A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE SELF ~ PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR OF PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EXECUTIVES Thesis for the Degree of Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JOSEPH S. RAWLINGS 1970 i.-.m.' I A‘h .u...t'—--‘- - - IIIIIIIIIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIIIIIIIII M University ,. Thisqis. to certify that the thesis entitled A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE SELF-PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR OF PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EXECUTIVES presented 119 JOSEPH S . RAWLI NGS has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for I D_00_t928_ degree in Mn gamete a)or professor l 9 Date 70 0-169 II .' {W 2:); sta-u“ W ’5’- ML”. N5 M” ‘L W 7 ., a m j’W 31 W .II...lV hlguofllrLua‘V LI liwuguw 4?... 3.)) W: - cabana comer: mewrv'ss by Joseph S. Rawlings gym A “ se of the Study It was the purpose of this study to identify the self- perceived leadership behavior of public school superin- tendents and chamber of commerce executives in Indiana. It was hypothesized that the chamber of commerce executive is to commercial activities as the public school superintendent is to education in any community. Carlson1 has developed a typology which suggests that the public school can be con- 5.7i_ ll. sidered a "domesticated" service organization and the chamber ‘ ‘. h of commerce an example of a "wild" service organization. . Therefore, this study further sought to identify statisti- : cally significant differences in leadership behavior between i w and among these two groups which might be isolated and I studied and thus provide the basis for recommendations for ' amended behavior of status leaders in both types of organizations. Procedure and Methodology Stogdill2 has developed a Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire which is designed to measure twelve dimensions of leadership behavior. This instrument was administered to sixty public school superintendents and ” Vsixty chamber of commerce executives from the same m:‘:; ;? « . ,,, jg ‘Eiit'ilifi ifid complexity of asnfiiuh»: Wiifiiea irI important factors in adminic- -: , ‘lviriflecess. 'Consequently, nineteen hypotheses Comb Iiirifig responses between and among groups on this basis, were tested using the one-way analysis of variance technique. Findings between groups Significant differences were found between public I7 school superintendents and chamber of commerce executives I! in three of the twelve dimensions of leadership behavior I measured by the LBDQ Form XII. Superintendents had higher mean scores in the dimensions of "Tolerance of Uncertainty" and "Predictive Accuracy." Executives had a higher mean score in the dimension of "Superior Orientation." The oldest superintendents had a higher mean score than did the oldest executives in the "Predictive Accuracy" dimension. The youngest executives had a higher mean score than the youngest superintendents on the "Superior The least experienced superintendents had a higher mean score in the "Tolerance of Uncertainty" dimension than Orientation" dimension. l} l% (? did the least experienced executives. The least tenure executives had higher mean scores 'T in the "Consideration" and "Production Emphasis" dimensions than did the least tenure superintendents. -?3 fluvialaaeedtexeeutives. Gibb least tenure executives had higher mean Beaten-5- FMLOEIHFE§nsideration" Q and ”Production Emphasis" dimensionfiw *than did the least tenure superintendents. Large community superintendents had higher mean scores in the dimensions of "Tolerance of Uncertainty" and "Tolerance of Freedom" than did large community execu- tives. Executives from the large communities had a higher mean score than did the large community superintendents in the "Superior Orientation" dimension of leadership. Small community superintendents had higher mean scores in the "Demand Reconciliation" and "Tolerance of Uncertainty" dimensions than did small community executives. Findings among superintendents Superintendents with the longest tenure in position ‘ h were found to have a higher mean score in the "Consideration" EMT-h dimension than did superintendents with the shortest tenure - 9‘ in position. No other statistically significant differences were ‘ 'M.E identified among superintendents on the basis of age, experience, educational level, or size of community served. Findings among executives The youngest executives were found to have hiQher mean scores than did the oldest executives in ,_ .‘Ir ' ' -¢§g’< Iii experieneed executives had a higher mean .mdgfifi than did least experienced executives in the "Toleramég j- .13.nhcertainty" dimension. Executives from the largest communities were found to have higher mean scores than did executives from the smallest communities in the "Tolerance of Uncertainty" and "Superior Orientation" dimensions of leadership. Men executives had higher mean scores than women executives in the dimensions of "Representation" and "Persuasiveness." Women executives had higher mean scores I 3}. than men executives in the "Tolerance of Freedom” dimension of leadership. 1Richard O. Carlson, "Environmental Constraints and Organizational Consequences: The Public School and Its Clients," Behavioral Science and Educational Administration. The Sixty—third NSSE Yearbook. Edited by Daniel E. Griffiths. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1964, pp. 262-276. 2Ralph M. Stogdill, "Manual for the Leader Behavior L. . Description Questionnaire, Form XII," An Experimental Revision. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau for Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State University, 1963, p. l. I 3Carroll L. Shartle, Executive Performance and I: Leadership. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1956, pp. 151—171. . Jr. 4 I . .III. Ihthhcl IIHIIIY I . -., whiskey... - .4. HI .r Ilalllllt’ v Tween-Ives BY \ [l 0 & JOSEPH 5.x RAWLINGS A THESIS ‘ ‘ M5,” 533:--l . . Submitted to I I Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of on.‘ ._.¥ w... is." ‘I l ‘I. -_1:" DOCTOR OF EDUCATION THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 1970 "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." W. I. Thomas ”.1, ‘Ct axu‘- . W“; .. - Q" ~. '.'I .2. .‘... a; m- I ~v .. _.~._ .‘ ”‘1'" .m c . '.“II‘T H h t 0 rs. I: ,36 the-ebntributions of others toward ‘3. flirtatious]. progress reveals that many have pm : ,,g_ encouragement and support during his program of ‘ fireduate work. Sincere appreciation is expressed to each of many friends, teachers, and fellow students. Special appreciation is expressed to the Mott Foundation whose Fellowship made possible the program of graduate work at Michigan State University. The assistance provided by Dr. David C. Smith, who chaired the author's doctoral committee, was invaluable in completing the doctoral program. His efforts are grate— fully acknowledged. The writer wishes to express his particular appreciation to Dr. Clyde M. Campbell, whose interest and :13: concern is reflected by his continued professional support ‘ .T159 and encouragement. I Appreciation is extended to both Dr. James B. McKee 'h{* and Dr. Dale V. Alam who have provided advice and direction it in the development of the author's graduate program and l have served as members of the writer's doctoral committee. The contributions of public school superintendents 12‘ and chamber of commerce executives were crucial to this study. Their participation is sincerely appreciated. Finally, the last expression of gratitude is saved for the members of the writer's family. Without their total support, and many sacrifices, no such effort would ~ire been possible. 2 w /v i D I I. 6 J c a a ‘uo....... 7 é:' _ :35.d%.§.....................uaueaa VME‘kl‘na of Study......................... fiypotheses.................................. Scope and Limitations....................... Procedures and Techniques................... Definition Of Terms.......................oo Summary........................,............ 15 II. A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE-oc....-ooooonoo 18 Historical BaCkgroundoooooo00.000.000.000... 