......a.....n....n,u-.-:.-A.. --- A ~---u u A _ u ‘ , {HP- .WWW. LI BRA 5.? Micki-73,2: .‘7 M 'x: Ungczsi: v ”fill/IllIIIINIIIIIIHIH This is to certify that the thesis entitled A COMPARISON OF MOBILE WITH NON-MOBILE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ON THE BASIS OF SCHOOL CLIMATE presented by Vuti Laosunthorn has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for WW Major professor Date April 1, 1975 0-7639 ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF MOBILE WITH NON-MOBILE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ON THE BASIS OF SCHOOL CLIMATE By Vuti Laosunthorn This study was designed to determine if there are significant differences between school principals who transfer from place to place,and the principals who never move or are unlikely to move to principalships in dif~ ferent places. Because the principal is often held to be the key agent for change in today's elementary schools an examination of the leadership and school climate dif- ferences takes on importance. This study was concerned with two groups of principals, a mobile group and a non-mobile group. The mobile principal group was made up of those who came to their present position from a principalship in another school and have been in their present position not more than two years but no less than one year. The non—mobile group of principals was made up of those who have served in their present school principalship for at least ten years. Vuti Laosunthorn Thirty principals in both groups were identified in the six counties studied, and the climate of organiza- tion was measured by responses from teachers of each school, using the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaires by Halpin and Croft. Multivariate analysis was used to analyze the data. No statistically signifi- cant differences were found at the .05 level with degree of freedom 8 and 21 in any one of the eight climate dimensions. Profiles were drawn for each of the schools and for the composite of the mobile and of the non—mobile principal groups' schools. The composite profiles con- firmed the great similarity between the two groups, both of which rather closely conformed to the Open Climate pro- file. No different clustering of characteristics dis- tinguished the individual profiles between the two groups. This study was designed to find support for a recommendation to boards of education and superintendents of schools about the values of a rotation system for principals as compared to the regular system. The findings, after analysis by statistical and profile—comparison methods, fail to support a recommenda- tion. No significant differences in the organizational climate were found between the schools with mobile princi— pals and those with non—mobile principals. A COMPARISON OF MOBILE WITH NON-MOBILE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ON THE BASIS OF SCHOOL CLIMATE By Vuti Laosunthorn A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of Education 1975 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For his counsel, trust, and support, I express my appreciation to Dr. Archibald B. Shaw, advisor, and chair- man of my doctoral committee. I also wish to express appreciation to the other members of the committee, Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Dr. Christopher Sower, and Dr. Norman T. Bell for their help and willingness to serve in this capacity. For invaluable assistance with the methodological procedures of this study, I am most grateful to Dr. Andrew Porter and his staff in the office of Research Consultation. This study could not have been carried out without the cooperation of the Superintendents, Principals, and Teachers. To all of them I am grateful. I express my heartfelt thanks to my country. Finally, to my Heavenly Father, Song Laosunthorn, and my beloved mother, Pratuang Laosunthorn. Also my little sister, Maneerat Laosunthorn, who takes responsi— bilities for me while I am away, and Chantavit Chaemchaeng I who is a true "helpmeet,' whose encouragement and faith have been inspirational to me, I gratefully express my appreciation. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Chapter I. II. III. IV. THE PROBLEM . Introduction . Statement of the Problem Significance of the Study Hypotheses . Limitations of the Study Definition of Terms Review of the Literature Overview . . . . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction Leadership . Organizational Climate Leadership and Climate Rotation of the Principal Successors. Career— Bound and Place- Bound Summary RESEARCH PROCEDURES Introduction Population and Methodology of the Study Instrumentation Techniques ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . Introduction . . Analysis of the Data . Comparisons of Profile Summary . . . . Page vi Chapter V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Summary The Design . . . . . . . . Analysis of Survey Instrument Data Conclusion . . . . . . . Recommendations for Further Study BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES iv Table DOOM 10. ll. 12. LIST OF TABLES Over-all Survey Findings Participants in this Study Means of Raw Scores Means of Raw Score of Whole and Selected Teachers in the Building . . . The Means Total of Mobile Principal, Whole and Selected Staff versus Non—Mobile Principal, Whole and Selected Staff . . . . . The Means Total of Whole Staff, Mobile and Non— Mobile Principal versus Selected Staff, Mobile and Non- Mobile Principal . . The Means Total of Four Cells Mobile Principal, Whole Staff versus Selected Staff . Non— Mobile Principal, Whole Staff versus Selected Staff Means . . Means Total of Mobile versus Stable Principal Groups . . . . . . Standard Deviation of Mobile and Non—Mobile Principal Groups . . . . . Profile Characteristics of Organizational Climate . . . . . . Page 57 58 65 66 67 68 69 70 70 72 73 74 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Profile of the Composite Mobile and Non- Mobile Groups . . . . . . . . 79 2. Comparison Between Profiles of Composite Mobile and Open Climate . . . . . . . 80 3. Comparison Between Profiles Composite Mobile and Closed Climate . . . . . . . . 81 4. Comparison Between Profiles of Composite Non- Mobile and Open Climate . . . . . . . 82 5. Comparison Between Profiles of Composite Non- Mobile and Closed Climate . . . . . . 83 vi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction In the future the quality of elementary educa- tion will be linked increasingly to the professional preparation, social vision, and consistent courage of elementary school principals. Motivated by good will and an understanding of the value of coopera- tive effort he will seek to release within the individual school the potential contributions of classroom teachers, the staff of the central admini- stration, the technical resource personnel, the parents, and the general community leadership. Each of these has his own field of expertise; working together they can assure to all children increasingly better educational opportunities. The principals' role is a strategic one of coordinating these resources as they serve the school and, ultimately, American society as a whole. Since the future depends so much upon the elemen- tary school principal, it may be useful to look at how the elementary principals behave and act in their schools and how the leadership may make the school climate in some schools different from others. Mbst writers in educational administration today agree that the principal can and should play a major role in determining the school's emotional climate. Some see 1"The Elementary School Principalship in 1968," Department of Elementary School Principals, NEA, 1968, p. . the climate of a school as a composite personality with its dominant characteristics being very much like the dominant personality characteristics of the principal. After taking into account the recent loss in power of the principalship and the concomitant increase in teacher power, the position of the principal still affords the opportunity to have a significant impact on the learning environment. However, disagreement among writers arises when the questions of how much the principal can and/or should influence the school climate are discussed. This study assumes that the principal does play a major role in determining the emotional climate of the school. Statement of the Problem In spite of fifty years of research, little is known about whether a principal who transfers from one building to another becomes more expert in the principal- ship. There also rarely is found any article written about what happens to principals and their schools when they stay in one school for long periods of time. Within a single school system there also are few guidelines for superintendents or boards of education to follow in deciding whether they should renew a principals' contract except when particular principals have made mistakes. There is often only some feeling of emotion against or trust from the superior in judging the principals' behavior. Many principals are judged by superiors according to their characteristics, education, personal- ity, and how they behave rather than on more objective facts or evaluation. Therefore, there is only little for the school board to know as to whether a principal's contract should be renewed. The only thing the board knows may be that this particular principal has served a particular elementary school well, with no trouble or any real big problems, in which case the board may assume he is best fitted for this particular school. Many princi- pals may have been assigned to the same place for more than ten years because they have not made any trouble for the school. This does not mean that he is demonstrably the best principal for the school but rather that he is perceived to be a good fit for the school. Many researchers find that leaders who stay in one place may build themselves an empire in that place. On the other hand many researchers have found that principals who have been assigned to a school for the first or second years meet a lot of problems because of the need to adjust their personalities and characteristics to the new environment. Over a period of time they may be adjusted so fully that some lost their innovativeness and energy to make change and improvement. In other words he has become settled in and too comfortable with things as they are. Some educators have proposed periodic rotation of principals for this reason. But this prac- tice has been criticized, by Eugene Jennings: Unfortunately, some leaders override the unique features of a position by maintaining a style that was useful in previous positions, ignoring the dif- ferences that inhere 1n the new p031t1on. In the literature can be found both advocates for and opponents to the proposal that leaders should be peri- odically transferred to improve the climate of the organi- zation and their effectiveness. There are few cases in which planned periodic transfers of principals from one elementary school to another actually have taken place. The effects on the schools themselves of such a practice are therefore difficult to assess directly. It is pro- posed that pertinent and useful information may be found by studying the climate of schools in two categories: those in which the principal has served ten or more years; and those in which the principal has come from a different principalship and has served one to two years. The problem in this study, then, is to discover the relationship between the climate of elementary schools that are led by newly moved principals and those where the principal has served ten years. 2Eugene E. Jennings, The Mobile Manager: A Study of the New Generation of Top Executives (Boston: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1967), p. 60. Significance of the Study A growing body of social science research relates productivity, whether in industry or in school, to such intangible realities as group climate and group cohesive- ness.3 0. F. Peterson has stated that climate has a vital effect on group life. The organizational climate determines the vigor with which the group tackles its problems. When the atmosphere is one of tension, where members are afraid to say what they think such a climate will tend to stifle group effectiveness.4 Wiles suggests that the difference between a dull dis- agreeable place which both teachers and pupils dislike and avoid as much as possible and the type of school where teachers like each other and enjoy being with pupils lies in the difference in the way the principal works with people and sets the stage for the relationships of others.5 There have been many personality studies of leaders, attempting to determine characteristic ”leadership traits" such as forcefulness, intelligence, thoughtfulness, deci— siveness, fairness, and the like. Stogdill's excellent 3Leland P. Bradford and Dorothy Mial, ”The Indi- vidual and the Group," National Elementary Principal 34, No. 4. 4O. F. Peterson, "Leadership and Group Behavior," Leadership in Action No. 2 (Washington, D.C.: National Training Laboratories, NEA, 1961), p. 29. 5 Kimball Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., l9507j p. 13. summary clearly documents the failure to identify traits that are universal in successful leaders. He concludes that "leadership is not a matter of passive status, or of a mere possession of some combination of traits. It appears rather to be a working relationship among members of a group.”6 This situation according to Myers may vary from place to place. In fact, every time that principal moves from one building to another he meets different kinds of situations because of differences in the environment.7 According to the assumption of the above, the principal will remain the leader of the school wherever he moves. But his characteristics may change to adjust to new situa- tions. This change in leader charcateristics may improve or not improve school climate. Since we do not know enough on which to base a policy of moving principals from one school to another or of letting them stay in one school whatever happens, there- fore, it is important to study this problem to discover any information that would be useful to the boards or superintendents in deciding about transferring principals to different buildings. 6Ralph Stogdill, ”Personal Factors Associated *with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature," Journal 53f Psychology 25 (January, 1948), 35-71. 7Robert B. Myers, "The Development and Implica- tions of a Conception for Leadership Education" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1954). If it is discovered that within the same period of ten years the principal who has net moved from his building has created a better atmosphere than others, this might recommend that there should not be too much trans- ferring. Principals who have hard times in the first few years in the school should be continued there until they have clearly failed or have succeeded in establishing the desired climate. It would also recommend that principals should sign contracts for at least two to three years or more. If, however, in a school wherein a principal with the same length of experience as the first but who has served in more than one school, regardless of the reasons for the move, there has been created a better climate, it might be desirable policy that principals should move every two to three years or it may support further the assumption that we should rotate principals, transferring them so that they would have equal opportunity and more experience to improve the school climate. Hypotheses Research Question The primary question of interest is: Is there a significant difference between mobile and non-mobile elementary school principals in the organizational climate created in their schools? General Hypothesis There are no significant differences between elementary schools with mobile principals and schools with non-mobile principals as measured by the Organiza- tional Climate Description Questionnaire. Test Hypotheses I. There is no significant difference on the Disen a ement scale between schools with mohlle and schools with non-mobile principals as measured by the 0CDQ. 2. There is no significant difference on the Hindrance scale between schools with mobile and schools with non—mobile principals as measured by the 0CDQ. 3. There is no significant difference on the Es rit scale between schools with mobile and schools with non—mobile principals as measured by the 0CDQ. 4. There is no significant difference on the Intimac scale between schools with mobile and schools with non-mobile principals as measured by the 0CDQ. 5. There is no significant difference on the Aloofness scale between schools with mobile and schools with non-mobile principals as measured by the 0CDQ. 6. There is no significant difference on the Production Emphasis scale between schools with mobile and schools with non—mobile principals as measured by the 0CDQ. 7. There is no significant difference on the Trust scale between schools with mobile and schools with non—mobile principals as measured by the 0CDQ. 8. There is no significant difference on the Consideration scale between schools with mohile and schools with non-mobile principals as measured by the 0CDQ. Limitations of the Study 1. This study is limited to the school districts in six counties in central Michigan: Ingham, Clinton, Eaton, Calhoun, Jackson, and Livingston. 2. In those six counties there are fifty school districts. The study is limited to the elementary schools in those local school districts in which the superintendent of schools will authorize participation, and is further limited to elementary schools whose principal will cooperate. 3. Among the many measures that might be applied to assess the quality of leadership effectiveness of principals, the instrument selected was the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire, prepared by Halpin and Croft and used extensively in research studies. Hence the Study is limited to the organizational climate in the elementary schools in the selected area as measured by this instrument, and conclusions will be limited to com- parisons of this dimension of the effectiveness of the two groups of elementary principals in the sample. 