavior." Continuities
in Social Research. Edited by Robert Merton and
Paul Lazarsfeld. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1950,

40-106.

 

Miller, George. "Professionals in Bureaucracy:
Alienation Among Industrial Scientists and
Engineers." American Sociological Review, Vol.

32 (October, 1967), 755—767.

 

 

 

214

Moeller, Gerald, and Charters, W. W. "Relation of
Bureaucratization to a Sense of Power Among Teachers."
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10 (March,
1966), 444-465.

 

Morse, Chandler. "The Functional Imperatives." Th3
Social Theories of Talcott Parsons. Edited by
Max Black. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall,
1961, 100-152.

 

North, Robert, et al. "The Integrative Functions of
Conflict.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol.
4 (September, 1960), 355-374.

 

Parsons, Talcott. "The Place of Ultimate Values in
Sociological Theory." International Journal of
Ethics, Vol. A3 (April, 1935), 282-316.

 

Pelz, Donald. "Interaction and Attitudes: Scientists
and Staff." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.
4 (December, 1959), 321—336.

Pondy, Louis. Organizational Conflict: Concepts and
Models." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 2
(September, 1967), 296-320.

 

Scott, W. Richard. "Professionals in Bureaucracies:
Areas of Conflict." Professionalization. Edited
by Howard Vollmer and Donald Mills. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1966, 265-275.

 

"Reaction to Supervision in Heteronomous Pro-
fessional Organizations." Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 10 (June, 1965), 65-69.

 

 

Sherif, M. "Reference Groups in Human Relationships."
Sociological Theory; A Book of Readings. Edited
by Lewis Coser and Bernard Rosenberg. New York:
The Macmillan Co., 1964, 270—276.

 

Shibutani, T. "Reference Groups as Perspectives."
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 60 (May, 1955),
562-569.

 

Smith, Claggett. "Comparative Analysis of Some Conditions
and Consequences of Intra-Organization Conflict."
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10 (1965-
1966), 4—5.

 

 

215

Stodgill, Ralph. "Personal Factors Associated with
Leadership: A Survey of the Literature." Journal
of Psychology, Vol. 25 (January, 1948), 35-37.

Stouffer, Sammuel, and Toby, Jackson. "Role Conflict and
Personality." American Journal of Sociology, Vol.
56 (March, 1951), 395-406.

 

Thompson, James. "Organizational Management of Conflict."
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 5 (March,
1961), 485—521.

 

Thompson, Victor. "Hierarchy, Specialization and Organiza-
tional Conflict." Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 5 (March, 1961), 485-495.

Toby, Jackson. "Some Variables in Role Conflict Analysis."
Social Forces, Vol. 30 (March, 1952), 323—328.

 

 

 

Trow, Martin. "The Second Transformation of American
Secondary Education." International and Comparative
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 2 (September, 1961),
144-165.

Van Den Berghe, Pierre. "Dialectic and Functionalism."
American Sociological Review, Vol. 30 (June, 1965),

 

Books

Argyris, Chris. Personality and Organization. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1957.

 

Barnard, Chester. The Functions of the Executive.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938.

Blau, Peter. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964}

 

, and Scott, Richard. Formal Organizations.
San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1962.

 

Boulding, Kenneth. Conflict and Defense. New York:
Harper Torch Books, 1962.

 

Corwin, Ronald. A Sociology of Education: Emerging
Patterns of Class, Status and Power in the Public
Schools. New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1965.

 

216

Coser, Lewis. The Functions of Social Conflict. New
York: The Free Press, 1966.

, and Rosenberg, Bernard. Sociological Theory:
A Book of Readings. New York: The Macmillan
Co., 1964.

 

Cyert, Richard, and March, James. Behavioral Theory of
the Firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc.,
1963.

 

Dahrendorf, Ralf. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial
Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press,

1959.

Deutsch, Karl. The Nerves of Government. New York: The
Free Press, 1966.

Downs, Anthony. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little
Brown and Co., 1967.

 

Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Society. New
York: The Free Press, 1964. 6

Gerstl, Joel, and Hanson, Robert, ed. On Education:
Sociological Perspectives. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1967.

Gerth, Hans, and Mills, C. Wright, ed. From Max Weber:
Essays in Sociology. New York: Galaxy Books, 1958.

 

Goslin, David. The School in Contemporary Society.
Illinois: The Scott Foresman Co., 1965°

Griffiths, Daniel. Human Relations in School Administra-
tion. New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1962.

Gulick, Luther and Urwick, Luther, ed. Papers in the
Science of Administration. New York: Institute
of Public Administration, 1937.

 

Halpin, Andrew. Theory and Research in Administration.
New York: The Macmillan Co., 1966.