18 Recent Studies Of LeaderShipooo-oooooooooono 19 Leadership Practices........................ 25 Bureaucratic Theory......................... 29 Authority................................... 33 Problems of Educational Bureaucracy......... 3S Commonality of Organizations................ 40 Summary..................................... 42 III. METHODOLOGY USED IN THE STUDY................. 44 The Instruments............................. 44 M d!” The Population and Administration........... 51 N HIM Statistical Hypotheses...................... 52 ’ 1” Experimental Design......................... 56 Techniques Used in Data Analysis............ 57 SummarYI0.0...CU....I...‘UOOCOOOOQUOUOCOCOC. u} /vii éfiypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis f ‘L L‘ Q g io‘r‘jg‘ll..gpoooo.o.coco-oooooooooiooioo‘iv . 2................................. 3................................. 4................................. 5................................. 6................................. 7................................. 8................................. 9................................. 10................................ 11.............;.................. 12...................;............ 13................................ 14................................ 15................................ 16................................ 17................................ 18...........................~.... 190......OOOI..COOOOIIOCOOOCOIOOIO summarYOOIOOOOOCOOOO0.....O...‘.............. V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS.......... Summary...C0....-OCOO...-I...........0.0..... Conclusions.......oa.....o.....o-.-..o.o..... Implications for Further Research............ _ viii . .‘.n|:{ ,5 :flypio-obuéooocoqooii6§yfl;;3~ 106 #1., ..~p;_-vl,-A;,-u- 3 - ‘3 - A ‘ a boo.»OOQOQooooooo-ooooooooogtgnfi‘o “or.“ v f“ c’OQOIOCOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOI. (~1- DIOODOOOOOQOIOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOICOO-IOCOOQQ“.- 4" A; .‘4. . D: - . “ I ' J I ‘l-- i t ‘w 3.. mg . JR 5‘ .‘fr .8- "‘0“? J *a. a- VFF‘ 4- , . .: I‘Vl ; .55. ',‘,'_>‘- . ,i "'3 ‘A‘v'iiah§.‘ 4 . ~ _ p, , a, A“ "as; modified :1 w— ? t ' .417 (“ii Nfi, flf'ififia‘Pom XII. o o o o o '0 a :0»; d O D 9‘; I "-f"1 Mus of a one-may analysis of variance between the responses of public school superintendents and chamber of commerce executives on the LBDQ-Form XII............... 4.2 Results of a one—way analysis of variance between the responses of the oldest superin- tendents and the youngest superintendents on the LBDQ-Form XII.......................... 64 4.3 Results of a one—way analysis of variance between the responses of the most experienced superintendents and the least experienced superintendents on the LBDQ- Form XII................................. .... 66 4.4 Results of a one-way analysis of variance between the responses of superintendents with the longest tenure in position and superintendents with the shortest tenure 5,‘ i in position on the LBDQ—Form XII.............. 68 4.5 Results of a one—way analysis of variance between the responses of superintendents from the largest communities and superin- tendents from the smallest communities on the LBDQ-Fom XII...COOOCQOOC.‘OOCOOOOOOCCO-C. X LL. . gpqnses of superintendents "Io-‘3 . - gpldigg the doctorate and superintendents. W i‘.- who do not hold the doctorate on the LBDQ~Form XII................................. 4.7 Results of a one-way analysis of variance between the responses of the oldest . ‘.; chamber of commerce executives and the youngest chamber of commerce executives on the LBDQ—Form XII.......................... 74 4.8 Results of a one—way analysis of variance between the responses of the most {Fg' experienced chamber of commerce executives and the least experienced chamber of commerce executives on the LBDQ-Form XII...... 76 4.9 Results of a one-way analysis of variance between the responses of chamber of commerce executives with the longest i: tenure in position and chamber of commerce 1? executives with shortest tenure in position on the LBDQ-Form XII................. 78 4.10 Results of a one-way analysis of variance between the responses of chamber of commerce executives from the largest xi *Qtfive§»frun~the“smallest communities w fihe LBwrom XII...OOOOOIOOOOOIOOOOOODOOO Results of a one—way analysis of variance between the responses of men chamber of’ commerce executives and women chamber of commerce executives on the LBDQ-Form XII..... 82 4.12 Results of a one—way analysis of variance between the responses of the oldest superintendents and the oldest chamber of commerce executives on the LBDQ- Form XII..................................... 84 4.13 Results of a one-way analysis of variance between the responses of the most experienced superintendents and the most experienced chamber of commerce executives on the LBDQ-Form XII 86 Hula! 4.14 Results of a one-way analysis of variance “L32. between the responses of the superin- tendents with the longest tenure in position and the chamber of commerce executives with the longest tenure in pOSition on the LBDQ’Form XIIooooooooooeooooe xii -. ‘0’4.’ v ...'1 n‘;g;“ygig of 73:13'4u 3"‘1«3m?:‘1‘1‘3‘33383'3es of the superin. \ téfiflénts from the largest communities and the chamber of commerce executives from the largest communities on the LBDQ- Form XII..................................... 4.16 Results of a one-way analysis of variance between the responses of the youngest superintendents and the youngest chamber of commerce executives on the LBDQ- Form XII..................................... 92 4.17 Results of a one-way analysis of variance 'r‘ between the responses of the least 1 J experienced superintendents and the least experienced chamber of commerce 'r.:-i executives on the LBDQ—Form XII.............. 94 "31 4.18 Results of a one-way analysis of variance between the responses of the superin— . H (._ tendents and the least tenure in position and the chamber of commerce executives with the least tenure in position on the LBDQ-Form XII................................ 96 4.19 Results of a one-way analysis of variance between the responses of the superin- tendents from the smallest communities xiii 34|\. . r “ -"' 0 I ‘ l ‘ A :1‘ T. - swm‘t‘momunities on the Q 4 .. 1 - ‘ “momn10.04-e‘o-oooooooooooooooocanoe-once ‘j 375.1 Summary of self-perceived differences in leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between public school super- intendents and chamber of commerce executives in Indiana........................ 108 5.2 Summary of self-perceived differences in leadership behavior on an age basis as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between public school superintendents and chamber of commerce executives in Indiana............ 110‘ 5.3 Summary of self-perceived differences in leadership behavior on an experience in position basis as measured by the LBDQ- 1,. Q Form XII between public school superin- :2) %y; tendents and chamber of commerce executives 1:1 giij in Indiana................................... 112 5.4 Summary of self-perceived differences in leadership behavior on a tenure in position basis as measured by the LBDQ- Form XII between public school superin- tendents and chamber of commerce executives in Indiana................................... xiv ,__.._._ A . l-r._‘A . mkfimfln on a, size of 'coilunity served basis as measured by the LBDQ-I-‘orm XII between public school a r . ‘ 3*“? superintendents and chamber of commerce 3""? _ ‘_;:. executives in Indiana........................ 'fifi ifié " 5.6 Summary of self-perceived differences in '3? leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between men and women who are chamber of commerce executives in Indiana...................................... 119 5.7 Summary of self—perceived differences in leadership behavior as measured by the L" LBDQ-Form XII between public school superintendents who hold the doctorate and those who do not hold the doctorate 5 A in Indiana....................o.o.........o.o 120 h'a‘- _ _ :‘M‘ '7“? ‘1“7d ..3.