4. The evidence of organizational climate is limited to that which can be derived from teacher answers to the instrument in schools in which the instrument responses are to be returned in a sealed envelope through the principal's office to the researcher. lO 5. The applicability of findings from this study will be limited because: a. The school districts in the test area are all within the area of Michigan State University and hence can be said to be representative only of the counties involved. b. The elementary schools studied and the school districts involved do not constitute a statistically representative sample of school and district sizes. c. The socio—economic range is less than repre- sentative. Definition of Terms Elementary School Principal Full-time administrator of a public school enroll- ing pupils in all or some combination of grades kinder- garten through seven. Organizational Climate As used in this study, derives from Halpin's statement, ”what personality is to the individual, the climate is to the organization.” Climate is the result of the complex interaction of the feelings, beliefs, atti- tudes, and values both conscious and unconscious, of members within a job setting. ll NOn-mobile Principal Refers to a principal who has served in his present school for at least ten years. Mobile Principal Refers to a principal who has transferred from one school to another at least once in the past ten years, for whatever reasons. The study is confined to mobile princi- pals who are in their second year in their present school. Review of the Literature A review of the literature will include: (I) Literature on Leadership; (2) Literature on Organiza- tional Climate; (3) Literature on Leadership and Climate; (4) Rotation of the Principal; and (5) Successors: Career- bound and Place-bound. Overview In Chapter I, the nature of the problem to be studied has been identified. In Chapter II, the litera- ture relevant to the study is reviewed in essentially a thematic approach. The research methodology, instrumenta— tion, and techniques are described in Chapter III. In Chapter IV the research findings are presented in chart form and an analysis of the multivariate is made. The summary of the findings with conclusions and implications for further study concludes with Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction An abundance of literature dealing with leader- ship as it relates to organizational climate has appeared during the past ten to fifteen years. The trend has moved from the so-called "trait" approach to leadership, to the treatment of leadership as a ”process” or "function." Needless to say, the act of leading is contingent upon the presence of someone to be led--a group or organization. A growing interest in organizations, then, has been a natural consequence of the shift in emphasis from studies of their traits to studies of their behavior as they interact with those whom they lead. Leadership Literally hundreds of studies on leadership have been reported. Stogdill, one of the foremost authorities on the subject, reviewed 124 of these. As a result of his exhaustive survey, he concluded that: leadership is not a matter of passive status, or of the mere possession of some combination of traits. It appears rather to be a working relationship among members of a group, in which the leader acquires status through active participation and 12 13 demonstration of his capacity for carrying coopera- tive tasks through to completion. After a series of studies of leadership, Stogdill and Shartle similarly reported that leadership is not a "unitary human trait, but rather a function of a complex of individual, group, and organizational factors in inter- 9 action." Gibb, who has devoted over twenty years to the study of leadership, concurs with Stogdill and Shartle. In 1947 he wrote, "There is no one leadership type of personality . . . . Leadership resides not exclusively in the individual but in his functional relationship with other members of his group.‘ After several years and much H research, he reiterated his findings: that numer- ous studies of personalities of leaders have failed to find any consistent pattern of traits which characterize leaders."10 If it is true, as Stogdill, Shartle, Gibb, Halpin, and others have concluded, that leadership is not basically a sum of personality traits, what is it? Bass, in his summary of the various definitions (of leadership, mentions an unpublished paper by Bentz in 8R. M. Stogdill, Leadership and Structures of Eflersonal Interaction (Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State University, 1957), p. 66. 9 100. A. Gibb, "The Principles and Traits of Idaadership," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (1947), 267-284. Ibid., p. 286. 14 in which the author lists no less than 130 definitions of leadership which he gleaned from a sampling of literature 11 Although one can find almost as many prior to 1949. definitions of leaders and leadership as there are authors on the subject, the idea of leadership as influence seems basic to most. As Bass says: ". . . it (leadership) has been equated with any positive influence act; with behavior required to direct a group and with behavior making a difference among groups."12 It is this act or behavior of the leader upon which Stogdill and his associates in the Ohio State Leadership Studies focus in their definitions. They define a leader in several ways: . as an individual who exercises positive influence acts upon others . . . an individual who exercises most influence in goal setting or goal achievement of the group or organization . . . an individual in a given office or position ofl3 apparently high influence potential For Hemphill, on the other hand, leadership acts do not include acts of influence occurring outside of nnltual problem-solving, nor do they depend upon ”the ilitent of one person to influence others, but upon the 11B. M. Bass, Leadership, Psychology, and Organiza- txional Behavior (New York: Harper and Bros, 1960), p. 87. 12Ibid., p. 89. 13 R. M. Stogdill and C. L. Shartle, ”Methods for Determining Patterns of Leadership Behavior in Relation tC) Organization Structure and Objectives," Journal of -EElied Psychology (1948), 121- 122. l5 demonstration of a relation between the act and subsequent "14 consistency in interaction. He defines leadership acts as those that "initiate structure-in-interaction in the 15 The concept process of mutual problem-solving." "structure—in-interaction" is further defined by Hamphill as "a consistency in behavior occurring during interaction that permits the prediction of the behavior that will . . . 1 occur in future interaction." 6 Stogdill clarifies inter— action by defining it as ”a relationship between two or more persons in which the behavior of each is determined by the behavior of the other.”17 Hemphill differentiates between leadership acts, acts of leaders, and the leadership role. Leadership acts are a restricted group of acts, while acts of leaders include all acts, not just those involving leadership. Associated with the leadership role are esteem and pres- tige, as well as a certain expectancy of leadership acts. Since the success of attempted leadership acts often depends upon the esteem in which the leader is held, it 14J. K. Hemphill, ”Administration as Problem Solv- ing," in Administrative Theory in Education, ed: A. W. Halpin (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1958), pp. 98-99. 151bid., p. 111. 16Ibid., p. 96. 17 Stogdill, op. cit., p. 4. 16 is an important variable, one which should be given 0 O O l serious con31deration. 8 Organizational Climate Francis Cornell is credited with the first use of the term "organizational climate." In 1955 Cornell used the term in discussing socially perceptive administration. He defined the term as "a delicate blending of interpre- tations (or perceptions as social psychologists would call it) by persons in the organization of their jobs or roles in relationship to others and their interpretations of the roles of others in the organization.19 From a four-year study involving four school systems Cornell concluded from the data that: 1. changes in the educational operations of a school system are determined by a complex of factors. 2. no two school systems are alike in their organizational climate. 3. the environment of administration (that is the climate or atmosphere of the organization) may be more important than specific administrative activity. 18 19G. F. Cornell, "Socially Perceptive Administra- tion," Phi Delta Kappan 36 (March, 1955), 219-223. 20N.B. This particular conclusion of Cornell furnishes the rationale for this study. If no two school systems are alike in their organizational climate it may be that a principal who is a leader may learn from his experiences, either good or bad, serving a succession of schools. Hemphill, op. cit., pp. 111-112. 17 4. individual teachers react differently to administrative decision and organizational relationships. Three years after Cornell's study, Argyris used the term in a case study of a bank. He defined ”organiza- tional climate" in terms of a "homeostatic state" of the formal, informal and personality variables in an organiza- tion.22 Most of the studies of organizational climate in schools conducted since 1963 are indebted to Halpin and Croft for translating the concept of organizational climate into measurable dimensions and for developing the instru- ment for their measurement.23 One impetus for their interest in climate stemmed from their dissatisfaction with the concept of ”morale" and its loose usage. They observed 1 that "morale,' whatever it may or may not be, is not unidimensional in its structure. Whatever is being described by the term ”morale” is multi- faceted: any attempt to describe this ”something" as if it had but a single face does violence to the phenomena that we seek to understand. 211bid., p. 222. 22Chris Argyris, "Some Problems in Conceptualizing Organizational Climate: A Case Study of a Bank," Admin— istrative Science Quarterly II (March, 1958), 501-520. 23Andrew W. Halpin and Con B. Croft, The Or aniza- tional Climate of Schools (Chicago: Midwest Administra- tion Center, University of Chicago, 1963). 24Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Administration (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), p. I42. l8 Statements about the "morale" in a school simply failed to tell them enough about the school's organizational climate. The major impetus for their research into organiza- tional climate was provided by their observations of how schools differ. They noted: Anyone who visits more than a few schools notes quickly how schools differ from each other in their "feel." In one school the teachers and the principal are zestful and exude confidence in what they are doing. They find pleasure in working with each other; this pleasure is transmitted to the students, who thus are given at least a fighting chance to discover that school can be a happy experience. In a second school the brooding discontent of the teachers is palpable; the principal tries to hide his incompetence and his lack of a sense of direction behind a cloak of authority, and yet he wears this cloak poorly because the attitude he displays to others vacillates randomly between the obsequious and the officious. And the psychological sickness of such a faculty spills over on the students who, in their own frustration, feed back to the teachers a mood of despair. A third school is marked by neither joy nor despair, but by hollow ritual. Here one gets the feeling of watching an elaborate charade in which teachers, principal, and students alike are acting out parts. The acting is smooth, even glib, but it appears to have little meaning for the parti- cipants; in a strange way the show just doesn't seem to be ”for real." And so, too, as one moves to other schools, one finds that each appears to have a "personality" of its own. It is this ”personality" that we describe here as the ”Organizational Climate" of the school. Analogously, personality is to the individual what Organizational Climate is to the organization. The instrument which Halpin and Croft constructed was called the Organizational Climate Description Question- naire. It contained 64 Likert-type items which were 251bid., p. 131. l9 assigned to eight subjects delineated by factor-analytic methods. Four of the subtests pertain primarily to characteristics of the group, as a group, the other four to characteristics of the principal as a leader. The behavior tapped by each subtest is paraphrased as follows: OCDQ SUBTESTS: Principal's Behavior 1. Aloofness refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized as formal and impersonal. He ”goes by the book" and prefers to be guided by rules and policies rather than to deal with the teacher in an informal fact-to-face situation. 2. Production Emphasis refers to behavior by the prinEipal which is characterized by close super- vision of the staff. He is highly directive and task-oriented. 3. Thrust refers to behavior marked not by close supervision of the teachers, but by the principal's attempt to motivate the teachers through the example which he personally sets. He does not ask the teachers to give of themselves any more than he willingly gives of himself; his behavior, though starkly task-oriented, is nonetheless viewed favorably by the teachers. 4. Consideration refers to behavior by the principal Whichiis characterized by an inclination to treat the teachers "humanly," to try to do a little something extra for them in human terms. OCDQ SUBTESTS: Teacher's Behavior 1. Disengagement indicates that the teachers do not work well together. They pull in different directions with respect to the task; they gripe and bicker among themselves. 26Ibid., pp. 150-151. 26 20 2. Hindrance refers to the teachers' feeling that the principal burdens them with routine duties, committee demands, and other requirements which the teachers construe as unnecessary busywork. 3. Esprit refers to ”moral." The teachers feel that t e1r social needs are being satisfied, and that they are, at the same time, enjoying a sense of accomplishment in their job. 4. Intimac refers to the teacher's enjoyment of friendly social relations with each other. From the scores on these eight subtests they then constructed for each school a profile. The profiles were factor analyzed to determine whether the profiles them- selves would cluster in a fashion that would allow differ— entiating "meaningful” types of Organizational Climates. Halpin and Croft were able to discriminate six Organiza- tional Climates, and found that these could be ranked in respect to the school's score on morale in which teachers feel that their social needs are being satisfied, and that they are, at the same time, enjoying a sense of accomplish- ment in their job. The social interactions which character- ize these six climates were explained by Halpin and Croft, and only two extremely different climates are summarized below:27 1. The 0 en Climate describes an energetic, lively organ1zat1on which is moving toward its goals, and which provides satisfaction for the group members' social needs. Leadership acts emerge easily and appropriately from both group and the 27Ibid., pp. 174—181. 21 leader. The members are preoccupied dispro- portionately with neither task achievement nor social-needs satisfaction; satisfaction on EBEh counts seems to be obtained easily and almost effortlessly. The main characteristic of this climate is the "authenticity" of the behavior that occurs among all the members. 2. The Closed Climate is characterized by a high degree of apathy on the part of all members of the organization. The organization is not "moving." Morale is low because the group members secure neither social-needs satisfaction nor the satisfaction that comes from task achieve- ment. On the whole, the members' behavior can be construed as "inauthentic"; indeed, the organization seems to be stagnant. This study by Halpin and Croft emphasized the relationship between the behavior of the principal and the type of climate found in his school. The "closed" climate appears to be related to the principal who had high scores on "aloofness" and "production emphasis” and low scores on "thrust" and "consideration.” The principal with scores high in "thrust" and "consideration" and low on "aloofness" and "production emphasis" was found in the schools with ”open" climate. The terms "open” and "closed" used for the two extremes of the continuum were influenced by the work of Rokeach28 and his concepts concerning the open and closed mind. Lonsdale defined organizational climate as the "global assessment of the interaction between the 28Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New York: Basic Books Co., 1960). 22 task-achievement dimension and the needs-satisfaction dimension within the organization, or in other words, of 29 He notes that the extent of the task-needs integration. in general usage the term has a psychosocial flavor which reflects more concern with the needs-satisfaction dimension than with the task—achievement dimension, but the meaning that gives relatively equal attention to both is preferred. Leadership and Climate Over the past 50 years, there have been hundreds of studies made comparing the physical, intellectual, or personality traits of leaders and followers. The trait theory seeks to determine "what makes a successful leader" from the leader's own personal characteristics. Frequently, these studies come up with a list of traits that make for ”good" leadership. On the whole, this approach to leader- ship has been disappointing. Lippitt notes that "only 5 percent of the traits in over 106 such studies appeared in . 30 four or more stud1es.” Stogdill also documents the failure to identify traits that are universal in success— ful leaders. He concludes that "leadership is not a matter 29Richard C. Lonsdale, ”Maintaining the Organiza- tion in Dynamic Equilibrium,” Behavioral Science and Educational Administration, 63rd Yearbook, National Society for the Study of Education, ed: Daniel E. Griffiths (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 166. 30Gordon Lippitt, ”What Do We Know About Leader- ship," Leadership in Action, No. 2 (Washington, D.C.: National Training Laboratories, 1961), p. . 23 of passive status, or of a mere possession of some combina- tion of traits. It appears rather to be a working rela- tionship among members of a group."31 Other reviews of the literature by Gibb and Jenkins have confirmed the failure to find universal traits.32 In different studies, different or contradictory traits in leaders are found related to whatever criterion of success is used. Differences in the situations or in the groups, from study to study, seem partly to be respon- sible. Gibb concludes that ”leadership is relative always to the situation.”33 As if to confirm Gibb's assessment, Davis contends that in spite of the disagreement regarding traits and the measurement difficulties involved, there is some agreement that traits are related to leadership success. While he conceded that the correlation is very often meager and fluctuates from group to group, he suggests that the following general traits are somewhat related to success- ful business leadership: intelligence, social maturity 31Ralph M. Stogdill, "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature, " Journal of Ps cholo 25 (January, 1948), 35- 71, quoted 5y Harold J MacNaIIy 1n ”Theory and Practice in Administration, National Elementary Principal 41, No. 4 (January, 1962), p. 9. 