Krupp, Sherman. Patterns in Organizational Analysis.
Neg York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.,
19 1.

Lawrence, Paul and Lorsch, Jay. Organizations and
Environment. Boston: Graduate School of Business
Administration, Harvard University, 1967.

 

 

 

 

217

Lenski, Gerhard. Power and Privilege. New York: McGraw-
Hill Co., 1966.

 

Likert, Renis. New Patterns of Management. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962. ’

 

Lipset, Seymour. Political Man. New York: Doubleday
Anchor Book Co., 1960.

 

March, James, and Simon, Herbert. Organizations. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957.

 

Martindale, Don. The Nature and Types of Sociological
Theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1960.

 

Marx, Karl and Engles, Fredrick. The German Ideology.
New York: International Publishers Co., 1947.

 

Merton, Robert. Social Theory and Social Structure.
New York: The Free Press, 1957.

 

Meyer, Poul. Administrative Organization. London:
Stevens and Sons Ltd., 1957.

 

Nisbet, Robert. The Sociological Tradition. New York:
Basic Books, 1966.

Parsons, Talcott. Max Weber: The Theorygof Social and
Economic Organizations. New York: The Free
Press, 1947.

 

 

Roethlisberger, F. J., and Dickson, W. J. Management
and The Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1939.

 

 

Sayles, Leonard. The Behavior of Industrial Work Groups.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958.

 

Sherif, M., and Sherif, Carolyn. Reference Groaps.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961.

 

Simon, Herbert. Smithburg, Donald, and Thompson, Victor.
Public Administration. New York: Alfred Knopf,
1950.

 

Simon, Herbert. Administrative Behavior. New York:
The Free Press, 1957.

 

Smith Adam. The Wealth of Nations. The Modern Library,
1937.

 

  

,P ‘5' ’ i—fl-Fa?‘

 

218

Thompson, James. Organizations in Action. New York:
McGraw Hill Book Co., 1967.

 

Thompson, Victor. Modern Organizations. New York:
Alfred Knopf, 1961.

Vollmer, Howard, and Mills, Donald. Professionalization.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1967.

Waller, Willard. The Sociology of Teaching. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1932.

Williams, Robin. American Society. New York: Alfred
Knopf, 1963.

 

Public Documents and Reports l

 

Colombotos, John. Sources of Professionalism. CCCperative
Research Project No. 330, Department of Sociology. A
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1962.

Corwin, Ronald. Development of an Instrument for Examin-
ing Staff Conflict. Cooperative Research Project
No. 1934. Washington D. C.: Office of Education.
U.§. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
19 3.

 

Hecker, S., and Northy, T. Selected Characteristics of
Michigan Schools. A Report prepared by the
Michigan Education Association. East Lansing:
Michigan Education Association, 1968.

 

Michigan Education Association. Michigan Public School
District Data 1967-1968. A Report prepared by the
Michigan Education Association. East Lansing:
Michigan Education Association, 1968.

Seeman, Melvin. Social Status and Leadership: Th3
Case of the School Superintendent. Bureau of
Educational Research. Columbus: The Ohio State
University, 1966.

Sweitzer, Robert. Role Expectations and Perceptions of
School Principals. Cooperative Research Project
No. 1329. Washington, D. C.: Office of Education,
U.§. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
l9 3.

 

 

219

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
United States Census of the Population 1960.
General Population Characteristics, Michigan.
Final Report PC (1) 24-B. Washington, D. C.:
U. S. Government Printing Office.

 

 

APPENDIX

220

 

 

2231

 