-‘ INTRODUCTORY STAEEMENT o 0 Ih‘recent years the public school superintendent fies: V 85ceived increasing criticism from many quarters in the united States. Implicit in that criticism has been the sug- ‘ gestion that he would somehow function differently if he were '~:; trained in some other manner or if he had some other as yet . inadequately defined experience. Talbot suggested in Harper's Magazine that "we need a new breed of school superintendent."l .He suggested that they should be drawn from other fields, such as business and the professions. Goslin in an address to the AASA took strong exception to the Harper's Magazine article. He suggested that all of his experience as a superintendent of schools indicated that the decisions to be taken should be rooted in educational understanding and experience. He further states that: .',Afl I have no notion that this nation of ours hopes and ‘fgt aspirations can be served by turning to business and ”’5 to anthropology for superintendents of schools in l" this country. What I am certain of is, that the ' superintendency in America tomorrow doesn't depend on the source from which we are drawn and neither does it depend too much on the nature of our 1A 5 Allan R. Talbot, "Needed: A New Breed of School 3.” uPerintendent, " Harper' 5 Magazine, February, 1966, pp. 81-87. V”““‘,.V '! Q-.. 2 -‘E!periences on the campus. The future of the super— !ntendency in America depends on how well we are able to cope with, how much leadership we are able to give American communities and the American scene, how much forward thrust we can give to closing the gap between the needs of this nation and its edu- cational program. This is what American people will measure us by in the next decade and the next generation.2 Humphrey in discussing a "New Educational Policy for America" listed three essential elements as being of primary importance in its development. They were: First, we must be willing to pay the cost of quality education at all levels. Second, we must provide not just mass education, but individual education. Third, we must overhaul educational administration.3 The foregoing is indicative of the interest being expressed through literary, educational, and political figures about the administrative leadership of American schools. This study seeks to identify the self—perceived lead- ership behavior of public school superintendents as well as that of chamber of commerce executives in Indiana. We are, then, examining the self-perceived behavior of "status" leaders, those from whom, because of position, leadership is expected. There is general agreement that what a person believes about himself has a profound effect on how he behaves. Tyler observes: 2American Association of School Administrators, Your AASA in Nineteen Sixty—five Sixty—six (Washington, D.C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1966), p. 173. 3Hubert H. Humphrey, "A New Educational Policy for America," Compact, August, 1968, pp. 5-7. I]? ‘ r¢_ f‘. NA» 3 The concepts a man holds about himself are powerful directives for his behavior—-to understand any individual, we need to know what he things he is, what values he holds, what his goals are, as well According to Ittelson and Cantril, the three major characteristics of human perception are that: A. Perception can be studied only in terms of trans- actions, that is, concrete individuals dealing with concrete situations. B. Perception comes into the transaction from the Griffiths6 points out that the concept most difficult to understand is that of transaction. Ordinarily, the term "interaction" is used to describe what goes on between an individual and his environment. We say, "Man interacts with his environment and brings about desired change." This assumes that "man" and his "environment" exist as inde— pendent entities and that when they interact, they do so without affecting their own identity. The concept of _____________________ 4Ralph W. Tyler, "Human Behavior," NBA Journal, XLIV (October, 1955), 426. 5William H. Ittelson and Hadley Cantril, Perception (New York: Random House, 1954), p. 3. 6 aniel E. Griffiths, "Administration as Decision D - - - - ' ion ed. by Makin " 1n Administrative Theory in Bducat , Andreg’w. Halpin (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1967), p. 125. L "r .J- ‘1 ‘g 4 transaction uses the content of the interaction as a subject IF‘ matter to be discussed. Ittelson and Cantril state: Neither a perception of an object—-as perceived-- exists independent of the total life situation of which both perception and object are a part. It is meaningless to speak of either as existing apart from the situation in which it is encountered. The word transaction is used to label such a situation. For the word transaction carries the double implication: (1) That all parts of the situation enter into it as active participants, and (2) That they owe their very existence as encountered in the situation to this fact of active participation and do not appear as already existing entities merely interacting with each other without affecting their own identity.7 The concept of personal behavior means that the per- son enters into a transaction from his own unique position. He is different from all others in the transaction. "When we perceive, we externalize certain aspects to our experience, and thereby create for ourselves our own world of things and 8 people, of sights and sounds, of tastes and touches." Each situation will be perceived differently by different individuals, and each individual will assume to be real that which he perceives. He will then act accord- ingly. This has been summarized as follows: "Perceiving is that part of the process of living which each of us, from his own particular point of View, creates for himself, the World within which he has his life experiences, and through _._____________________ 7Ittelson and Cantril, Perception, p. 3. 8Ibid., p. 5. k 5 which he strives to gain his satisfactions."9 This set of ' concepts, of course, is important in arriving at a determi- nation of what is to be done, and is relevant to leader behavior.10 This study seeks to discover self-perceived dif- ferences in leadership behavior of "status" leaders. The public school superintendent functions in a hierarchy. Goldhammer states: The basic pattern which prevails among school districts of the country is a rigid hierarchial schools. It exercises its authority through its professional administrators, who have the limited itself.11 However, he points to a change in our society and its attendant needs when he says: This rigid authoritarian structure for the governance of public education was tolerable at a time when society expected its offic1als to \ 91bid. lOGriffiths, "Decision Making," p. 125. llKeith Goldhammer, "Local Provisions for Education: " The Organization and Operation of School Systems and Schools, I _ 'g ' ' ' Desi ns 1n DeSi nin Education for the Future No. 5 (Emerging 9 q by Edgar L. Morphet and DaVld L. Jesser for Education),ed. z ew York: Citation Press, 1968), p. 79. 6 be strong, paternalistic rulers and when teachers were ill-prepared to assume professional responsi- bilities. As the citizens of our society have become better educated, their expectations for involvement in government decision making have become more intense, and as teachers have become better prepared and more professionally compe— tent, they have increasingly resisted being treated as "hired hands." Both the culture of the emerging non-paternalistic society and of the professionally—oriented, rather than the hierarchial school organization, demand significant changes in how schools of the future are governed.12 The chamber of commerce executive is an employee of a voluntary association. As such, it is hypothesized that he functions differently in a climate which is denied the structure of a hierarchy. As a representative of profes- sional leadership serving volunteer groups, he works with many diverse professionally competent people toward mutually acceptable community goals.13 It is suggested that the behavior of "status" leaders in volunteer groups may suggest behaviors which should be considered by "status leaders" of hierarchial organizations in an explosive society. Importance of Study The professional school superintendent is hired by a school board to administer the affairs of the school district and to carry out any and all policies adopted by _______________________ lzIbid. 