32Donald C. Pelz, "Leadership Within a Hierarchical Organization,‘ 'Leadershiprin Action, No. 2 (Washington, National Training Laboratories, 1961), 43 33 Ibid., p. 43. 24 and breadth, inner motivation, and human relations atti- 34 tudes. Davis adds that while certain personal traits do Inot guarantee good leadership, they do cause a probability greater than chance alone. Having become a leader, how does one get to be an effective leader? Fiedler suggests there are a limited riumber of ways in which one person can influence others to work together toward a common goal. He can coerce them or he can coax them. He can tell people what to do and how to do it, or he can share the decision-making and concentrate on his relationship with his men rather than on the execu- tion of his job. Of course, these two types of leadership behavior are gross oversimplifications. Most research by psychologists on leadership has focused on two clusters of behavior and attitudes, one labeled autocratic, authoritarian and task-oriented, and the other as democratic, equalitarian, permissive and group—oriented. The first type of leadership behavior, frequently advocated in conventional supervisory and military systems has its philosophical roots in Frank W. Taylor's ”Principles of Scientific Management” and other early 20th Century industrial engineering studies. The authoritarina, task-oriented leader takes all responsibility for making decisions and directing the group members. His rationale is simple: ”I do the thinking and you carry out the orders." The second type of leadership is typical of the "New Look" method of management advocated by men like Douglas McGregor of M.I.T. and Rennis Likert of the University of Michigan. The democratic, 34Keith Davis, Human Relations at Work (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1962), pp. 105-108. 25 group-oriented leader provides general rather than close supervision and his concern is the effective use of human resources through participation.35 Gross and Herriott in the study of the executive professional leadership of elementary school principals found a positive relationship between the principals‘ rating on the EPL (Executive Professional Leadership) Index and the factors of staff morale, the professional ‘performance of teachers, and the pupils' learning.36 Hamachek makes a strong case for the personal aspect of leadership which bears upon this particular research study. He notes the tendency to view the princi- pal's role as change-agent and decision maker just from an (organization or power framework rather than from a person or personal framework. What he refers to as a rather simple—minded but crucial concept is this:37 The kind of leader (or principal) one is depends on the kind of man or woman one is. If I say to a principal that he must have social sensitivity and action flexibility to be successful, this would matter not a whit unless he was a socially sensitive flexible individual to begin with-—unless he valued these, not simply as desirable administrative characteristics, but as desirable personal character- istics as well. 35Fred E. Fiedler, "Style or Circumstance: The Leadership Enigma," Psychology Today, March, 1969, p. 41. 36Neal Gross and Robert E. Herriott, Staff Leader- Shi in Public Schools (New York: John Wiley and Sons, , pp. — 5 37Don. E. Hamachek, ”Leadership Styles, Decision— making and Principals," The National Elementary Principal 45. No. 5 (April, 1966), 27. 26 While Hamachek does not ignore the leader's posi— tion or the social setting, he says the focus should be Inore specifically on the man. Though job and social set- ting both play a part, he stresses the fact it is the man rvho ultimately determines his position, his status, and 1115 decisions. The man we want to look at is a leader. He's called a principal, but that is just the label we assign his role within a specific leadership con- text. Like a quarterback, he is sort of field general, the responsible agent for the unfolding flow of events——someone people can either boo or cheer depending on how things go. For whatever else it is, leadership is relation. It is a relation insofar as it involves interactions between two or more persons, one of whom makes decisions, the other of whom must abide by or follow these decisions. In order to understand the leader- agent and decision-maker it is first necessary to understand the personality of the leader in relation to their personality of the followers and then to relate these variables to the characteristics of the situation.38 A considerable number of doctoral dissertations luive been developed from the pioneer study of Organiza- tional Climate by Halpin and Croft. Some attempted to replicate the study, others to associate the climate with Such.variables as teachers characteristics, pupil achieve— ment, perceptions of the climate, job satisfaction, and Personality of the principal. An early study by Morris using the OCDQ endeavored to determine if a Canadian sample of schools would \________ 381bid., p. 28. 27 demonstrate a distribution of climates similar to that found by Halpin and Croft in their original work. Using a sample of 146 Canadian schools, both elementary and secondary, he found that overall distribution of climates in Alberta schools was similar to that in the Halpin and (3roft study. There seemed to be a greater tendency among ‘the Canadian elementary schools toward "openness" while 'the reverse was indicated for the Canadian secondary schools, and even more so in the combined school.39 Anderson's study of 81 Minnesota Elementary schools tested the personality variables of the principal in relation to the organization climate. His conclusions xflere . . . principals in schools with high morale were Inore apt to have earned their undergraduate degrees from txaachers colleges, plan on remaining in their present {Masitions, have served in more principalships, credit their success to their knowledge of elementary education rather than to their ability to get along with subordinates, and have been reared in smaller communities than their counter— parts in schools with low morale.4O 39Derek V. Morris, "Organizational Climate of Canadian Schools," The GSA Bulletin 3 (June, 1964), 3-7. 40Donald P. Anderson, ”A Study of the Relation- ships Between Organizational Climate of Elementary Schools and Personal Variables of Principals" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1964). 28 There is almost no study to show what brought trouble to the principal who had to be moved or demoted. There is very little study to show why principals have moved or get promoted. But there are some studies which suggest that the rotation of the principal every once in a while may improve the education system and reduce pressure in some school districts. Rotation of the Principal Willard Fox said "Once a superintendent has a principal comfortably assigned to a building, it often is tempting to let him stay put.” This temptation has been resisted in Spokane, Washington and Covina, Cali- fornia. The results have been better performance and a fresher attitude on the part of principals.41 Allowing a principal to stay where he is is an almost painless way for a superintendent to handle appointments-—and permanent assignment of principals does have some values. But challenge and incentive to pro- fessional growth usually are not among them. Rotation of principals requires those involved to face challenges they might never know if they are encour- aged or allowed to remain in the same schools until they 41Willard Fox, "Don't Let Principals Sit Out Tenure in One Place, Say Two Districts," Nation's Schools 74 (July, 1964), 31. 29 retire--challenges of new personnel and new facilities and an opportunity to take a fresh look at their jobs. He proposed that systematic rotation will give: The challenge of new personnel--the morale level of the staff must be high if the principal is to pro- vide a climate for effective instruction (a few districts may be startled to learn that a building principal's first responsibility is not to be an office manager: he is supposed to be an instruc- tional leader). As the rotated principal approaches a new situation, he is bound to reflect upon past successes and failures in similar situations. And he is more likely to analyze all situations and seek new and better solutions. He will not be able to discriminate unknowingly or to have certain teachers as pets. The rotated principal has an opportunity to build a new team. He also can, and probably will, change. Teachers will change, too, many will respond to this new leadership and perform their teaching duties more effectively. A newly rotated principal brings new ideas to the educational program, helping to eliminate the dulling effect of the predictable and the familiar. Certain neglected areas of curriculum development may well receive the needed active support of newly motivated personnel. Meeting and working with pupils from a different area of the school district cannot help but broaden the understanding and appreciation of a newly rotated administrator--it reminds him of the com- plexity and variability inherent in teaching and learning. The challenge of new surrounding--buildings usually reflect the personal and professional value systems of those who live and work in them. It's reasonable to expect that the newly rotated princi- pal will ask for renovations, arrangements and modifications of the school plant equipment and facilities to which he's been assigned. As a result, space, equipment and facility utilization will have to be restudied--and needed changes will be reflected in improved morale and curriculum growth and enrichment. 30 This attention to change will stimulate the staff to do some rethinking and re-evaluating--something necessary to assure a dynamic corps of teachers. The challenge of the principal's job--principals who are rotated can look forward to one or more new beginnings rather than to be rewarded by salary increments based solely upon years of service. These new beginnings can make the principal the central figure in a revitalized attack on problems of school public relations, needed curriculum experi— mentation and revision, and of tribute to increased community pride and participation in school affairs. The responsibility of a principal encompasses more than the needs of a local school. His professional vision and loyalty must be extended to the entire district. Administrative experience in different buildings helps to ensure this.42 There is nothing new about rotation plans. Warren E. Morgan, superintendent in charge of personnel for the Spokane, Washington schools mentioned that "Spokane has a policy of permitting elementary principals to remain in one building for a maximum of eight school years. This plan was adopted 20 years ago. It was felt at that time that we had principals who had become entrenched in their posi- tions and were not amiable to suggestion or change."43 The Covina Valley (California) School District has a well-defined policy. Schoolmen there believe that the rotation of principal from building to building every few years has a good effect on the over-all institutional pro- gram of the district. Superintendent Paul B. Salmon sees these benefits of the plan: _¥ 42 43 Ibid., pp. 31-52. Ibid., p. 31. 31 The district can fill vacancies occurring in newly constructed school buildings with an experienced principal. Since different schools in Covina serve differing segments of population, principals, when they are rotated, get a chance to work with children of different backgrounds. Some principals work more easily and skillfully with one type of child than another; After a principal has stayed in a building for a number of years and has made the hard decisions that he must make, it is inevitable that some people in his school attendance area will not like him. These people may form a hard core of dissenters who eventually may cause his downfall. By moving principals periodically, we give each a fresh start in making new enemies. We believe that this is good. Principals can work with teachers on recognized areas of strengths and weaknesses; Transferring principals from building to building gives the district an opportunity to observe how different principals evaluate given school staffs. This had led Covina to help some principals who have needed help--and to recognize principals with special skills; When a policy of regular rotation exists, no one asks why a principal was moved. It is easier to move a principal who may be in slight trouble with— out creating a furor in the community, or move a principal with different skills to an area where such skills need to be emphasized.4 There is also sufficient evidence to support that : l. Principals, like teachers, may fall into a routine. 2. Principals, like teachers, may reach a plateau in their particular role in a particular situation. 3. The anxiety the individual has may be replaced by assurance. 4. Anxiety is important in all learning experience. 44Ibid., p. 52. 32 5. Success may be a deterent to individual growth. 6. An individual may, after a period of time, feel that things have become humdrum in his position. 7. Each year may become a repetition of the former year—several years in the same principalship may not really be several years of experience.4 Kraft gave four examples of why we need principal's rotation: Exhibit A--Government Recently, General Eisenhower had something to say about bringing "fresh blood" into government. During a taped interview which appeared, in part, in the newspapers he indicated that he has changed his mind about the two-term limitation on Presidents. At first he thought it "rather odd" but, as time went on, he became aware of the great power in the hands of one man. He also talked about the political machine that can per- petuate itself. In addition, he suggested "some limit, maybe 12 or 16 years," on the service of House members. It is his feeling that ”this would keep more fresh blood rolling through all the time." Exhibit B-—Business Companies will admit to keeping individual "books” on their administrative personnel, books which determine the future of the individual in that particular organization. It is quite common for individuals in such organizations to move every three or four years, often to a similar position in a different location. The ability to accomplish these assignments with a high degree of success is one of the most important criteria considered in keeping a man in line for bigger and better opportunities within the company. The company is concerned with making a profit. Therefore, it is concerned that effectiveness and efficiency of each of its operations is maintained at the highest possible level. The 45Leonard E. Kraft, ”The Rotating Principalship," :99 Clearing House 41, p. . 33 individual administrator has to continue to grow if he is to be of maximum value to the organiza- tion. The "books" very clearly show the company the growth patterns of each administrator. Exhibit C--Military The patterns of operation in the military services indicate that officers are often assigned to similar roles in new situations for two purposes: 1. to stimulate the growth of the individual, 2. to put new life into the unit. Exhibit D-—Entertainment It is not unusual to learn that a certain movie star has decided to move into a different medium of expression such as the theater because he became bored with the routine of what he was doing. It is possible that this decision to change mediums and perhaps even the type of role played was motivated by the audience's lack of enthusiasm for the "same old thing.” Not only does the audience get tired of the same old monotonous movements of the actor, but so does the actor himself. From these examples it appears that the chief administrator might very well consider creating a few disturbances in his school system through the rotation of his building principalships. He added that the rotation of principalships will create new situations for the jprincipal and teachers which will be advantageous to both. ()ld havits of operation will be disregarded and new pat— terns will evolve with new challenges. These new situa- t:ions will upset the orderly experiences established by 461bid., p. 463. 34 both parties because of the give and take during the adjustment period. The injection of "new blood” into a school will play down the premium traditionally placed on order and stability and project a fresh look at new ways of doing things. It will stimulate the creativity of the individuals involved in each relationship. He also suggested many factors that need to be considered such as: l. 0‘ UNI-‘00 previous experience, performance of the individual principal in his current position, age, health, rotation opportunities in a particular district at a given time, willingness of the individual to change (and this may need to force some to move, others might be anxious to move), the educational climate in the particular school and in the school district. Nation's Schools found from their research that the principals themselves were both pro and con: 27 percent favored it for elementary principals and 21 percent for high school. One New York principal remarked that: Tenure in one school district for a reasonable length of time is mandatory in order for a principal to build, operate and evaluate a program. It is also essential to the understanding and guidance of a faculty, which is the most crucial entity in education. But every building principal must face the time when tenure begins to breed in himself and his leadership, attitude and action, a feeling regarding whether he acts to reinforce his own, his staff‘s and his community's comfort, or 47Ibid., p. 464. 35 whether he acts to enhance educational benefits for the children. One way to put new life into the situation is to change the principal to another location where he must begin all over again. A Kansan, remarking that his is a small school, said succinctly: "I am the high school principal-—been on this job for 37 years--but I still say rotate them (principals)." According to a schoolman from Oregon: One tends to offset the other, and, in my opinion, constancy has virtue. However, principals must keep refreshed and progressive. In cases of stag— nation or community conflict, moving may be necessary. And if the principal fails to show ability to ”keep up,” he should be relieved of the job and placed where he can be successful. Rotation should not be a "cover-up” for incompe- tence, nor a device to permit perpetual community cantankerousness. In Oregon, It is stimulating for an administrator to meet new situations. It keeps him from getting into a rut. Also Indiana, Each year a teacher has a new beginning with a new group of students. It is easy to introduce new ideas and practices. A principal, remaining in the same school year after year, creates an image that i3 difficult to change with the existing staff. 