coHpHmon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.~H H.H H.H m. o.m m.m n.5m m.H n.: m.mm :.m m. w. apomH>Hoa3maLonuo
. . . . J. . . . . . . to one: because on o»
H.aH s. o.m m.m m.c m.e m.e e.H H.m e.sH m.mH e.m o.m soHHoo HosoHu
m.mH H. m.m m.H H.oH m.mm o.MH :.m H.o m.HH m.m m. m.: nonpumcH wchmstpom .m
e.aH H. o.m m. m.: o.m H.H: a.m H.H H.H m.s m. m.HH accesses oo scoop
O O O O O O O a I O O O O 0» mQSODHm Unfimpso
m.eH m. m.s a. o.mH c.mm o.mm m.H m.H m.m s. m.H m.
m.m o m.m z. H.mH H.:: n.2m m. o m. om. H. H. muonomop 3o: mcapHm .:
m.sH H. m.OH e.HH H.c e.mm m.o s.m s.m H.H m.m e. m.m one wchHesoooo .m
o o o o \o - )olu . J o o I HQflovawE
w ma H m 0 m u 0 2 «L o m we m mH H m MCHUMOL hhdpcmfi
o.OH H. H.H m. m. m.aH H.H m.H 3.6 m.om H.m s. o.mm -oHoosm wsHoooHom .m
m.sH H. m. H. m. H.H H. H. m.s m.ms m.m m.H cam.:m wxooopxou
H.w o H.m m. o.H m.mH o.H m. o.mH 0.5m :.H :. no.HH ooszvos wchooHom .H
AEV HHV Axe Aha AHV Hcv Ami How on Hov on ADV Amv
N .d 8 08 S Sutuv. d VJ. 0.13 Good 83 N11 rm
0 E O 31. n n S D. J S J .A. 8 0 8d 9 O U .dTra 8
J U. B d dSw T. SI. new .080 ”How LO? 8
vd a O 31 8 GIT. U rtu 30w RON OI. U0 0
a u o p. .. new. m. cm. awn. nun E .w w
M m TL m 0 m. u ens d sad i 1 m.:& a J J conHooo no make
0 8 B a .4 1 u 1 8 u H... ds 8 a o d .
u 0 .4d a 8.4a I 1.L a a u no a 8 O
S B 1.9 u U)? x: a 1."? .4 J O . J
8 J O J D. 0.8 3 S S Ud O n c 3
D. u .1 a arkT. /\ ad I. B I B
. w u u A .so 1 ”WC
8 3 30 8 d I. .A 3T.
u 3 c u Vsz
3 14+ 0 B
a J o _
P a

 

.mconHomo omonp

so>o.HoHucoo o>wc mHHwSpom mCOHuHmoa mcHonHou on» own» mchcoonoz mzocoomo Ho ucoo son on» new .HOchoo o>mn anozm hon» pmnu
popcoowmz 0:3 mHoocom coouuHu on» CH mpocomop do ocoo Hod on» new .coHonosv wcmeEICOHmHoop on» CH poms mcoHpHmoa 0cm mCOHmHomQ

2232

oHsonm pcoopom :-

Hmzpo< unmouom :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mam

m.mH m. 2.0 m.w m.m m.0. 3.0 m.H H.HH 0.0H H.m m. m.m on 0» who mwmpsow
m.ma m. :.HH 5.0m m.> m.om m.:H a.m 0.: m.OH m.ma m. o.N can: wCHCdEhouOQ .:H

m.0H o m. o z. a. :.H m. m.H H.0H m. m. 5.00 mm: oHsocm genome» m
m.MH H. a. m. w. m.: m.m m.H :.H m.w w. H. v.00 muocpoe mcHCdEhoqu .MH

. omnsoo no so use

m.0H 0. H.H z. m. H.H 0. H. m.: 0.mm H.m m. m.mm m CH pnmswp MN on

0.MH H. m.m o.H m.H m.oH m.H H.H 0.: :.Hm m.H m. m.Hm 0km mmSHw> can mpaoo
Icoo pan: wchHEHmuoo .mH

m.mm m. 0.» m.m m.m 3.0 o.: o. 3.0 m.H e.m mtmm H. mooco>lom
0.HH H. m.MH 0. H.oH 0.0H. m.s H.H m.m m. m.H 0.3m m. Hmvsocosoo so wsHHom .HH

m.mH H. 0.m H.m 0.: 0.0 A.Hm o.w m.mH 0.0 2.: 0.m 0. cases» o>ss

o.mH o a.m m.m 0.0 s.HH H.0s H.H 0.0 H.H a. o.m 0. cHsosn posses soHsooo .

o Lennon: wcHCHEpopoQ 0H

coqunon

H.mH m. 2.0 m. 0.5 m.w ~.mm m.H o.w o.m H.0H m.m H. on cwmomwmnwnommu

a :00
s.mH m. m.0H m. m.mH H.sH 0.0m H.H s.H m. 0. m.m 0. s CH wchHsswooo .m

HC>H30 wchmhwv

.ooo .ooHHou

0.0H H. m. m. m. m. o.m o.H m.H H.m 0.5 H. 0.:0 .oomnmn AHHmEHocwon on

a so
m.mH m. H. m. a. 0.H H.MH 0.H e.H m.H e.m m. H.am u use. no 6 assoc

then on» wcHCHepoqu

. .._"" {"~-W\

 

 

 

 

II II II II II mucovcochHomsm

pcoo pom
Rm &0 a: II *0 mHmQHoGHHm
pcoo mom
3
%
amp Raw Rub “Hm me mponomoB
pcoo pom

 

om: oHsozm poHHmm
Hegemoe wosz> no pommmm mszwom mpxoe
m moonpoz 02m mpaoocoo psmo Hem zhmpqumHgasm UmLHSUCm
mcHQHEpopoo wQHQHEHCme wCHQHEHoqu wchoonm mchooHom

 