13 M nager and His Job Ormand F. Lyman The Chamber a (Rev. ed.; Washington, DZC.: American Chamber of Commerce Executives, Inc., 1958). N. 7 them. However, typically the superintendent finds himself in the middle, between the aspirations of the professional staff, the directions of the school board, and the growing citizen involvement in public affairs. If he is perceived as being aligned with the school board he may alienate the professional staff. on the other hand, if he is perceived as being associated mainly with teachers, he may be courting disfavor with the school board. In addition to this, he is faced with the problems of dis- sident groups who feel that they are not being adequately represented on the school board. His task then is to seek to develop leadership behavior which will allow him to work productively with all groups. Cave has suggested that such a development is necessary to reduce conflict to a minimal state.14 The chamber of commerce executive is working within the same community with many of the same groups, toward Chamber of commerce goals. It is hypothesized that the Chamber of commerce executive is to commercial activities as the superintendent of schools is to education in any Community. Therefore, we hope to identify significant differences in leadership behavior which might be isolated and studied and thus provide the basis for recommendations ______________________ l4David Raymond Dave, A Critical Study of the Leader, BEhavior of School Administrators in Conflicthwitg gegfhers . o p I I I u 1- Efligflg (LanSing, Michigan. Office of Researc an Cations, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1967), p. 116. ‘ 5:. v..‘|' ' 0’ . | * , Basic flypgthesis ' r r__'1 ' a 'i.' 'The basic hypothesis is that there are differences ' ‘13Ih the selfeperceived leadership behavior of public school " superintendents and chamber of commerce executives in Indiana. ‘ Shartle suggests that age, tenure in position, and size and complexity of community or organization served are important factors in administrative success.15 Conse- quently, we further hypothesize that differences within groups will be found on the basis of age, sex, education, experience, tenure in position and size of community served. Specific Hypotheses 1. There are statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between public school superintendents and local executives of chambers of commerce in Indiana. 2. There are statistically significant differences " " t among the dimensions of leadership behavior ‘ I as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between the "if Carroll L. Shartle, Executive Performance and 15 Leadershi (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1956), pp. 151-171. 4. 6. measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the most experienced and the least experienced superinas \ tendents. ' ' 0 NT There are statistically significant differences ~ ".- among the dimensions of leadership behavior as i measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the superintendents with the longest tenure in position and the superintendents with the shortest tenure in position. There are statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the superintendents from the largest communities and the superintendents from the smallest communities. There are statistically significant differences ‘3.; among the dimensions of leadership behavior as 3'.t H measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between superin- tendents who hold the doctorate and those who do not hold the doctorate. There are statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the 10. 11. 12. measured by the Lana-Form XII between the most experienced chamber of commerce executives and the least experienced chamber of commerce executives. There are statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the chamber of commerce executives with the longest tenure in position and the chamber of Commerce executives with the shortest tenure in position. There are statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the chamber of commerce executives from the largest communities and the chamber of commerce executives from the smallest communities. There are statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between men and women who are local executives of the chamber of commerce in Indiana. There are statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as "'71:.- A — ‘,-’\_“.)1 _, Ah.- 9. ~t? _ am i’wle. 14. 15. 16. 17. was the dimensions of leadership behavior/w; -‘ . l. as measured by the LBDQ—Form XII between the most experienced superintendents and the most experienced chamber of commerce executives. There are statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between the superintendents with the longest tenure in position and the chamber of commerce executives with the longest tenure in position. There are statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between superin- tendents from the largest communities and the chamber of commerce executives from the largest communities. There are statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ—Form XII between the youngest superintendents and the youngest chamber of commerce executives. There are statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as . .- i . . tun“; | ‘ , fi"§h‘ ;fif KL'>_,.uu. nor eemmeftd'!fic'b'x‘, . ,. , v ~tFP v ‘ ;; M“: . . "- war" we! " V M“? ELIwa ”'1e.are statistically significant differences' If ‘ ‘f\“ 4’ «u‘ T among the dimensions of leadership behavior ziflfug.9 'H " . as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the superintendents with the least tenure in position and the chamber of commerce executives with the least tenure in position. 19. There are statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ~Form XII between superin- tendents from the smallest communities and I9) .14.!" chamber of commerce executives from the smallest communities. 1£_ :ad '77 ’..'-' _ a..." . ‘_. A -i-r . “g Scope apd Limitations This study constituted an attempt to contrast the .1' A ' a-‘Vfw ‘ eon —. ’ .“ self-perceived leadership behavior of public school super- intendents and chamber of commerce executives in Indiana. The basic test instrument is a leader behavior description ' Questionnaire which was administered to both groups in 'Ei 1 Indiana. The instrument is described in the next section. The study was conducted in only those communities in Indiana which retain both the professional superintendent of schools and the professional chamber of commerce executive._- .ffigggnPresident of_ Indiana Chamber of Commerce the President of the Indiana Association of Public . 7SEhool Superintendents was made to solicit their support. The technique used for gathering the data was the distribution of questionnaires which were designed to elicit the self-perceived leadership behavior of the respondents. The instrument used is a refinement by Stogdill of a questionnaire first developed by Halpin and used in his study of fifty school superintendents. The instrument is called "The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire" and is referred to in this study as the LBDQ.16 The LBDQ was designed to measure twelve specific “'V% dimensions of leader behavior. The dimensions follow: 1. Representation—-speaks and acts as the repre— lzif sentative of the group (5 items). 2. Demand reconciliation——reconciles conflicting demands and reduces disorder to system (5 items). ‘ 3. Tolerance of uncertainty-—is able to tolerate .l , uncertainty and postponement without anxiety or upset (10 items). , 16Ralph M. Stogdill, "Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII, " An Ex erimental Revisi n. , . Columbus, Ohio: Bureau for Business Research, College of CW ‘h' n ‘ fierce and Administration, The Ohio State University, 1963. fAkimx .-_:.. ,m. ‘ t5$9tffifléy _43. I Mi; fi‘of’i’éi‘ucture—«l early definég‘m N. U. ~Li‘Jfimift-J, and lets followers know what is expectefi" It. 10. 11. 