1 48"School Principals Should Stay Put: Administra- ggrs Balk at 'Rotation,'" Nation's Schools 71 (May, 1963), 491bid. SOIbid. SlIbid. 36 Grossmot Union High School District, California, explains the strengths of a rotation policy in the follow- ing statements: Professional growth. The principals we now have in our district have served with distinction and honor. Each has his own individual strengths which have greatly added to the educational balance of our district. But the greatest service to our district is performed when these individual strengths are shared with more than one school. Working with new faculties, solving new problems, and operating under varying conditions will stimu- late the professional growth of the principal. And working under varying leadership will benefit the individual teacher. Release of new forces by change. Innovation is often the response to new challenges. Any individual will tend to stay with those methods which have proven successful. On a short term basis, this leads to smooth and efficient leadership. But over a long period, when conditions do not change, when only the same problems crop up each year, when the same solu- tions seem always the best, efficiency may turn to stagnation. It is this which the new policy seeks to prevent. Another reason offered by the respondent in Vallejo, California, is: As an urban center, we have some schools which people consider "good" schools and others which people consider ”bad." We believe that both teachers and principals profit from being required to change school communities on occasion. We believe it tends to avoid "getting into a rut." More importantly, it does provide us with a balanced staff for all elemen- tary schools, in other words, all of the beginning teachers do not wind up in the "bad” schools. 52Suzanne K. Stemnock, "Systematic Rotation of Principals Among Schools," Educational Research Service, Washington, D.C., November, 1973, p. l. 53 Ibid. 37 There are some other respondents in Nation's Schools research not favoring rotation for many reasons. Most of them seem to have what has been described as 'place-bound' personalities. Some touched on other areas, such as rejecting not so much the concept of "rotation" but the term "systematic." Another schoolman from.Wisconsin replied: Principal gets to know the socioeconomic area if he remains in a particular school long enough, thus enabling him to adapt his program thoroughly to the community. The principal, in order to function as the educational leader of his school, can best improve the quality of instruction by a thorough knowledge of his teachers' capabilities and their performances. New ideas often take years to implement and perfect and rotations would 4 reduce (their) chances to carry through to success. In Edina, Minnesota, the superintendent argued that: We have found the advantages gained from rotating principals, i.e., dealing with different pressure groups within the new neighborhood, vari- ances among staff programs in operation, can all be accomplished by collegial inservicing. We have found, however, that we lost some home identifica- tion with the school. Frequently, children are more aware of the principal's name, if he has been there for several years, than they are of any one teacher. The principal's knowledge of the family, of an older brother or sister, tends to create a very strong home—school tie. I believe the children unconsciously, in this situation, perceive the school as an extension of home and not a separate entity. Therefore, we have noticed a greater in schools where principals have served for several years versus those where they have continually 54Nation's Schools, op. cit., p. 85. 38 moved. Additionally, respect toward the school property within the staff members tends to be on a higher plateau. 55 In reply to a 1963 Nation's Schools poll of administrators' opinions, the following arguments against the rotation of principals were registered by 73 percent of the superintendents with reference to elementary school principals and 79 percent of the superintendents with reference to secondary school principals: . . Whatever gains might be made by rotation would be lost because of lack of continuity within the overall program. Stability comes from having a general plan ans seeing it through. If a principal is professional he will not allow himself to become H H stale. . Rotation makes it impossible to establish and keep up personal relationships which are bene- ficial in child education. . . The principal, in order to function as the educational leader of his school, can best improve the quality of instruction by a thorough knowledge of his teachers' capabilities and their performance. New ideas often take years to imple- ment and perfect, and rotation would reduce their chances to carry through to success.5 Stemnock found in her research that most teachers and students support rotation, but superintendents and many principals do not favor it. However, the samples of board 55 56 Stemnock, op. cit., p. 1. Ibid., p. 2. 39 policies and administrative regulations set out below indicate at least some very favorable action. 57 ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION: Rotation of Administrators A. Purpose and Scope. This procedure sets forth the guidélines for implementing the rotation of assignments for administrators of Grossmont Union High School District. It is the intent of this procedure to provide administrators an opportunity for professional growth and revital- ization. The district is committed to local school autonomy and recognizes the importance of administrative leadership in providing stability to the local school and community. It is not the intent of this procedure to establish set maximum time limits for assignment of administrators. Background. Subsequent to the board adoption of the rotatiOn policy, a committee of teachers, administrators, and district staff was convened by the superintendent to develop guidelines for implementing the rotation policy. A position statement developed by the Grossmmnt Administra- tors' Association was adopted by this committee as a guideline statement. That statement is the essence of this procedure. Personnel Affected. Rotation of assignments is applicable to Ell levels of administrative staff with the following exceptions: 1. Personnel who occupy positions requiring highly specialized areas of concentration, such as associate superintendents. 2. Individuals having insufficient career longevity to make a meaningful contribution to a new position. Rationale. 1. To assure a positive effect from rotation, a district commitment will be made to establish objective management evaluation procedures. Such an evaluation will involve both peer and self evaluation. Validity in rotation actions will be directly equated to the sophistication of the evaluation process developed and utilized by this district. 57Ibid., pp. 8-10. 40 2. Decision for the rotation of personnel will give prime consideration to the needs of the students in the committees involved. When- ever possible, consideration will be given to the special competencies required of indi- viduals involved, special programs in progress, and the overall needs of the Grossmont Union High School District. 3. The rotation of personnel will be considered primarily a lateral movement by position. Temporary assignment of an employee to a position is not a matter of rotation. 4. Rotation is assumed to be a positive personnel action which provides professional growth for the individuals involved. 5. The Grossmont Administrators' Association will be involved with the development of procedure concerning rotation in a manner consistent with other decision-making processes utilized by the district administration in personnel matters. 6. The rotation of personnel will occur as needed but not as a required annual or semi- annual process. Rotation Guidelines. 1. To assure reasonable stability and the imple— mentation of long term.plans, administrators should normally be allowed a minimum of five years in a position prior to consideration for rotation. 2. Persons selected for.rotation from one school to another should, if possible, be notified by March 15 of any school year. With such noti- fication, the individuals concerned should become involved with cooperative planning during the second semester with those persons to be replaced. In the case of principal rotation, such cooperative planning will be encouraged in the area of budget and personnel for the ensuing school year. 41 Persons rotating will assume their new positions as of July 1, and individuals involved will be given the option of one month of employment prior to September 1, for orientation and planning purposes. Every effort will be made to continually evaluate the rotational process with input from.all levels, including the Grossmont Administrators' Association but with the understanding that the final decision in rotation matters rests with the superintendent and the Governing Board of the Grossmont Union High School District. Potential assignments at principal—level positions will reasonably fall into the following categories: Assumption of a district-level position. Acceptance of a new position. Assignment to another school. A one-year inservice experience (shorter assignment by mutual agreement). :10 0‘0: Principal-level reassignments may be initiated by the principal or superintendent. Assignments will be mutually agreed upon and approved by the Governing Board. Reassignment at the vice principal level will normally occur as rotation to another site. A request for rotation can be initiated by the vice principal, principal, and/or the assistant superintendent, personnel. Final assignments will be mutually agreed upon by all parties involved, with the final approval of the superintendent and Governing Board. Under certain circumstances, reassignment experience at the district level. This procedure shall not preclude the transfer of personnel as currently provided by the District Procedure #2121 in order to meet the personnel needs of the Grossmont Union High School District. --Grossmont Union High School District, California 42 BOARD POLICY: Rotation of Administrative Assignments The Board of Education encourages the rotation of administrative assignments for the professional improvement of personnel, as well as the good of the school district, at least once every three to five years. --Willingboro, New Jersey BOARD POLICY: Transfer of Principals The Board of Education of the Baldwin Park Unified School District firmly believes that a periodic change in building administrators is educa- tionally sound in that it provides the opportunity for self-renewal for the administrator and the staff. Therefore, the following guidelines are hereby adopted to help the administration implement this policy. 1. Principals shall be subject to transfer at the completion of their fifth year in any one assign— ment. 2. Principals who remain in one assignment longer than five years should be transferred not later than the completion of their seventh year. 3. Nothing in this policy shall prohibit the superintendent from transferring principals at any time when in his judgment it is in the best interest of the school district to do so. --Baldwin Park, California BOARD POLICY: Assignments and Appointments-- Certificated Personnel The Superintendent is to make provision for the orderly transfer of administrators in a manner that will provide reasonable continuity of administrative leadership and the stimulation derived from change at regular intervals. --Whitter Union High School District, California 43 Stemnock's research has shown that there are 15 school systems that rotate principals on a regular basis, and according to the policies and guidelines submitted by the 15 responding school systems, the most frequently invoked interval for rotation is seven years. (Suggestions from the literature range from three years to 12 years as minimum periods between rotations.) Most of the policies that include a rigid time limit contain statements allow- ing exceptions, such as not within two years of retirement, or except when, in the judgement of the superintendent, the best interests of the school and its community would not be served by a transfer of its principal. Other personnel policies that might be affected by a rotation policy are the participation of teachers in the selection of principals and the right of teachers to request a voluntary transfer if they feel they cannot work under the incoming principal. With regard to teacher participation in the rotation process, it is the policy that the incoming principal is not a new employee, is not receiving a "promotion," and therefore his rotation is not subject to teacher input. The matter concerning teacher requests for transfer as the result of principal rotation is one in which viewsane unaffected by the rotation policy. Requests for teacher transfers are handled on the same basis for all teachers; only if there is a vacancy in the 44 receiving school will a teacher be transferred. Otherwise, the teachers remain at the same school. In one of the 15 systems the rotation to a smaller school has an effect on the salary received: a principal moved from a larger school to a smaller school is paid the amount designated for the smaller school. Another system reported that rotation to a larger school meant an increase in salary. In the remaining systems, the salry schedules do not include factors for size of school.58 The following are 15 school systems that rotate principals on a regular basis, 1973 (see page 45). Successors: Career-Bound and Place-Bound The terms ”place—bound” and career-bound" are meant to convey two important distinctions in the latent roles of the two types. (Latent describes a role or commitment that is not officially or normally a part of the position. It may be inactive or fully activated, but at least it has the potential of shaping the performance in the position.) The place-bound principal is more interested in place than career and the opposite is true for the career-bound principal. The place-bound principal, who places high value on residing in a specific community, wishes to continue receiving the rewards of long—time 58Ibid., p. 5. 45 School Systems and Level of Principals Frequency of Board 1971-72 Enrollments Rotated Rotation Policy? ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Elementary, typically; 7 years Yes (32,896) junior high this year for the first time. BALDWIN PARK, CALIF. Elementary 5 years Yes (12,635) CHULA VISTA, CALIF. Elementary 7 years No (16,644) CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA Elementary 7 years Yes (74,747) DULUTH, MINN. (22,660) Elementary 5 years No Reply EVERETT, WASH. (12,217) Elementary 5 years Yes EUGENE, OREG. (20,553) Elementary 10 years No Reply GROSSMDNT UNION HIGH Secondary As needed, Yes SCHOOL DISTRICT, CALIF. but more than (29,251) every 5 years SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Elementary 7 years Yes (32,221) SHORELINE SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary 7-9 years No Reply WASH. (15,431) SPOKANE, WASH. (34,181) Elementary 7 years No Reply VALLEJO, CALIF. (16,357) Elementary 7 years No VENTURA, CALIF. (18,272) Elementary 6-7 years No Reply WHITTIER, CALIF. Secondary At discretion Yes (14,150) of super- intendent WILLINGBORO, N.J. Elementary 3-5 years Yes59 (14,647) 59 Ibid., p. 4. 46 community residence. On the other hand, the career-bound principal places greater value on a career as principal than on life in a specific community. The place-bound principal has a history in the school system and, thus has an established part in the organization's informal operations and activities. His ties, commitments, friends, enemies, and obligations are known. Career-bound principals, however, do not have a history in the school system. They are "strangers" in the sociological sense of the word. The fact that the place-bound principal has a history in the social organization of the school system and that the career—bound principal does not should not be viewed lightly. It might have significance for organiza- tional effectiveness. Various team studies demonstrate that two characteristics of leaders are crucial for team effectiveness. One is that the leader must be acceptable to his followers; and, as Michels has observed: Among the party leaders will be found men who have acquired fame solely within the ranks of the party, at the price of long and arduous struggles, but the masses have joined them.when already full of honor and glory and possessing independent claims to immortality. Such fame won in other fields seems to them of greater value than that which is won under their own eyes.60 6ORobert Michels, Political Parties: A Socio- lpgical Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of'Modern Democracies (New York: The Crowell-Collier Publishing Company, I962), pp. 41-42. 47 This means that the leader must maintain a psychological distance between himself and his followers. Because of his history in the organization, the place— bound principal seems less likely than the career—bound principal to be able to maintain the amount of psycho- logical distance from his subordinates necessary for effective organizational performance. Further, it can be argued on the grounds of past research that the place- bound principal is more likely to conform to the wishes of his subordinates than is the career-bound principal.61 Probably the most recent reference point of the man pro- moted from.Within is that of the man second in command.62 He probably has held such a position a few years before his succession. Small-group research indicates that people second in command will more likely conform to the judgment of others than people first or last in command. It seems reasonable to assume that whatever made the second in com- mand more influenced by others could not or would not be readily unlearned, and that this pattern would carry over when the second in command moved to the top position within the same group. 61Fred E. Fiedler, Leader Attitudes and Group Effectiveness (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, , apter 4. 