.mEmbH mafimeIQOHmHooo .mposowop on» Hm>o Hoppsoo o>m£ UHsocm mucopcopCHHoQSm 0cm
.meQHocHHQ .mponomop pmnp mQHUCOQmoH mHoonom compMHm on» CH whocomCu mo pcoo pom

 

 

 

 

224

 

 

HHH smH HmH moroccoocHsooom

pcoo Mom

as: Hmm Hm: mHsoHocHsi

pcmo pom

HNH HH smm msocoooe

pcoo pom
eczema soHpHmom muomH>
o>m£ pHsonm UCHHslom lawman nospo no
sense: mpHSCmm on UHsonm HonomoE one: pcoEpHonQ
m Lonpmnz HmHmhm>0Hpcoo op whosomoe

wCHCHEHoqu

m MH wcHQHEHopoQ

m wcfipoEOHm

 

.wEouH wcmeEIQOHmHooU .mHmoHocHHQ on» Ho>o Homucoo o>mn oHsonm mucoocochHCQSm one
.mHmaHocHzo .mzonomou pmnp wcHocoomoh mHoonom coopMHg on» CH whosomop mo pcoo pom

 

 

225

Per cent teachers in fifteen schools responding that
teachers, principals, and superintendents should have
control over the superintendents' decision-making items.

 

Hiring New Teachers

 

Per cent
Teachers --

Per cent
Principals \ 30%

Per cent
Superintendents 44%

 

   

226

The following two questions were used in developing the
index of integration.

26. To what extent can you expect CCCperation and support
for your ideas about doing your job from each of the
following? CHECK ONE ON EACH LINE.

To a To a To To a To no

very great some slight extent
great extent extent extent at all
extent

a. Member(s) of the school
board

b. Other teachers in your
specialty in your
school

c. Your department head

d. Superintendent of
schools

e. Officers of the local
chapter of your teacher
organization (not the
building representatives)

f. Principal of your school

g. Officer(s) of the PTA
in your school

h. Parents of the children
in your classroom

i. The superintendent's
staff

j. Other teachers not in
your specialty in your
school

k. The principal's
assistants

0_—

227

30. To what extent do you exchange information, opinions,
and ideas about doing your job with each of the
following? CHECK ONE ON EACH LINE.

To a To a To To a To no
very great some slight extent
great extent extent extent at all
extent

a. Member(s) of the
school board

b. Other teachers in
your specialty in
your school

c. Your department
head

d. Superintendent of
schools

e. Officers of the local
chapter of your teacher
organization (not the
building
representatives)

f. Principal of your
school

g. Officer(s) of the PTA
in your school

h. Parents of the children
in your classroom

i. The superintendent's
staff

j. Other teachers not in
your specialty in
your school

k. The principal's
assistants

 

228

The following question was used to measure the conflict
variable.

40. Almost all schools have some disagreements or tensions
between groups. Please indicate as accurately as
possible the amount of disagreement or tensions
between the following groups in your school. CHECK
ONE ON EACH LINE

Degree of Disagreement or Tension

 

Very Great
great amount Some Slight None
amount
a. Between teachers and the
principal

b. Between teachers and ad-
ministrative assistants

0. Between teachers and the
school board

d. Between teachers and the
superintendent
e. Between teachers and

department heads

f. Between young and old
teachers

g. Between men and women
teachers

Between members of MFT
and members of MEA

13‘

1. Between academic and non—
academic teachers

j. Between newcomers and
old timers

k. Between teachers and
custodians

1. Between teachers and
clerical personnel
(e.g., secretaries)

. I. ;"
. as.

  

'3 '13"!- In
-. . Q
0‘4: .

 

 

229

m. Between teachers
within the same
subject matter area

n. Between teachers and
pupils

0. Between academic and
extra-duty teachers

The grouped inter-position Spearman Rank Order Correlation
Coefficients on the conflict variable.

 

 

l 2 3 4 S
1. Teachers and Principals
2. Teacher and School
Board and Teacher and
Superintendents —.443*
3. Young and Old and
Males and Female
Teachers “312 '13“
4. Between Teacher _ *
Organization '171 '005 .462
5. Teachers in same 111 _ 120 360 .296
Subject ' ° °

 

15.

*p < .05 N

 

 

I l‘ I _.'l .

. I. .. ,' :7 “r )1 |

..- . , .1 . -
. *V‘ u.l__ _ _ _____'$, . -, ‘. .... «,1

_. ‘-l q-.. . wo-v-.-’-"‘~d‘m'fi~-

.. - r. y“.-. -.

 

 

 

 

HICHI GRN STQTE NUIV. BRRRI

HJILI HIIJII |“l1ILHIIHIIIHILHNIZIHHHIES