12. (10 items). Tolerance of freedom—-allows followers scope for initiative, decision, and action (10 items). ‘ W Role assumption—-actively exercises the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others (10 items). Consideration—-regards the comfort, well-being, status, and contributions of followers (10 items). Production emphasis-—applies pressure for productive output (10 items). Predictive accuracy—~exhibits foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately (5 items). Integration-~maintains a closely knit organi- zation; resolves intermember conflicts (5 items). Superior orientation-~maintains cordial relations with superiors; has influence with them; is striving for higher status (10 items). The LBDQ was administered to both public school superintendents and local executives of chambers of commerce. Twelve subscale scores were obtained from each respondent. i 37:. *2: ”+5-54 r ‘ ‘ _ . . V.~._~.~ If- F) In ~,._ I .“ F5. v.1” u. 'v- ‘0‘»; N‘w‘; fl .5 '. ~. ’ U": ‘. .1. . I #‘study 143 . r .. _.:.: -a‘:~. ‘3: , “vhf—teeter valuation ascribed to the suba‘ New $"There-is merely an attempt to discover differences 5:{,74. ’ V I" .' I u a rafi'the twelve dimensions of leadership measured by the Definition of Terms LBDQ--Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (Form XII—Revised). Public School Superintendent-—chief executive officer appointed by the school board for the purpose of -._ carrying out school board policies through an adminis— .bg- '. 31y trative office or position. Chamber of Commerce Executive--chief executive officer appointed by the governing board of the local chamber of commerce for the purpose of carrying out chamber of commerce policies through an administrative office or position. Summapy - i . The superintendency of American schools is presently f, under great stress. Some of the problems are those of rw‘ society seeking to respond adequately to those groups who have been deprived and who now demand to be heard. The problems of hunger, of racial prejudice, of citizen Y 2. many emf-um: nails? .3,- v p ' : attributable to the leader behavior 91’ m' ’ ~, _, dent. This study sought to contrast the self-perceived ' behavior of the superintendent who functions in a hierarchy, with the local executive of the chamber of commerce, who deals largely with volunteers, in an effort to obtain sig- nificant differences in the self-perceived leadership behavior. No value is ascribed to the dimensions of leader- ship measured. However, any significant differences obtained ' ~.i. may give an indication of the appropriate directions for , adjustment of hierarchial behavior when working with diverse groups in the development of educational policy for the local community. This study was limited to sixty communities in Indiana who support both the professional superintendent of schools and the professional executive of the chamber of commerce. For the purposes of this study, the superin- tendent was defined as a full-time public school adminis- trator, and the executive was defined as a full-time, paid employee of the local chamber of commerce. The test instrument was a leader behavior description questionnaire designed to elicit the self—perceived leader— ship behavior of the respondents. Twelve dimensions of Irr‘ U (I) (It [)1 (I) I!) II .- ‘ ‘ 9- '..$?{‘ A _ .. '.-- -‘- y...» r .2 an: " ’ .(Q i” V. ~ . '— 9 0’7 . “v.4 "x". -~' O! 1“. ~00'VI'. h" ~ "‘10. :7 _izmzw or rue LITERATURE n ., .‘, 1' ‘ ‘0“ . L‘ 1. \ Leadership ’ I Hisggrical Background 1:" The history of man since Adam is, at least in part, a story of the people of the earth and the quality of their leaders. An early listing of the personal requirements of leadership was given by Plato in Book VII of The Republic.1 Basic requirements were that the young man must be brave, noble, and intellectually superior. He should be magnanimous, display an even disposition and demonstrate a capacity for memorization. Those who were to be selected for training were to complete various cycles of preparation which lasted until they were fifty years old. At that point, those selected for leadership were to begin the study of philosophy and were expected to participate actively in the government of the state. ( ° One of the best known writers on leadership to ‘£ develop in the intervening years was Niccolo Machiavelli. He was chancellor in the Republic of Florence from 1492 _ 1Plato, The Re ublic, trans. by B. Jowett (New York: . The Modern Library5. u" 18 . Alt.-. , l ._ . x- .— 19 until 1512. Based on his observations of prominent leaders of his time, Machiavelli wrote a volume called De Princi— pipatibus more commonly referred to as The Prince.2 The primary purpose of this work was to set forth the principles which he felt were important in the government of a principality. He stressed a code of behavior for the prince, or ruler, to follow. The Prince is used today as a resource in some of the current writing on leadership. Recent Studies of Leadership Since about 1930 psychologists and sociologists have introduced the methods and knowledge of the social sciences into the study of leadership. This review of their work will address itself primarily to the actions of "status" leaders. The evolving concept of the literature is that leadership is not a term applying to the individual alone, but rather to a relationship between the individual in a group and the other members of the group.3 Leadership has been summarized by Knickerbocker as follows: 1. The symbolic or romantic conception of leaders, although widely prevalent, does not explain the phenomena of leadership. . . . The leader realistically and factually is not a person 2Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, trans. by W. K. Marriott (New York: E. P. Button and Co., 1908). 3G. G. Browne and Thomas S. Cohn, eds., The Study of Eeadership (Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1958), Introduction. 2O . endowed with a list of Characteristics which make him what he is. ' 2. When conceived in terms of the dynamics of the human social behavior, leadership is a function of needs existing in a given situation, and consists of a relationship between an individual and a group. 3. The functional relationship which is leadership exists when a leader is perceived by a group as controlling means for the satisfaction of their needs. . . . - 4. A leader may "emerge" as a means to the achieve- ment of objectives desired by a group. He may be selected, elected, or spontaneously accepted by the group because he possesses or controls means (skill, knowledge, money associations, property, etc.) which the group desires to utilize to attain their objectives to obtain increased need satisfaction. 5. On the other hand, the leader may appoint himself or be appointed by someone outside the group to be led. In this instance leadership is a means to the achievement of the leader's objectives 4 (of the objectives of those who appoint him). . . . Leadership has been defined a number of ways. McCloskey suggests that: Leadership is a process of stimulating and leading groups to define common goals and to devise voluntary means of moving toward them. Leadership is the structuring of voluntary group behavior. Leadership includes means of providing facts and ideas which help groups intelligently to define and reach objectives. Leadership involves making arrangements which facilitate constructive inter- action between group members.5 This process involves a two-way flow of influence-—from leaders to others, and from others to leaders. It aims at, 4Irving Knickerbocker, "Leadership: A Conception and Some Implications," in The Study_of Leadership, ed. by G. G. Browne and Thomas S. Cohn (Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1958), p. 252. 5Gordon McCloskey, Education and Public Under- §£229£Qg (New York: Harper-Row, 1959), p. 252. 