62 O. J. Harvey and C. Consalvi, "Starus and Con- formity to Pressures in Informal Groups," Journal of Apnormal and Social Psychology 60 (1960), - 48 Carlson has described three categories of career- "63 bound superintendents as "Hoppers. Superintendents earn this name from frequent moves from one school district to another. In addition to these moves, hoppers have at least two other characteristics. First, their movements do not take them to larger districts. Each move is to a district similar to the one before. Second, hoppers always have an application out; they are always seeking a new superintendency. The way they relate to the school system while superintendent and some of their motives for moving are apparent in the comments of three superintendents: He moves into a community and he's like a fire- cracker. He goes and he has done something. He has done something really worthwhile, but in the community he's led them too fast and they begin to back down on him a little bit and the first thing-- he's a smart operator--he moves to the next hop-- they'll move here and there and naywhere--but they keep moving. Now, they did something for the com- munity but they did it too fast--but the next com- munity looking at him says--"Well, he can do that and we're willing to take our chances on him. We'll grab him and go with him." He just likes to start things and doesn't like to stick with it to the finish--to carry them through. He's usually a candidate and it satisfies something in his ego to be able to be accepted, even though it isn't anything of a promotion-- here's another board that likes me--and that sort of thing. . Well he came in very popular at first, but by the end of the term he was considered very unpopular, not only with the board but with his ‘ 63Richard O. Carlson, School Superintendents: Egreers and Performance (Columbus, Ohio: A Bell and Howell Cémpany, 1973), pp. 43—45. 49 community. He seemed to have the ability to sell himself in a certain situation, but in other words, he didn't wear well. He made a good first impres- sion but wasn't able to carry through over a period of time. This boy always moved far enough away that the local gossip didn't follow him too much. "Specialists" make a longer, more systematic com- mitment to a community. But like a hopper, a specialist must leave once his task has been accomplished. The specialist earns a reputation for doing some task very well; he gains his satisfaction from doing a specific job. He moves among small districts where the superintendent is the whole administrative force, in systems lacking the size to warrant specialists in sub-superintendent posts. Specialists concentrate in areas such as buildings, finance, curriculum, public relations, and personnel. A school board takes on a specialist for a specific job. When it is well along or finished the board needs somebody else or the man looks for a place to start the same process all over again. The reputation the specialist builds is important to him because his future positions depend on it. The hopper, on the other hand, tries to explain away his reputation by saying that the community was not ready for him. For the "Statemen,' commitment to a community dif- fers. He usually stays from four to ten years and during this time moves all phases of the educational program as far as he can; at that point, he considers other jobs. He 50 takes pride in the fact he never is a candidate for a new superintendency; school boards come to him. Each time he moves he goes to a larger school system. He is careful, as is the specialist, about the impression he leaves behind, for his reputation is important. Because of his work quality and his concern for the long-range consequences of his acts for the whole educational program in the schools he serves, he is called a statesman. Men who wait within the containing organization to be appointed its chief executive-men promoted from.Within have been labeled place-bound. They attach more value to the place of employment than they do to their career, thus they wait for the position to come to them. Men who do not wait-~those who seek the position outside their con- taining organization--have been labeled career-bound. By seeking a position away from the home system, they indi- cate that a higher value is attached to the career than to the place of employment. The place-bound successor traces a career which seems to be typified by gradually escalating occupational aspirations. He raises his aspirations as he successfully fills positions of increasing responsibility until one day he finds himself in the position. He is less active than his counterpart in preparing for the career; he tends to drag out the period of formal education and to acquire less than the maximum possible formal education, and to 51 secure it from universities of modest quality. Moreover, the place-bound successor is less progressive in his views about schooling than is his counterpart and he does not aspire to prominence in this chosen field like the career-bound man. Career- and place-bound men also occupy different positions in the social structure of school systems. Place—bound men hold lower status in the social order and are less involved in the social network of interaction than are career-bound men. In addition, the vital flow of information about educational practices is largely managed by career-bound men. Furthermore, elected offices in the American Association of School Administrators are held more often, in proportion to the numbers, by career-bound men. A superintendent, dissatisfied with the performance of the schools, hires a career-bound principal and gives him a mandate for change. Only when the superintendent is satisfied does he hire a place-bound man. And under this condition, no mandate for change is given. The concepts of place-bound and career—bound men have proved useful in predicting the central pattern of action in the way the two types of successors relate to their containing school system. The differences in patterns of actions and relationships to the organization permit a tentative characterization of the two types. The unlike 52 performances label the place-bound men as an adaptive man and the career-bound man as an innovator. Both are con- formists in the sense that they turn in a performance in keeping with the essential conditions of employment. But there is a marked difference. The place-bound man adapts or modifies himself to fit the office; his performance adds nothing new to the role. It is not creative. It is a stabilizing performance aimed at preserving the status quo. The place—bound man seems to derive status from the office; he does not bring status to it. He is like an understudy, a stand-in or stand-by. In a sense he inherits the office and performs within a framework already established. The performance of the career-bound principal, on the other hand, does add something to the role. He is neither an understudy nor an inheritor. With succession 'from outside, the office rather than the person is modified. His performance changes the office and the relations of others to the office; therefore, it has been called creative. , The latent roles of the teo types equip them for their unlike performances. The place-bound superintendent, wanting to stay in the community, adapts himself to survive. The career-bound superintendent does not necessarily want to stay; he is more committed to the occupation than to the place in which it is performed.64 64Ibid., p. 155. 53 Summary The literature related to this study is extensive. This chapter has summarized some of the most relevant studies of the phenomenon of leadership. From these studies emerges the concept that leadership is not to be understood without recognizing the importance of the organizational setting. The interplay between the ”leader" and the organization in which he acts led then to the efforts to identify certain characteristics of organiza- tions, which came to be studied collectively as "climate." One instrument widely used to categorize organizations in terms of "climate” is the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire. Since this study is aimed very specifically at the elementary school principalship, an important research study made by Donald P. Anderson, reported in an unpub- lished dissertation, is cited here. Particularly impor- tant, of his findings, are those that show that high morale principals have served in more principalships and~credit their success more to their knowledge of elementary educa- tion than to their ability to get along with subordinates. In light of these findings, another field of literature was explored dealing with planned, periodic rotation of principals in the schools of a system. The number of studies is small, but their significance is so important that they were reproduced here in some detail. 54 In turn these led to an exploration of literature dealing with "place-bound" and "career-bound" school administrators. CHAPTER III RESEARCH PROCEDURES Introduction Considerable preliminary work preceded the actual testing of the hypotheses. The school districts were chosen; the schools were selected according to the defini- tion of mobile and non-mobile principal; the instrument was developed and administered; and the methods of analyzing the data were developed. This chapter describes in detail the procedures followed. Population and Methodology of the Study The school districts in six counties near Lansing were chosen for the study. They are Ingham, Clinton, Eaton, Calhoun, Livingston, and Jackson counties. They include fifty school districts which among them operate 223 elementary schools. Letters (Appendix I) were sent to all fifty school district superintendents, of whom twenty— five agreed to participate and five refused. Twenty others did not answer. Two weeks later, follow-up requests were sent to the twenty school district superintendents who had not answered the first letter. Of these, six replied, five agreeing to participate, and one refusing. In the 55 56 replys from districts willing to participate was included information about the elementary principals in items of age, sex, number of years in the present principalship, and total number of years in elementary school principal- ship, for all principals within the district. In the thirty cooperating districts information was given for 128 elementary schools. Of that number, 31 elementary schools met the criteria of the study for one of the two kinds of principals to be studied. The criteria for the selection of participating schools were: 1. Principals who have served in more than one school as principal and have been in their present school at least one year but not more than two years. This particular group of principals was labeled "mobile principals." 2. Principals who have served at least ten continuing years or more in this position in this particular school. These were labeled "non-mobile principals." Only 31 principals met either of these criteria, 18 as mobile and 13 as non—mobile principals. A letter, Appendix II, accompanied with permission from the superintendent, was handed personally to each qualifying principal by the researcher. One in the non- mobile principal group refused to participate. All others cooperated. Fifteen leeters and questionnaires (Appendix III) for regular elementary school teachers were handed to the 57 principal, and a week later were collected by the researcher. If the school was large enough to have more than 15 teachers the principal gave the questionnaires to one or two teachers from each grade. A total of 230 questionnaires were returned to the researcher from the 30 schools, from teachers both male and female, and aged 20-69. Over-all survey findings are shown in Tables 1 and 2. TABLE l.--Over-all Survey Findings. 1. Six counties—~Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, Jackson, Calhoun, and Livingston. 2. There are 50 school districts in the six counties and there are 223 elementary schools. 3. In the 30 districts that were willing to participate, there were 128 elementary schools. 4. Of these only 31 elementary principals fell in the two categories as mobile or non—mobile. One non—mobile principal refused to participate. 5. An average of eight regular teachers answered question- naires for each school, and the number of teachers answering questionnaires ranged from four to ten teachers per school. ~ 6. Male and female teachers were in the ratio 1:8. 7. There are 12 males and six females in the mobile principal group. 8. There are eight males and four females in the non— mobile principal group. 543 * TABLE 2.--Participants in this Study: Number of Responses from Teachers. Building 32:31.23; T::;h::s Level of Responding gizgfiegg, Number . pppphers Responding Teaching Principal N Teachers Ages M r Mobile Moglle M F 1 15 8 K-S F M 2 6 20-39 2 7 7 K-6 F M 0 7 20-49 3 18 8 K-S M M 0 8 20-49 4 18 7 K-S M M 1 6 20—59 5 20 10 K-S M M 1 9 20-49 6 13 8 1-6 M M 2 6 20-39 7 8 7 K-S F M 0 7 20-69 8 22 8 K-S M M 1 7 20-39 9 27 8 K-4 M M 1 7 20-69 10 13 9 K—6 M M l 8 30—59 11 13 8 K—4 M M 2 6 20—59 12 17 7 K-6 F M 0 7 20-49 13 13 8 K-4 M M 2 6 20-49 14 10 8 K-4 M M 2 6 20-69 15 16 4 K-6 M O 4 30-59 16 16 6 K-6 F M 0 6 30-69 17 22 8 K-6 M M 2 6 30-69 18 25 4 K-5 M M 0 4 20-49 19 19 8 K-S M NM 0 8 20-69 20 21 8 K-S M NM 2 6 30-59 21 14 8 K-5 F NM 2 6 30-59 22 8 8 K-S M NM 0 8 20-69 23 17 8 K-5 M NM 0 8 20-59 24 8 8 1-4 F NM 0 8 30-69 25 19 8 K-S M NM 1 7 20-49 26 20 7 K-S M NM 0 7 20-29 27 17 8 K-S M NM 0 8 20-59 28 15 8 K-5 M NM 1 7 30-49 29 23 9 K-6 F NM 1 8 20-59 30 _2 __9. K12 __ _E __ a _1 __8_ Q1? TOTAL 483 , 23o K-6 20 10 18 12 25 205 20-69 7': Fifteen questionnaires were sent to each school. 59 Instrumentation Organizational Climate Description Questionnaires (OCDQ) The OCDQ was designed by Andrew W. Halpin and Don B. Croft, to be administered in elementary schools as a means of identifying and describing the organizational climate dimensions of elementary schools. The 64 items of the questionnaires are brief statements of situations involving interpersonal behavior of teachers and principals. The respondent is asked to decide in each instance how typical the described behavior is of principal, fellow teachers, or his school generally. The responses are grouped, for scoring, into eight categories, each measuring one of eight dimensions of organizational climate. In the survey form used, the OCDQ instrument is Items 1-64 and some general biographical data of teachers are Items 65-69. The teacher questionnaire is set out in Appendix III and the scoring in Appendix IV. Permission to use the OCDQ was obtained from Mrs. Agnes Moran of the McMillan Company, New York. A descrip- tion of the eight dimensions in which item responses are classified is presented below: OCDQ SUBTESTS: Teacher's Behavior l. Disengagement indicates that the teachers do not work well together. They pull in different directions with respect to the task; they gripe and bicker among themselves. 60 Hindrance refers to the teacher's feeling that the principal burdens them with routine duties, committee demands, and other requirements which the teachers construe as unnecessary busywork. Es rit refers to "morale." The teachers feel t at their social needs are being satisfied, and that they are, at the same time, enjoying a sense of accomplishment in their job. Intimac refers to the teacher's enjoyment of friendly social relations with each other. OCDQ SUBTESTS: Principal's Behavior Aloofness refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized as formal and impersonal. He "goes by the book" and prefers to be guided by rules and policies rather than to deal with the teachers in an informal face-to-face situa- tion. Production Emphasis refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized by close super- vision of the staff. He is highly directive and task-oriented. Thrust refers to behavior marked not by close supervision of the teachers, but by the principal's attempt to motivate the teachers through the example which he personally sets. He does not ask the teachers to give of themselves any more than he willingly gives of himself; his behavior, though starkly task—oriented, is nonetheless viewed favorably by the teachers. Consideration refers to behavior by the principal which is Eharacterized by an inclination to treat the teacher ”humanly," to try to do a little something extra for them in human terms.65 The instrument contained 64 Likert-type items which were assigned to eight subtests delineated by factor-analytic 65Eugene H. Berends, "Perceptions of the Principals Personality: A Study of the Relationships to Organiza- tional Climates" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). 61 'methods. From the scores on these eight subtests profiles were constructed. The profiles were factor analyzed to determine whether the profiles themselves would cluster in a fashion that would allow differentiating "meaningful" types of Organizational Climates. Halpin and Croft were able to discriminate six Organizational Climates, and found that these could be ranked in respect to the school's score on esprit. The social interactions which character- ize these six climates are summarized below. 1. The Open Climate describes an energetic, lively organization Which is moving toward its goals, and which provides satisfaction for the group members' social needs. Leadership acts emerge easily and appropriately from both the group and the leader. The members are preoccupied dis- proportionately with neither task achievement nor social-needs satisfaction; satisfaction on both counts seems to be obtained easily and almost effortlessly. The main characteristic of this climate is the "authenticity” of the behavior that occurs among all the members. 2. The Autonomous Climate is described best as one in which leadership acts emerge primarily from the group. The leader exerts little control over the group members; high Esprit results primarily from social-needs satisfaction. Satisfaction from task achievement is also present, but to a lesser degree. 3. The Controlled Climate is characterized best as impersonal and highly task-oriented. The group's behavior is directed primarily toward task accomplishment, while relatively little attention is given to behavior oriented to social-needs satisfaction. Esprit is fairly high, but it reflects achievement at some expense to social- needs satisfaction. This climate lacks openness, or "authenticity" of behavior, because the group is disproportionately preoccupied with task achievement. 62 4. The Familiar Climate is highly personal, but undercontrolled. The members of this organiza- tion satisfy their social needs, but pay relatively little attention to social control in respect to task accomplishment. Accordingly, esprit is not extremely high simply because the group members secure little satisfaction from task achievement. Hence, much of the behavior within this climate can be construed as ”inauthentic." 