21 and to a large degree results in, group interactions which generate group thought, group initiative, group responsi- bility, and group action. It contributes to fuller utilization of people's creative capacities, and increases their desire to expend energy purposefully.6 Gouldner defines a leader as any individual whose behavior stimulates patterning of the behavior in some group. By emitting some stimuli, he facilitates group action toward a goal or goals, whether the stimuli are verbal, written, or non-verbal. Whether they are rational, non- rational, or irrational in content is also irrelevant in its context. Whether the stimuli pertain to goals or to means, cluster about executive or perceptive operation, is a secondary consideration, so long as they result in the structuring of group behavior. Stogdill expresses the same idea: "Leadership may be considered as the process (act) of influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts toward goal setting and goal achievement." A definition of leadership relates it directly to the organized group and its goal. It appears that the minimum social conditions which permit leadership are the following: 1. a group (one of two or more persons) 2. a common task (or goal oriented activities) 61bid. 7Alvin W. Gouldner, Studies in Leadership (New York: Harper-Row, 1950), pp. 17—18. 22 3. differentiation of responsibility (some of the members have different duties.) There are innumerable other group situational factors which may influence leadership in varying degrees, but these appear to be the minimal conditions which will permit the emergence of leadership. There must be a group with a common task or objective, and at least one member must have responsibilities which differ from those of other members. If all members perform exactly the same duties in exactly the same way, there is no leadership. A leader then as a person becomes differentiated from other members in terms of the influence he exerts upon the goal setting and goal achievement activities of the organization. Cartwright and Zander add: Groups differ from one another in a variety of ways, and the actions required for the achievements of one group may be quite different from those of another. The nature of the group's goals, the structure of the group, the attitudes and needs of the members, and the expectation placed on the group by its external environment help to determine which group functions will be needed at any given time and who among the members will perform them. Stogdill has summarized research which indicates relationship between changing situations and the individual's ability to lead: fl 8Ralph M. Stogdill, "Leadership, Membership, and Organization," Psychological Bulletin, XLVII (January, 1950), 1-14. 9Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander, Group Dynamics Bgsearch and Theory (New York: Row and Peterson, 1956), p. 14. 23 A person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of traits, but the pattern of personal characteristics of the leader must bear some relevant relationship to the characteristics, activities, and goals of the followers. Thus, leadership must be conceived in terms of the interaction of variables which are in constant flux and change. The factor of change is especially characteristic of the situation, which may be radically altered by the addition or loss of members, changes in goals, competition of extra-group influences, and the title. The personal characteristics of a leader and of the persistence of individual patterns of human behavior in the face of constant situational change appears to be a primary obstacle encountered not only in the practice of leadership, but in the selection and placement of leaders. It is not especially difficult to find persons who are leaders. It is quite another matter to place these persons in different situations where they will be able to function as leaders. It becomes clear that an adequate analysis of leadership involves not only a study of leaders but also of situations. The findings suggest 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 demonstration of his capacity for carrying cooperative tasks through to completion. The significant aspects of this capacity for organizing and expediting cooperative effort appear to be intelligence, alertness to the needs and motives of others, and insight into situations furthered by such habits as responsibility, initiative, persistence, and self-confidence.lo High morale is widely recognized as the result of effective leadership. Research shows that people who are enthusiastic about their work and enjoy doing it produce . 10Ralph M. Stogdill, "Personal Factors Associated With Leadership: A Survey of the Literature," Journal of EEYChology, XXV (January, 1948), 35-71. 24 more and communicate more good will and approval to the public. The reverse has also been demonstrated.11 Research in personnel relations and group dynamics indicate that morale is mainly a matter of what groups know and feel about the purposes, organization, and results of their work. French summarizes this concept by saying: Morale refers to the condition of a group where there are clear and fixed group goals (purposes) that are felt to be important and integrated with individual goals, and subordinately, confidence in the means of attainment, in the leaders, associates, and finally in oneself; where group actions are integrated and cooperative; and where aggression and hostility are expressed against the forces frustrating the group rather than toward other individuals within the group.12 Roethlisberger, analyzing the problem of maintaining morale in a business organization, points to two types of administrative functions which may be equally essential in the school system. (1) maintaining internal equilibrium within the organization, that is, maintaining the kind of social organization in which individuals and groups through working together can obtain human satisfactions that will make them willing to contribute their services, (2) diagnosing possible sources of interference, locating sore spots, liquidating human tensions and strains among individuals and groups, helping people to orient themselves to their work groups spotting blockages in the channels of communications.13 11John R. P. French, Jr., "The Disruption and Cohesion of Groups," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXXVI (July, 1941), 376. l2Ibid. 13?. J. Roethlisberger, Management and Morale 192 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1941), p. . 25 Leadership Practices Both Pigors and French stress the importance of the structure of the involved social system in the development of leadership. Pigors states that when viewed in relation to the individual, leadership is not an attribute of personality but a quality of his role within a particular or specified social system. Viewed in relation to his group, leadership is a quality of the structure.14 French has suggested that the quality of the structure is determined by the attitudes of superiors and the general tone and efficiency of the organization. Some organi- zational conditions which encourage effective leadership are: Effective personnel policies and practices including effective staffing, a fair and equitable compensation program, effective avenues of communication and appeal, effective training and development, an appropriate attention to physical and emotional health, and where fair play and integrity are emphasized.15 French says that there are five aspects of effective leadership in business and industry which emerge from current research: l. The effective leader is technically competent enough to do some instructing and to develop more efficient methods. 2. Has higher intelligence than his subordinates. 14 Paul J. W. Pigors, Leadership for Domination (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1935), p. 16. 15 Wendell French, The Personnel Management Process (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1964), p. 536. 26 3. Is free enough from neurotic tendencies to enable him to make decisions readily, to get along well with people, and to behave in the pattern /-described next page 7. 4. Is interESted in his leadership role, and enjoys being a leader. 5. Has a strong drive to get things done.16 According to Pigors, "Leadership is a process of mutual stimulation, which by successful interplay of relevant individual differences, controls human energy and the pur— 0 l7 suit of common cause," French suggests that the effective leader does not engage in much behavior that could be seen as self-serving or egotistical. Instead, the effective leader attains his own personal goals indirectly through assisting his subordinates, individually and as a group, to attain those goals which are congruent with the overall goals of the enterprise. He lists twenty-two behaviors which are supported by research as guidelines for the effective leader. According to French, the effective leader: 1. Establishes attainable but high performance standards and goals--goals which are con- sistent with the goals of the enterprise. 2. Utilizes and encourages subordinates to utilize the appropriate technology in attain- ing these goals--e.g., work simplification and appropriate tools, proper layout, and so forth. Conveys that he has confidence in his subordinates. l6lbid. Pigors, Domination, p. 16. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 27 Permits subordinates to have latitude in the solution of work problems where subordinate ingenuity can result in gains, and where standardization in method is not imperative. Permits and encourages participation in the development of methods to achieve enterprise goals. Encourages the participation of subordinates, but only on the basis of genuine interest in utilizing constructive suggestions. Encourages participation in those matters where subordinates perceive participation as being legitimate. Recognizes differences between people in the strength of their needs and their other characteristics--e.g., may spend more time with some individuals in conditions of change than with others. Helps to integrate subordinates needs and goals with the goals of the enterprise. Is an effective planner in terms of both short range and long range goals and contingencies. Is permissive in terms of being approachable and friendly. Appraises subordinates as nearly as possible on the basis of objective, measurable performance. Is eager to help subordinates to be more effective and works at removing obstacles to achievement. Is an effective follower in the larger organi- zational context. Uses subordinates mistakes as an educational opportunity rather than an opportunity for punishment. Is interested in his subordinates as total persons rather than as employees only. In dealing with subordinates, is emotionally supportive and is careful to avoid ego--threat- ening behavior. Assists subordinates in minimizing the psychologi- cal impact of technological changes. Gives recognition to good work. Does not play favorites by giving differential privileges. Asserts his leadership. Communicates information needed by subordinates to carry out their jobs, to prevent unnecessary anxieties from developing, and to convey the "broader picture."18 French, Management Process, pp. 536-537. 28 French points out that the behaviors listed are a general set of behaviors or attitudes which should permeate the managerial or organization hierarchy. However, he emphasizes that these behaviors cannot be applied universally since leaders must adapt themselves to very different situ- ations and environmental conditions. This is consistent with Homans who states: What the leader needs to have is not a set of rules, but a good method of analyzing the social situation in which he must act. If the analysis is adequate, the way of dealing with the situation will suggest itself.19 French sums up his review of research on leadership in business and industry by saying: Thus, effective leadership is a function of a complex combination of factors, including those which are aspects of the broader organization and its environment, the traits and behavior of the leader supervisor and of his subordinates, and the traits and behavior of the leader himself. Finally, if there is one theme which stands out clearly from the research, it is that effective leadership requires the leader to be effective in integrating individual and enterprise goals. He must be concerned with the objectives of the enter- Prise; at the same time, he must also be concerned with human beings.20 Finally McCloskey provides us with the encouraging statement that: Research and experiment have demonstrated another fact that has important administrative implications. Leadership can be learned. To some degree, fre- quently great, any person except one with serious 19 George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York: Harcourt Press, 1950), p. 424. 20French, Management Process, p. 538. .51 m. h“; .__J 29 personality limitations, can learn to help others identify goals and means of moving toward them. Most people can learn to indicate respect for the opinions, capacities, and efforts of others, and to provide information in a friendly manner. Bureaucratic Theory The concept of bureaucracy was first described in the works of Max Weber, a German sociologist.22 His systematic effort to explain the changing character of behavior in organizations was the basis for the theory which would account for bureaucratic behavior within organizations. Weber saw organizational forms evolving from a primitive, sacred, non-specialized kind of society at one extreme toward a complex, secular, associational, contractual, and highly specialized kind of society at the other extreme. In this context bureaucratic behavior in one form or another is inherent in every type of organization where there are complex administrative problems to be resolved. Accordingly, bureaucracy is not to be confined to political and business institutions, as it is commonly assumed; it is to be found in all human institutions-~economic, religious, political, cultural, recreationa1--and all educational endeavors. In order to comprehend Weber's employment of the concept of bureaucracy, it must be stressed that, as used Gordon McCloskey, Education and Public Understand- igg_(New York: Harper and Row, 1959), pp. 259-260. 22 Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Qgganizations, ed. by Talcott Parsons, trans. by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1947). 30 in his theoretical scheme, it is an ideal "type construct." In other words the concept is a heuristic device, a methodological tool, derived by abstracting the most characteristic aspects of all known modern organizations. Bureaucracy used in this scientific sense becomes all of the observable behaviors that are "ideally typical" of modern organization.23 Thus, as a methodological concept, the term must not be thought of in the popular sense, e.g., red tape, inefficient, high-handed authority, and/or corruption. Weber attached no such invidious connotations to his con- cept. Indeed, he felt that bureaucracy was essential for the operation of any and every modern organization. He believed that bureaucratic organization was technically superior to other forms of organization. The purpose of bureaucracy, as he states it, was "to promote precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of files, continuity, dis- cretion, strict subordination, reduction of friction, and 24 of materials and cost. . ." Weber's theory of bureaucracy provided a framework for the systematic understanding of formal organizations. Primarily, the theory dwells upon the interdependence between structural characteristics of complex bureaucratic 23Max Weber, Essays in Sociology, ed. by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford UniverSity Press, Inc., 1946), p. 214. 24Ibid. H,“ Um, 0““ 6 CV v r ‘7‘ Y v.74 11 2c lrt. PM» F». a .5 t .. 31 organizations. He therefore analyzes the relationships developed within the structure of a bureaucracy. Presthus listed five characteristics of bureaucracy as indicated by Weber: 1. Fixed and official jurisdictional areas, which are regularly ordered by rules, that is, by laws or administrative regulations. 2. Principles of hierarchy and levels of graded authority that ensure a firmly ordered system of super and subordination in which high offices supervise lower ones. 3. Administration based upon written documents; the body of officials engaged in handling these documents and files along with other material apparatus make up a bureau or office. 4. Administrative full-time officers who are thoroughly and expertly trained. 