5. The Paternal Climate is characterized best as one in whiEh the principal constrains the emergence of leadership acts from the group and attempts to initiate most of these acts himself. The leader- ship skills within the group are not used to supplement the principal's own ability to initiate leadership acts. Accordingly, some leadership acts are not even attempted. In short, little satisfaction is obtained in respect to either achievement or social needs; hence, esprit among the members is low. 6. The Closed Climate is characterized by a high degree of apathy on the part of all members of the organization. The organization is not "moving"; esprit is low because the group members secure neither social-needs satisfaction nor the satis- faction that comes from task achievement. On the whole, the members' behavior can be construed as "inauthentic”- indeed, the organization seems to be stagnant.65 This study by Halpin and Croft emphasizes the relationship between the behavior of the principal and the type of climate found in his school. The "closed" climate appears to be related to the principal who had high scores on ”aloofness" and "production emphasis” and low scores on "thrust" and "consideration.” The principal with scores high in "thrust" and "consideration" and low on "aloofness" and "production emphasis" was found in the 66Ibid., pp. 13-14. 63 schools with "open" climate. The terms "open" and "closed" were used for the tWO extreme cases. Techniques The result of the OCDQ responses were tabulated into climate profile scores by the computer at the Michigan State University Computer Center. Items were scored 1, 2, 3, or 4 according to teachers' responses: Rarely, Sometimes, Often, or Very Frequently, respectively. An exception was made in some of the items, which called for coding backward or nega— tively according to the scoring scheme for the OCDQ in Appendix IV. Raw scores for each teacher were grouped according to climate dimension. In eight categories of climate, each dimension varied in the number of items and total score, which were set up according to each climate dimen- sion established by Dr. Halpin and Croft as in Appendix IV. Mean scores were obtained for each dimension for each teacher responding. For each school, raw scores were obtained and coded in computer data coding form for the individual teacher, and summed up on each subscale. Means were com- puted for all the responses in each school using total raw scores per item divided by the number of teachers' responses in each school, and divided again by the number 64 of items on each subscale. The means of raw scores are shown in Table 3. The mean scores recorded are to be interpreted by placing them on the continuum from 1.0 (rarely) to 4.0 (very frequently. In the aggregate they reveal for example that in building 1M (with a mobile principal) the highest of raw score means are in Esprit, Intimacy, Thrust, and Consideration. These add up to show the open climate which was described by Halpin and Croft in Table 12. Each of the schools was treated similarly and a profile was built and measured against the profiles in the Organiza- tional Climate scales as described by Dr. Halpin. In the distribution of questionnaires two different procedures were used. Where the total number of teachers was 15 or fewer every teacher was given a questionnaire. Where the total number of teachers was greater than 15 the principal distributed them in such a way that at least two were given to teachers at each grade level. The data from the schools were then dealt with in four cells: mobile principal, whole staff; mobile principal, selected staff; non-mobile principal, whole staff; and non-mobile principal, selected staff. Before the data for mobile and for non-mobile principals could each be combined, it was necessary to discover what if any influence on the data might be attributed to the fact of the principal's selection of 65 TABLE 3.—-Means of Raw Scores. m mfg??? Hindrance Esprit Intimacy 1&2:- mil?“ Thrust 0:33:51- 1M 1.438 1.729 3.325 2.893 1.875 2.214 2.722 2.646 2M 1.914 2.238 2.829 2.449 2.429 2.000 2.206 2.333 3M 1.562 2.438 3.238 2.518 2.167 2.214 3.847 2.833 4M 1.600 1.833 3.114 2.898 2.238 2.306 2.825 2.310 5M 1.580 2.033 3.120 2.743 1.867 2.214 3.411 2.200 6M 1.838 2.354 2.350 1.982 2.166 2.339 2.722 2.063 7M 1.829 2.000 2.971 2.531 2.683 2.265 2.984 1.905 8M 1.462 2.333 3.436 2.375 2.431 2.393 3.417 2.708 9M 1.913 2.229 2.563 2.250 2.139 2.250 2.458 2.042 10M 1.689 2.278 3.089 2.317 2.173 2.524 3.099 2.556 11M 1.763 2.083 2.538 2.000 2.194 2.321 2.611 2.104 12M 1.757 2.119 3.314 2.899 2.206 1.673 2.889 2.310 13M 1.775 2.125 3.050 2.571 2.264 2.625 3.319 2.292 14M 1.813 2.313 2.774 2.357 2.292 2.232 3.208 2.188 15M 1.800 2.125 2.725 2.179 1.972 1.643 2.361 1.500 16M 1.850 1.333 2.717 2.167 2.111 2.143 2.870 2.361 17M 2.375 2.271 2.813 2.750 2.431 2.643 2.694 2.875 18M 1.875 2.292 2.475 2.321 2.000 2.464 2.056 2.042 19NM 1.563 2.250 3.013 2.625 2.361 2.107 2.694 2.166 20NM 1.475 2.167 2.788 2.339 1.875 2.196 3.028 2.125 21NM 1.438 1.729 2.950 2.429 2 389 1.857 3.139 2.104 22NM 1.200 2.021 3.338 1.813 2.181 2.321 3.528 2.104 23NM 1.563 2.167 3.413 2.679 2.667 2.518 3.153 2.667 24NM 1.738 2.042 3.088 2.625 2.306 1.982 2.889 2.042 25NM 1.625 1.688 2 788 2.393 1.809 1.071 2.097 1.771 26NM 1 771 2.571 2.643 3.551 2.000 2.102 2.492 1.833 27NM 2.125 2.313 2.488 2.268 2.306 1.768 2.278 2.021 28NM 1.250 2 167 3.425 2.786 2.597 2.268 3.653 2.417 29NM 1.925 2.333 2.811 2.127 2.025 2.063 2.568 2.204 30NM 1.578 1.889 3.033 2.460 2.210 1.730 2.284 1.907 * M = Mobile NM= Non-mobile 66 TABLE 4.-—Means of Raw Score of Whole and Selected Teachers in the Building. IS‘cl'nolld‘ Whole Selected Dismgage- mmt Hindrance Esprit Intimacy Aloof- ness 4 E amsider- ation W W C C C W W C C W W C W W C C C C C C W W C W C C C W C W 7" M = Mobile NM: Non—mobile I—‘HMND—‘r—‘Hr—‘r—‘I—‘HI—‘l—‘NHHI—‘HD—‘l—‘Hl—‘I—‘r—‘D—‘I—‘HD—‘HH . 438 914 .562 .600 .580 .838 .829 .462 .913 .689 .763 757 775 .813 .800 .850 375 .875 .563 .475 .438 .200 .563 738 .625 771 .125 .250 .925 578 l—‘NNNNHNWNHNNNNHNNNNNNNNNNNHNNH 729 238 438 833 033 354 000 333 229 278 083 119 125 313 125 333 271 292 250 167 729 021 167 042 688 571 313 167 333 .889 HNWNNNWQWNNUNNNNNWUNUNWNNWLQLDNU .325 829 238 114 .120 350 971 436 563 089 538 314 050 775 725 717 813 475 013 788 950 338 413 008 788 743 488 425 811 033 NNNNNNNNl—‘NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNHNNNNN .893 449 518 898 743 982 531 375 250 . 317 000 899 571 357 179 167 750 321 625 339 429 813 679 625 393 .551 268 786 127 .460 NNNNND—‘NNNNHNNNNHNNNNNNNNNFNNNH .875 .429 .167 .238 .867 .166 .683 .431 .139 173 194 206 264 292 972 111 431 000 361 875 389 181 667 306 819 000 306 597 025 210 D—‘NNHHHHNNHNNNNNHNNHNNNNNNNNNNN .214 .000 .214 .306 .214 .339 .265 .393 .250 .524 .321 .673 .625 .232 .643 .143 143 .464 107 196 .857 321 518 982 071 071 768 268 063 .730 NNLONNNNWWWWNNNNNwWNNwNWNNUNWMN .722 .206 .847 .825 .411 .722 .984 .417 .458 .099 .611 .889 .319 .208 .361 .870 .694 .056 .694 .028 .139 .528 .153 .889 .097 .492 278 .653 568 284 l—‘NNNHHi—‘NNNNNNNNHNNNNNNND—‘NNNNNN .646 . 333 .833 .310 .200 .063 .095 .708 .042 .556 .104 .310 .292 .188 .500 .361 .875 .042 166 125 .104 .104 .667 .042 771 833 021 417 204 .907 67 teacher respondents. In Table 4 each school has been identified as to whether the whole staff was involved or whether the principal had selected the teacher respondents. The 2x2 design was used to examine the significant differences, if any, in the two aggregate groups--mobile and non-mobile principals. The total of means for the above is shown in Table 5. These were subjected to the multivariate analysis process. The probability of type I error was .3821 with a .05 level of significance and a degree of freedom of 8 and 19. TABLE 5.——The Means Total of Mobile Principal, Whole and Selected Staff versus Non—Mobile Principal, Whole and Selected Staff. Mobile Non-Mobile Difference Disengagement 1.7685 1.6043 .1642 Hindrance 2.1181 2.1114 .0067 Esprit 2.9134 2.9815 —.6806 Intimacy 2.4556 2.4246 .3097 Aloofness 2.2021 2.2280 -.0259 Production 2.2479 2.0819 .1660 Thrust 2.8722 2.8169 .0552 Consideration 2.2927 2.1134 .1792 68 The mean scores were aggregated again in two groups--whole staff and selected staff. The total means are shown in Table 6. Multivariate analysis revealed a probability of type I error of .8417 with a .05 level of significance and a degree of freedom of 8 and 19. TABLE 6.--The Means Total of Whole Staff, Mobile and Non- Mobile Principal versus Selected Staff, Mobile and Non-Mobile Principal. Mobile Non-Mobile Difference Disengagement 1.7268 1.6844 .0424 Hindrance 2.1032 2.1248 .0215 Esprit 2.8714 2.9936 .1223 Intimacy 2.4390 2.4464 .0073 Aloofness 2.1495 2.2606 .1110 Production 2.1352 2.2170 .0819 Thrust 2.6829 2.9779 .2949 Consideration 2.1109 2.3051 .1942 A third analysis included the means total in four cells: mobile principal aggregate, non-mobile principal aggregate, whole staff aggregate, and selected staff aggregate. The results of the multivariate analysis showed a type I error probability of .5055 at the .05 level of significance and a degree of freedom of 8 and 19. 69 TABLE 7.--The Means Total of Four Cells. Mobile Mobile Non-Mobile Non-Mobile Whole Selected Whole Selected Disengagement 1.7671 1.7696 1.6624 1.5627 Hindrance 2.0165 2.1994 2.2420 2.0181 Esprit 3.8800 2.9402 2.8576 3.0700 Intimacy 2.4506 2.4595 2.4204 2.4276 Aloofness 2.1841 2.2165 2.0942 2.3236 Production 2.1949 2.2904 2.0396 2.1121 Thrust 2.7265 2.9887 2.6132 2.9624 Consideration 2.1509 2.4061 2.0470 2.1609 Fourth the mobile principal mean scores for the whole staff and the selected staff sub-sets were subjected to the same analysis. The probability of type I error was .8273 at the .05 level of significance with 8 and 19 degrees of freedom (see Table 8). Last, the same sort of analysis was applied to the two sub-sets of non-mobile principal mean scores. Here the probability of type I error was .1746 at the .05 level of significance with 8 and 3 degrees of freedom (see Table 9). 70 TABLE 8.--Mobile Principal, Whole Staff versus Selected Staff. Mobile NoneMobile Difference Disengagement 1.7671 1.7696 -.0025 Hindrance 2.0165 2.1994 -.1829 Esprit 2.8800 2.9402 -.0602 Intimacy 2.4506 2.4595 -.0089 Aloofness 2.1841 2.2165 -.0324 Production 2.1949 2.2904 —.0956 Thrust 2.7265 2.9887 -.2622 Consideration 2.1509 2.4061 -.3553 TABLE 9.—-Non—Mobile Principal, Whole Staff versus Selected Staff Means. Mobile Non-Mobile Difference Disengagement 1.6624 1.5627 .0997 Hindrance 2.2420 2.0181 .2239 Esprit 2.8576 3.0700 .7876 Intimacy 2.4204 2.4276 .0072 Aloofness 2.0942 2.3236 .2294 Production 2.0396 2.1121 .0725 Thrust 2.6132 2.9624 .2492 Consideration 2.0470 2.1609 .1138 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction In this chapter the data collected by the survey instruments are analyzed to test whether there are any significant differences in organizational climate in the schools led by mobile and non-mobile principals. The key items related directly to the testing of the hypotheses of this study are provided in table form with the analysis. Analysis of the Data All data from the responses for the 18 mobile and 12 non—mobile principals were analyzed by the multi- variate analysis process. The probability of type I error was .3368 with a .05 level of significance and a degree of freedom of 8 and 21. In this analysis no significant differences were found, as computed from means of raw scores, Table 3, and the means total of mobile versus non-mobile principal groups shown in Table 10. From the statistical standpoint the total of cell means set out in Table 10 showed very little 7l 72 TABLE 10.--Means Total of Mobile versus Stable Principal Groups. Mobile Non-Mobile Difference Disengagement 1.7685 1.6043 .1642 Hindrance 2.1181 2.1114 .0067 Esprit 2.9134 2.9815 -.6806 Intimacy 2.4556 2.4246 .3097 Aloofness 2.2021 2.2280 -.0259 Production 2.2479 2.0819 .1660 Thrust 2.8722 2.8169 .0552 Consideration 2.2927 2.1134 .1792 difference in variation for each cell between the mobile and non-mobile principal groups. Moreover, because of the small differences in the sample means it seems unlikely that failure to find statistically significant differences was a result of lack of power. This means that if the sample population size was to be increased by a few more counties it is unlikely that anystatistically significant differences would be found because the differences between the cells for mobile and non-mobile principals were very small. For example, the largest difference between means for mobile and non-mobile principals is only .17925 in the item Consideration. This is not large compared to 73 observed standard deviations derived and set out in Table 11. TABLE ll.--Standard Deviation of Mobile and Non-Mobile Principal Groups. Mobile Non-Mobile Disengagement .210825 .262625 Hindrance .267845 .255381 Esprit .318808 .299702 Intimacy .293391 .267712 Aloofness .207160 .264966 Production .269223 .229514 Thrust .460446 .499679 Consideration .344436 .245326 Each hypothesis in turn was tested against the data. Any differences between the mean scores of the two groups were analyzed to see the extent of their significance and their potential for contributing a Ineasure of Profile Characteristics as developed by Halpin and Croft and set out in Table 12. 74 TABLE 12.--Profile Characteristics of Organizational Climate. —.—-——_._ .— .—_.___ Open Autonomous Controlled Familiar Paternal Closed High Relatively Relitively Average Low Low Esprit High Esprit High Esprit Esprit Esprit Esprit Low Dis- Low Dis- Low Dis- High Dis- High Dis- High Dis- engagement engagement engagement engagement engagement engagement Low Low High Low Low High Hindrance Hindrance Hindrance Hindrance Hindrance Hindrance High Relatively Average Average Average Low Thrust High Thrust Thrust Thrust Thrust Thrust High Con- Average Con- Average Con- High Con- High Con— Low Con- sideration sideration sideration sideration sideration sideration Low Produc- tion Emphasis Low Aloofness Average Intimacy Low Produc- tion Emphasis Relatively High Aloofness High Intimacy High Produc- tion Emphasis High Aloofness Low Intimacy Low Produc- tion Emphasis Low Aloofness High Intimacy High Produc- tion Emphasis Low Aloofness Low Intimacy High Produc- tion Emphasis High Aloofness Average Intimacy 75 Ho 1: There is no significant difference on the Disen a ement scale between schools with mohile or w1th non-mob1le pr1nc1pals as measured by the OCDQ. Although the null hypothesis is not rejected according to the multivariate analysis, examination of the differences in the sample means in Disengagement shows the mobile principal group to have a higher score, by only .16425, in Disengagement. According to the profile characteristics of organizational climate, this would mean that teachers might tend not to work together as well as in the stable principal groups. "They pull in different directions with respect to the task; they gripe and bicker among themselves." The difference is not statistically significant, however. It can not be inter- preted as indicating any of the particular climates as described by Halpin and Croft. Ho 2: There is no significant difference on the Hindrance scale between schools with mobile df—hifh—hon-mobile principals as measured by the OCDQ. Only .006694 difference in mean score between mobile and non-mobile principal groups makes these almost meaningless. It may be that mobile principal groups tend to a more closed or controlled climate than non- mobile groups, since according to profile characteristics of organizational climate, those with higher disengage- ment tend to be higher on hindrance. 76 Ho 3: There is no significant difference on the Esprit scale between schools with mobile or with non-mobile principals as measured by the OCDQ. In the profile characteristics those higher in disengagement and hindrance will tend to be low in esprit. The mobile principal group shows .068056 score lower than non—mobile principal groups, a difference too small to be significant. The hypothesis is not rejected. Ho 4: There is no significant difference on the Intimac scale between schools with mobile or with non—mobile principals as measured by the OCDQ. Intimacy scores in the mobile principal group were higher than in the non—mobile principal group by only .030973. Intimacy refers to the teachers' enjoyment of friendly social relations with each other. In the mobile principal group schools, the scores were higher but by so little that the null hypothesis is not rejected. Ho 5: There is no significant difference on the Aloofness scale between schools with mobile or w1th non-mobile principals as measured by the OCDQ. It is of some interest that the sample mean of non-mobile principal groups were by .025889 a little higher than for the mobile principal group. Aloofness refers to the behavior of the principal as formal and impersonal. Yet the very minor difference between the groups is not significant and the null hypothesis is not rejected. 77 Ho 6: There is no significant difference on the Production Emphasis scale between schools with mObile or with nonamobile principals as measured by the OCDQ. The mobile principal group has a score in Produc- tion Emphasis that is .166027 higher than the non-mobile principal group. This difference is in the direction expected according to the profile in Table 7, that showed the closed organizational climate to be higher in produc- tion emphasis than open organizational climate. However again the difference is not significant and the hypothesis is not rejected. Ho 7: There is no significant difference on the Thrust scale between schools with mobile or 'hiEh—hon-mobile principals as measured by the 0CDQ. The difference in Thrust in these two groups is only .05524, and the null hypothesis is not rejected. Neither can any tentative conclusion be drawn. Ho 8: There is no significant difference on the Consideration scale between schools with mobile or with non-mobile principals as measured by the OCDQ. The mean score difference in Consideration, .1793, is the largest difference in mean scale scores is between non-mobile and mobile principal group in any of the cate- gories. Yet one can not conclude that there is a differ- ence in Consideration between these two groups of principals. We only are able to say that the mean score of mobile principal groups was somewhat higher than for the non- mobile groups. 78 Comparisons of Profile Since the multivariate analysis showed no signifi- cant statistical differences, another type of analysis was undertaken. The composite mean scores for the mobile and the non-mobile principal schools were charted on a profile chart and their profile compared, as shown in Figure l. The remarkable similarity of the profiles of the two groups confirms the multivariate analysis of "no significant difference." As a matter of interest, each of the two profiles was tested against each of the six profiles representing six meaningful types of Organizational Climate, character- ized by Halpin and Croft as: Open, Autonomous, Controlled, Familiar, Paternal and Closed (for description of these, see pp. 61-62 above). Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 compare the mobile and the non-mobile profiles with the "Open" and with the "Closed" Climate profiles. It will be seen that each of them most closely fitted the "Open" Climate profile. The same tests were made for each of the schools studied. Each school's mean of raw scores, from Table 3 above, was plotted on a chart to make a profile of its Characteristics of Organizational Climate. Similarly, a profile was drawn on transparent paper at the same scale for each of the six types of Organizational Climate. 79 Figure 1 --Profiles of the Composite Mobile and Non-mobile Means of Means Scores Groups. 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 Profile Characteristics of Organizational Climate Mobile Groups Esprit _ _ Non-Mobile Groups Disengagement Hindrance Trust Consideration Production Emphasis Aloofness Intimacy. CDVGU'IDle-J 80 Figure 2.--Comparison Between Profiles of Composite Mobile and Open Climate. l Relatively 3'0 High 2.5 Average 2.0 Low 1.5 Profile Characteristics of Organizational Climate Mobile Groups Esprit Disengagement Hindrance Thrust Consideration Production Emphasis Aloofness Intimacy _____ Open Groups CDVC‘U‘l-DUONH 81 Figure 3.-—Comparison Between Profiles Composite Mobile and Closed Climate. 3.5 High 1 l Relatively 3'0 I 1 High Means f 1 of i ‘-. Means 2.5 \f ‘ Average Scores f l 2.0 :' ‘1, 5 . """" ' Low 1.5 Profile Characteristics of Organizational Climate Esprit Disengagement Hindrance Thrust Consideration Production Emphasis Aloofness Intimacy Mobile Open m-qountubhoH 82 Figure 4.--Comparison Between Profiles of Composite Non- Mobile and Open Climate. 3.5 High Relatively 3.0 High Means of Means 2 . 5 ”Average Score 2.0 Low 1.0 Profile Characteristics of Organizational Climate Non-Mobile Esprit Disengagement Hindrance Thrust Consideration Production Emphasis Aloofness Intimacy _ _ Open CDVC‘ULDUJNH 83 Figure 5.—-Comparison Between Profiles of Mobile and Closed Climate. Composite Non- High 3.5 '0 I I I I I I I I _‘__-o 1 Relatively High Means of 'Average Mean 2.5 . Score . :‘ Low Profile Non-Mobile _ Closed (”\IONUI-DUONH Characteristics of Organizational Climate Esprit Disengagement Hindrance Thrust Consideration Production Emphasis Aloofness Intimacy 84 Then each of the transparencies was fitted over, in turn, each school's profile. Three of the school profiles fit the Open Climate chart and nine most nearly matched the Autonomous Climate. None fitted the Closed Climate chart. The findings from.the multivariate analyses were confirmed again. No marked differences were found between the 18 Climate profiles of the mobile principal schools and the 12 Climate profiles of the non-mobile principal schools. Two mobile schools and one non-mobile school were characterized by Open Climate. Five mobile schools had climates best characterized as Autonomous, and four non-mobile schools similarly. The rest of the schools tended to be alike. No school's profile matched that for the Closed Climate. The profiles themselves are not included here. A comparison of the distribution of mean scores for each school, listed in Table 3, with the Profile Character- istics set out in Table 12 will confirm these findings. Summa y, Since multivariate analysis showed as probability of type I error of .3368 with the degree of freedom 8 and 21, no null hypothesis was rejected. And because the multivariate analysis showed all differences to be not significant, it is improper and inappropriate to test each scale singly. 85 A study of the composite profiles of the two groups confirmed the findings from multivariate analysis. They do show similar correspondence with the profile for Open Climate. The individual school profiles show no marked difference between those in the mobile and in the non-mobile principal groups. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction This chapter summarizes the study from its incep— tion through the interpretation of the data. A number of specific recommendations for possible actions and future study will also be presented. Summary This study was designed to find out if there are significant differences between the principal who trans- fers from place to place, often called a "career-bound principal” and the principal who never moves or is unlikely to move to principalships in different places, often called "place-bound." Because the principal is held to be the key agent for change or no change in the schools, and may be so into the future, an example of the leadership and school climate differences takes on importance. The study developed from the descriptions of the elementary principal's role in curriculum development and administrative leadership found in educational and 86 87 general literature. Of special concern in this investiga- tion was any evidence that might lead the head administra- tor such as the superintendent and board of education to be aware of the key role held by principals in charge, and the different role played by mobile and non-mobile principals, if there are differences. The Design This study was concerned with two groups of principals. The mobile principal group was made up of those who have been principals in more than one school. Those principals who have been in their present school and position not more than two years but no less than one year were selected to eliminate the effects of the first year's unfamiliarity on the one hand and long familiarity (approaching the non-mobile principal's) on the other. The non-mobile group of principals was made up of those who had served in a particular school for at least ten years, which was considered long enough for the principal to have become set in his habits and influence with school, teachers, and students and less likely to institute change. A review of the literature indicated that place- bound leadership tends to be conservative, hesitates to risk, tends toward Aloofness and is rarely willing to make changes in his life style. However, the evidences gathered 88 in this study leads to the conclusion that this is less likely to be true, at least in central Michigan's schools, since there no statistically significant differences were found in the organizational climate of these two groups of principals. The school system sample population was chosen from Ingham, Clinton, Livingston, Calhoun, and Jackson counties in the state of Michigan. The following eight hypotheses were constructed for statistical testing: Ho 1: There is no significant difference on the Disengagement scale between schools with mobile or with non-mobile principals as measured by the OCDQ. Ho 2: There is no significant difference on the Hindrance scale between schools with mobile or with non-mobile principals as measured by the OCDQ. Ho 3: There is no significant difference on the Es rit scale between schools with mobile or w1th non-mobile principals as measured by the OCDQ. Ho 4: There is no significant difference on the Intimac scale between schools with mobile or with non-mobile principals as measured by the OCDQ. Ho 5: There is no significant difference on the Aloofness scale between schools with mobile or hifh non-mobile principals as measured by the OCDQ. Ho 6: There is no significant difference on the Production Emphasis scale between schools with mobile or with non-mobile principals as measured by the OCDQ. 89 Ho 7: There is no significant difference on the Thrust scale between schools with mobile or with non-mobile principals as measured by the OCDQ. Ho 8: There is no significant difference on the Consideration scale between schools with mobile or with non-mobile principals as measured by the OCDQ. The survey instrument was developed to provide the data necessary for analyzing the hypotheses. The climate of organization was measured by responses from teachers of each school. The principals were divided into two groups and were compared in dimensions of the instrument testing Organizational Climate. Analysis of Survey Instrument Data Multivariate analysis was used to analyze the data and found no statistically significant differences at the .05 level with degree of freedom 8 and 21 in every one of the climate dimensions. Therefore, for the population tested, there is no difference in the climate or organization between those schools with principals who had moved recently from one principalship to another and those with principals who had been in the same place and position over a period of ten years. If there had been statistically significant dif- ferences at .05 level, it would have been possible to look at each of the climate dimensions and compare each 90 one according to each hypothesis testing. There were none, and these studies were not made. The findings were confirmed when profiles for the thirty schools individually and as composites for mobile and non-mobile groups were drawn. Comparison of the composite profiles revealed remarkable similarity, and each most nearly matched the Open Climate profile. The thirty individual school profiles showed no marked differences between the two groups. Conclusion The purpose of this study was to find support for a recommendation to boards of education and superintendents of schools about the values of a rotation system for principals as compared to the regular system, if this study were to reveal any statistically significant dif- ferences between the mobile and non-mobile principal groups. This study promised to have importance because in the literature there are statements of the presumed advantages of rotation of principals. Educators go on record as favoring or opposing the idea of rotation. Also there is discussion on the presumed advantages of mobile and non-mobile principals. However, this study showed no differences between principals who move and those who stay in one school, in those schools on the 91 dimensions measured. The researcher started the study with an inclination to favor a system of principal rotation to get a better organizational climate and receptivity to change in an elementary school, but the findings do not support this thesis. There is a lack of information about why mobile principals move. They may move because of difficulty with the school or community, because they are hoppers, or experimenters, or because they become bored. They may move because of economic necessity, or need to socialize, a desire to be close to their relatives-friends-parents, or as a promotion or even a demotion. If this kind of information were available, these variables might be studied to see how they might affect the subsequent climate in the school of the mobile principal, and how they affect the differences between mobile and non-mobile principals in their leadership of educational development. There is another way to test the original assump- tions open to those who are interested in this idea who want to improve their organizational climate. They might cooperatively undertake a rotatiOnal system.within a group of school districts and replicate this study after ten years to see what if any differences are found between the schools in the rotation system and those not in such a system. 92 Recommendations for Further Study It is recommended on the basis of this study that the possibility of the following studies be considered: 1. A study of organizational climate in a school district with a principal rotation system compared with the climate in other schools, controlled for principal characteristics such as educational level, socio-economic background, sex and age. 2. A depth descriptive study of the advantages, disadvantages, and problems found in a currently operating rotation system. 3. The perceptions held by superintendents and curriculum specialists of what the elementary principal's role should be in curriculum development. 4. A study replicating this study but either confined to or including non-public schools and schools at different levels of education. 5. A study to determine whether the personal characteristics of the principal are related to the effectiveness of a school's curriculum study program, or to the effectiveness of a curriculum director's leadership in the improvement of curriculum. 6. A study using different instruments to test other evidences of principal effectiveness than organiza- tional climate, in schools with mobile and schools with non—mobile principals. B IBLIOGRAPHY 93 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Donald P. "A Study of the Relationships Between Organizational Climate of Elementary Schools and Personal Variables of Principals." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1964. Argyris, Chris. ”Some Problems in Conceptualizing Organiza- tional Climate: A Case Study of a Bank." Admini- strative Science Quarterly 2 (March, 1958), 50I-520. Bass, B. M. Leadership, Psychology, and Organizational Behavior. New’York: Harper and Bros, 1960. Berends, Eugene H. "Perceptions of the Principal's Personality: A Study of the Relationships to Organizational Climate." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Carlson, Rochard 0. School Sdperintendents: Careers and Performance. Columbus, Ohio: A Bell and Howell Company, 1977. Cornell, G. F. "Socially Perceptive Administration." Phi Delta Kappa, 36 (March, 1955), 219—223. Davis, Keith. Human Relations at Work. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1962. Fiedler, Fred E. Leader Attitudes and Group Effectiveness. Urbana: University of’Illinois Press, 1958. Fiedler, Fred E. "Style or Circumstance: The Leadership Enigma." Psychology Today (1969). Fox, Willard. ”Don't Let Principals Sit Out Tenure in One Place, Say Two Districts.” Nation's Schools 74 (July, 1964), 31, 52. Gibb, C. A. ”The Principles and Traits of Leadership." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (1947), 267—284. 94 95 Cross, Neal and Herriott, Robert E. Staff Leadership in Public Schools. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965. Halpin, Andrew W. Theory and Research in Administration. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966 Halpin, Andrew W. and Croft, Don B. The Organizational Climate of Schools. Chicago: Midwest Administra- tion Center, University of Chicago, 1963. Hamachek, Don E. "Leadership Styles, Decision—making, and Principal." The National Elementary Principal 65 (April, 1966), Hemphill, J. K. "Administration as Problem Solving.” Administrative Theory in Education. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1958. Harvey, O. J. and Consalvi, C. ”Starus and Conformity to Pressures in Informal Groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60 (1960), 182-187. Jennings, Eugene E. The Mobile Manager: A Study of the New Generation of Top Executives. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co. 7. Kraft, Leonard E. "The Rotating Principalship." The Clearing House 41 (April, 1967), 462—464. Lippitt, Gordon. "What Do We Know About Leadership?" Leadership In Action, No. 2. Washington, D.C.. National Training Laboratories, 1961. Lonsdale, Richard C. "Maintaining the Organization in Dynamic Equilibrium.” Behavioral Science and Educational Administration. 63rd Yearbook, National Society for the Study of Education, Ed. Daniel E. Griffiths. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Michels, Robert. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Demo— cracies. New York: The Crowell-Collier Publish- 1ng Company, 1962. Morris, Derek V. "Organizational Climate of Canadian Schools." The GSA Bulletin 3 (June, 1964), 3-7. 96 Myers, Robert B. ”The Development and Implications of a Conception for Leadership Education." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1954. Nation's Schools. ”School Principals Should Stay Put: Administrators Balk at 'Rotation.'" Nation's Schools 71 (May, 1963), 85. Pelz, Donald C. "Leadership Within a Hierarchical Organization." Leadership in Action, No. Washington, D.C.: National Training Laboratories, 1961. Peterson, 0. F. "Leadership and Group Behavior." Leadership in Action, No. 2. Washington, D.C.: National Training Laboratories, 1961. Rokeach, Milton. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books Co., 1960. Stemnock, Suzanne K. "Systematic Rotation of Principals ong Schools." Educational Research Service. Washington, D.C., November, 1973. Stogdill, R. M. Leadership and Structures of Personal Interaction. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State University, 1957. Stogdill, R. M. "Personal Factors Associated with Leader- ship: A Survey of the Literature." Journal of Psychology 25 (January, 1948), Stogdill, R. M. and Shartle, C. L. "Methods for Determining Patterns of Leadership Behavior in Relation to Organization Structure and Objectives." Journal of épplied Psychology (1948), 121-122. "The Elementary School Principalship in 1968." De artment of Elementary School Principals, NEA, 968. Wiles, Kimball. Supervision for Better Schools. Engle- wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1950. APPENDICES 97 APPENDIX I 98 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing College of Education Michigan 48824 Department of Administration and Higher Education November 8, 1974 Erickson Hall Dear Sir: I am a foreign student presently working on a dissertation to complete my doctoral degree at Michigan State University. As part of my dissertation, I would like to ask your permission to do a research in elementary schools in your school district. The purpose of the project is to study the relationships between several kinds of leadership and organizational behavior of teachers. All individuals participating will remain anonymous and school districts will not be identified by name in the dissertation. This research may be use- ful to other educators and especially to other developing c0untries, such as Thailand. Specifically I want to find what differences may be related to the length of tenure of the principal in a particular school, to the amount of his or her overall experience as a principal and to the number of principalships he or she may have held. This is part of a much larger study that would support or refute the claim that rotating assignments for principals would be desirable. If you approve your district's participation, as we hope you will, we'd appreciate having your secretary return the enclosed form listing a few facts about your principals that may be immediately available from your file. There is a good deal of interest in which is the role of the elementary school principal in curriculum development and this study will be based on data from teachers in representative schools. You will get a summary of the findings for the six-counties district, which we hope will be of sufficient interest to warrant your cooperation in our project. Thank you very much for any favorable consideration. Sincerely, Vuti LaOSunthorn Archibald B. Shaw, Professor Educational Administration 410 Erickson Hall Michigan State University Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824 99 lm: 4| .Ma Izlll M Ml M 4| lei lzcll M E III M lzlll M lzlll lml All wqeaa moaflm whoaumwouam mamafloowum NGOHuHmom mmflnmammwoafium weenmamawoneum m we Moscow menu cw uoouowmww poouomwfiw IouHm munch munch Haow home Bow heme Bom acme 3cm hama 30m Mom wm< oamz w.HmmHoofium wamz m.Hoonom 100 APPENDIX II 101 November 24th, 1974 Dear Principal: I am a foreign student presently working on a dissertation to complete my doctoral degree at Michigan State University. As part of my dis— sertation, I would like to ask your permission to do a research in your school. The purpose of the project is to study the relationships between several kinds of leadership and organizational behavior of teachers. All individuals participating will remain anonymous and school districts will not be identified by name in the dissertation. This research may be useful to other educators and especially to other developing countries, such as Thailand. Specifically I want to find what differences, if any, may be related to the length of tenure of the principal in a particular school, to the amount of his or her overall experience as a principal and to the number of principalships he or she may have held. This is part of a much larger study that would support or refute the claim that rotating assignments for principals would be desirable. This study is being conducted with the knowledge and approval of your superintendent. If you approve your teachers' participation, as we hope you will, we'd appreciate having your teachers return the enclosed form to us. After the completion of this study an abstract of the findings will be sent to you. Sincerely, Vuti Laosunthorn Archibald B. Shaw, Professor 410 Erickson Hall Educational Administration Michigan State University Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824 102 APPENDIX I I I 103 November 245h, 1974 Dear Teacher: I am a foreign student presently working on a dissertation to complete my doctoral degree at Michigan State University. As part of my dis— sertation, we had asked permission and approval of your superintendent and principal to conduct this research. The purpose of the project is to study the relationships between several kinds of leadership and organizational behavior of teachers. All individuals participating will remain anonymous and school districts will not be identified by name in the dissertation. This research may be useful to other educators and especially to other developing countries, such as Thailand. Specifically I want to find what differences, if any, may be related to the length of tenure of the principal in a particular school, to the amount of his or her overall experience as a principal and to the number of principalships he or she may have held. This is part of a much larger study that would support or refute the claim that rotating assignments . for principals would be desirable. There is a good deal of interest in the role the elementary school principal may play in curriculum development and this study will be based on data from teachers in representative schools. This instrument is in 2 parts. Part I (Items 1—64) is the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) devised by Drs. Halpin and Croft and reproduced with permission of the Macmillan Company of New York. Part II (Items 65-69) provides some general biographical data of yourself. Please, return both parts to yOur principal in the sealed envelope enclosed. As teachers we recognize the importance of your time, and have developed a questionnaire that will take as little of your time as possible. We are very grateful for your cooperation which is so valuable to this survey. Sincerely, Vuti Laosunthorn Archibald B. Shaw, Professor 410 Erickson Hall Educational Administration Michigan State University Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824 104 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY (Department of Educational Administration) QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS PART I (OCDQ) Items 1—64 INSTRUCTION: Please answer them by marking one of the set of lines provided for each answer. Do not dwell too long on any one item, but answer it as you think the situation exists in your school. There are a total of 64 items that should not take more than a few minutes to answer. As an individual you cannot be identified with this instrument. Very Rarely Sometimes Often Frequently Occurs Occurs Occurs Occurs 1. Teachers' closest friends are other faculty members at this school. 2. The mannerisms of teachers at this school are annoying 3. Teachers spend time after school with students who have individual problems. 4. Instructions for the operation of teaching aids are available. 5. Teachers invite other faculty members to visit them at home. 6. There is a minority group of teachers who always oppose the majority. Reprinted by Vuti Laosunthorn with permission of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. from Relating School Climate to Principals' Stability and Mobility as perceived by Teachers. @Copyright by Andrew W. Halpin, 1966. 105 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 106 Very Rarely Sometimes Often Frequently Occurs Occurs Occurs Occurs Extra books are available for classroom use. Sufficient time is given to prepare administrative reports. Teachers know the family background of other faculty members. Teachers exert grOup pressure on nonconforming faculty members. In faculty meetings, there is the feeling of "let's get things done." Administrative paper work is burdensome at this school. Teachers talk about their personal life to other faculty members. Teachers seek special favors from the principal. School Supplies are readily available for use in classwork. Student progress reports require too much work. Teachers have fun socializing together during school time. Teachers interrupt other faculty members who are talk- ing in staff meetings. Most of the teachers here accept the faults of their colleagues. Teachers have too many committee requirements. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 107 Rarely Sometimes Often Frequently Occurs Occurs Occurs There is considerable laughter when teachers gather informally. Very Occurs Teachers ask nonsensical questions in faculty meetings. Custodial service is avail— able when needed. Routine duties interfere with the job of teaching. Teachers prepare administrative reports by themselves. Teachers ramble when they talk in faculty meetings. Teachers at this school show much school spirit. The principal goes out of his way to help teachers. The principal helps teachers solve personal problems. Teachers at this school stay by themselves. The teachers accomplish their work with great vim, vigor, and pleasure. The principal sets an example by working hard himself. The principal does personal favors for teachers. Teachers eat lunch by them- selves in their own classroom. The moral of the teachers is high. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. '108 Rarely Sometimes Occurs Occurs The principal uses construc- tive criticism. Often Frequently Occurs The principal stays after school to help teachers finish their work. Teachers socialize together in small select groups. The principal makes all class—scheduling decisions. Teachers are contacted by the principal each day. The principal is well prepared when he speaks at school functions. The principal helps staff members settle minor differences. The principal schedules the work for the teachers. Teachers leave the grounds during the school day. Teachers help select which courses will be taught. The principal corrects teachers' mistakes. The principal talks a great deal. The principal explains his reasons for criticism to teachers. The principal tries to get better salaries for teachers. Extra duty for teachers is posted conspicuously. Very Occurs 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 109 Very Rarely Sometimes Often Frequently Occurs Occurs Occurs The rules set by the principal are never questioned. Occurs The principal looks out for the personal welfare of teachers. School secretarial service is available for teachers' use. The principal runs the faculty meeting like a business conference. The principal is in the building before teachers arrive. Teachers work together pre— paring administrative reports. Faculty meetings are organized according to a tight agenda. Faculty meetings are mainly principal-report meetings. The principal tells teachers of new ideas he has run across. Teachers talk about leaving the school system. The principal checks the subject matter ability of teachers. The principal is easy to uncerstand. Teachers are informed of the results of a supervisor's visit. The principal insures that teachers work to their full capacity. November 24th, 1974 Dear Principal: I am a foreign student presently working on a dissertation to complete my doctoral degree at Michigan State University. As part of my dis- sertation, I would like to ask your permission to do a research in your school. The purpose of the project is to study the relationships between several kinds of leadership and organizational behavior of teachers. All individuals participating will remain anonymOus and school districts will not be identified by name in the dissertation. This research may be useful to other educators and especially to other developing countries, such as Thailand. Specifically I want to find what differences, if any, may be related to the length of tenure of the principal in a particular school, to the amount of his or her overall experience as a principal and to the number of principalships he or she may have held. This is part of a much larger study that would support or refute the claim that rotating assignments for principals would be desirable. This study is being conducted with the knowledge and approval of your superintendent. If you approve your teachers' participation, as we hope you will, we'd appreciate having your teachers return the enclosed form to us. After the completion of this study an abstract of the findings will be sent to you. Sincerely, Vuti Laosunthorn Archibald B. Shaw, Professor 410 Erickson Hall Educational Administration Michigan State University Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824 102 APPENDIX I I I 103 November 245h, 1974 Dear Teacher: I am a foreign student presently working on a dissertation to complete my doctOral degree at Michigan State University. As part of my dis- sertation, we had asked permission and approval of your superintendent and principal to conduct this research. The purpose of the project is to study the relationships between several kinds of leadership and organizational behavior of teachers. All individuals participating will remain anonymous and school districts will not be identified by name in the dissertation. This research may be useful to other educators and especially to other developing countries, such as Thailand. Specifically I want to find what differences, if any, may be related to the length of tenure of the principal in a particular school, to the amount of his or her overall experience as a principal and to the number of principalships he or she may have held. This is part of a much larger study that would support or refute the claim that rotating assignments for principals would be desirable. There is a good deal of interest in the role the elementary school principal may play in curriculum development and this study will be based on data from teachers in representative schools. This instrument is in 2 parts. Part I (Items 1-64) is the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) devised by Drs. Halpin and Croft and reproduced with permission of the Macmillan Company of New York. Part II (Items 65-69) provides some general biographical data of yourself. Please, return both parts to your principal in the sealed envelope enclosed. As teachers we recognize the importance of your time, and have developed a questionnaire that will take as little of your time as possible. We are very grateful for your cooperation which is so valuable to this survey. Sincerely, Vuti Laosunthorn Archibald B. Shaw, Professor 410 Erickson Hall Educational Administration Michigan State University Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824 104 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY (Department of Educational Administration) QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS PART I (OCDQ) Items 1—64 INSTRUCTION: Please answer them by marking BEE of the set of lines provided for each answer. Do not dwell too long on any one item, but answer it as you think the situation exists in your school. There are a total of 64 items that should not take more than a few minutes to answer. As an individual you cannot be identified with this instrument. Very Rarely Sometimes Often Frequently Occurs Occurs Occurs Occurs 1. Teachers' closest friends are other faculty members at this school. 2. The mannerisms of teachers at this school are annoying 3. Teachers spend time after school with students who have individual problems. 4. Instructions for the operation of teaching aids are available. 5. Teachers invite other faculty members to visit them at home. 6. There is a minority group of teachers who always oppose the majority. Reprinted by Vuti Laosunthorn with permission of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. from Relating School Climate to Principals' Stability and Mobility as perceived by Teachers. @Copyright by Andrew W. Halpin, 1966. 105 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 106 Very Rarely Sometimes Often Frequently Occurs Occurs Occurs Occurs Extra books are available for classroom use. Sufficient time is given to prepare administrative reports. Teachers know the family background of other faculty members. Teachers exert group pressure on nonconforming faculty members. In faculty meetings, there is the feeling of "let's get things done." Administrative paper work is burdensome at this school. Teachers talk about their personal life to other faculty members. Teachers seek special favors from the principal. School supplies are readily available for use in classwork. Student progress reports require too much work. Teachers have fun socializing together during school time. Teachers interrupt other faculty members who are talk— ing in staff meetings. Most of the teachers here accept the faults of their colleagues. Teachers have too many committee requirements. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 107 Very Rarely Sometimes Often Frequently Occurs Occurs Occurs Occurs There is considerable laughter when teachers gather informally. Teachers ask nonsensical questions in faculty meetings. Custodial service is avail— able when needed. Routine duties interfere with the job of teaching. Teachers prepare administrative reports by themselves. Teachers ramble when they talk in faculty meetings. Teachers at this school show much school spirit. The principal goes out of his way to help teachers. The principal helps teachers solve personal problems. Teachers at this school stay by themselves. The teachers accomplish their work with great vim, vigor, and pleasure. The principal sets an example by working hard himself. The principal does personal favors for teachers. Teachers eat lunch by them— selves in their own classroom. The moral of the teachers is high. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 108 Rarely Sometimes Often Frequently Occurs Occurs Occurs The principal uses construc— tive criticism . Very Occurs The principal stays after school to help teachers finish their work. Teachers socialize together in small select groups. The principal makes all class-scheduling decisions. Teachers are contacted by the principal each day. The principal is well prepared when he speaks at school functions. The principal helps staff members settle minor differences. The principal schedules the work for the teachers. Teachers leave the grounds during the school day. Teachers help select which courses will be taught. The principal corrects teachers' mistakes. The principal talks a great deal. The principal explains his reasons for criticism to teachers. The principal tries to get better salaries for teachers. Extra duty for teachers is posted conspicuously. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 109 Very Rarely Sometimes Often Frequently Occurs Occurs Occurs The rules set by the principal are never questioned. Occurs The principal looks out for the personal welfare of teachers. School secretarial service is available for teachers' use. The principal runs the faculty meeting like a business conference. The principal is in the building before teachers arrive. Teachers work together pre— paring administrative reports. Faculty meetings are organized according to a tight agenda. Faculty meetings are mainly principal-report meetings. The principal tells teachers of new ideas he has run across. Teachers talk about leaving the school system. The principal checks the subject matter ability of teachers. The principal is easy to uncerstand. Teachers are informed of the results of a supervisor's visit. The principal insures that teachers work to their full capacity. 110 PART II Please, give the information about yourself asked for below: 65. Your sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Male Female 66. Your age group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-29 30-39 40—49 50—59 60-69 67. How many different principals has this school had since you have been here? . . . . . . . . . . 68. How many years have served at this school? 69. Total years of experience in teaching? APPENDIX IV 111 SCORING FOR THE OCDQ - IV Subscales (I. (II. Characteristics of the Group) Disengagement 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, (10 items) 38, 60 Hindrance 4*, 8*, 12, 16, 20, 24 (6 items) Esprit 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 21, 23, 27, (10 items) 31, 35 Intimacy 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 25*, 56 (7 items) Behavior of the Leader) Aloofness 34, 40, 44, 51, 53*, 54, 57, 58, (9 items) 63* Production Emphasis 39, 43, 46, 47, 50, 61, 64 (7 items) Thrust 28, 32, 36, 41, 48, 52, 55, 59, (9 items) 62 Consideration 29, 33, 37, 42, 45, 49 (6 items) Response Score Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Frequently Occurs Donor—I * Scored Negatively 112 "IllllllllIll“