5. Administration by general rules, which are quite stable and comprehensive. Weber's "ideally typical" conception of bureaucratic behavior dealt exclusively with the formal "structural" aspects of modern organizations. He devoted very little attention to the unanticipated consequences of the informal organization in terms of their functional and dysfunctional aspects. A number of writers have stressed this criticism of Weber's work. Indeed it is the unanticipated consequences which develop within the bureaucracy of the public school which may act as a hindrance to the more appropriate operation of this "service" and "commonwealth" constitution. 25Robert Presthus, The Organization Society (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1962), p. 5. 32 26 Peter Blau has extended Weber's theory to cover these omissions. He has summarized the characteristics of all complex bureaucratic organizations as follows: 1. 26 The regular activities for the purposes of the organization are distributed in a fixed way as official duties. A clear cut division of labor exists which calls for experts only in each particular position. The organization of offices follows the principle of hierarchy; that is, each lower office is under the control and supervision of a higher one. Officials in the adminis- trative hierarchy are accountable to superiors for decisions and actions, but have authority over all subordinates and use status prerogatives to extend power of control. Operations are governed by a consistent system of abstract rules and consist of the application of these rules to particular cases. This assumes uniformity in performance of every task, regard- less of the number of persons engaged. Thus, explicit rules and regulations define the responsibility of each member of the organization and the relationship between them. The ideal official conducts his office in a spirit of formalistic impersonality—-without hatred or passion, and hence without affection or enthusiasm. Rational standards without interference from personal considerations must prevail; disinterest and lack of personal interest go together; officials must maintain social distance and impersonal detachment, i.e., equitable treatment of all persons. Employment in the bureaucratic organization is based on technical qualifications and is pro- tected against arbitrary dismissal. It consti- tutes a career. There is a system of promotions according to seniority and to achievement, or both. Experience tends universally to show that the purely bureaucratic type of administrative organization...is from a purely technical point of view capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency. The fully developed bureaucratic Peter M. Blau, Bureaucracy in Modern Society (New York: Random House, 195657fipp. 24-25. .P. h.b 33 mechanism compares with other organizations exactly as does the machine with non- mechanical modes of production. Bureaucracy solves organizational problems by maximizing organizational efficiency.27 Bureaucracy, accordingly, is a formal and rational organization in which ideally all of the activities in which members engage are functionally related and coordinated toward the purposes or goals of the organization. In a similar vein, Robert K. Merton points to the importance and utility of the concept when he observed that: The function of security of tenure, pensions, incremental salaries and regularized procedures for promotion is to insure the devoted performance of official duties, without regard for extraneous pressures. The chief merit of bureaucracy is its technical efficiency, with premium placed on speed, expert control, continuity, discretion and optimal returns on output. The structure is one which approaches the complete elimination of personalized relation- ships and non—rational considerations (hostility, anxiety, affectual involvements, etc.)28 We are reminded that this summarization relates to the ideal bureaucratic situation. It may be impossible for people to function under such circumstances. Authority One of the most salient and most independent variables in bureaucratic organizations is authority. Interactional behavior in any bureaucracy can be observed as the "flow _‘L 27Ibid., pp. 24-25. 28Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Rev. ed.; Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957), p. 196:— 34 of authority" within the formal organizational structure. One definition of authority is the capacity to evoke compliance from another or the ability to impose one's will on another regardless of opposition. This study concerns itself with leadership behavior of authority figures. Weber identified three sources of authority in organizations: charismatic, traditional, and rational. Charismatic authority was defined as authority based on the magical and mystical powers, wisdom, and personal characteristics of an individual. The charismatic admin- istrator demands obedience to his authority, because of his status as a person of trust whose ways of action have been "ordained" by him. Traditional authority is based on the belief in the sanctity of the customary procedures from which stems one's authority to exercise control and power. Here the administrator expects, and even demands, obedience as well as loyalty, because he occupies a traditionally sanctioned position in the organization. On the other hand rational authority stems from the superior knowledge of the administrator and his technical competence in allocating resources of the organization toward the achievement of organizational goals. Weber conceived both charismatic and traditional authority as inappropriate and antithetical to the processes of rationalization. He saw this conflict as especially intense as organizations change their forms from non-specialized to highly technical kinds 35 of activities. Weber's view is borne out by the fact that a rational and legalistic authority structure is the rule . . . 29 in modern organizations. Problems of Educational Bureaucracy Since the flight of "Sputnik" and the increased interest in school curricula generated by the success of Russian space programs, many new educational practices have been introduced into American schools. Some examples are new mathematics and science curricula, team teaching, flexible scheduling, televised instruction and the imple- mentation of the oral—aural approach in the study of languages. Thelen acknowledges all this and then reacts: In the face of all these changes. . .the schools' society and culture seems largely undisturbed. Comparing classrooms now with the classrooms of 40 years ago, one notes that at both times there were numbers of students not much interested in what was being done; the typical teacher still presents material and quizzes the kids to see if they under- stand it, the amount of creativity and excitement is probably no greater now than then. The develop- ment of new materials and techniques has enabled us to spin our wheels in one place, to conduct business as usual in the face of dramatic changes in the society and in the clientele of the school. The operation of the educational enterprise has encountered what can only be thought of by the traditional teacher as a very large number of increasingly serious obstacles, and the new devices sustain the forlorn hope of protecting and main- taining, rather than changing, the old orthodoxy in the face of the most important revolutions in the history of mankind.30 29Weber, Sociology, Chapter 8-9. ‘ 30Herbert A. Thelen, "New Practices on the Firing Lines," Administrator's Notebook, XII (January, 1964). 36 Thelen then points to the progression of innovative programs from enthusiasm and excitement to final institutionalization. The question then is what happens to new ideas in the bureaucracy of the school. What accounts for the tremendous resistance to change in our public school structure? March and Simon offer an explanation: Individuals and organizations give preferred treat— ment to alternatives that represent continuation of programs over those that represent change. Persistence comes about primarily because the individual or organization does not search for or consider alternatives to the present course of action unless that present course is in some sense "unsatisfactory."3l Consequently no change is likely unless the state of equilibrium is upset by dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs. Is the lack of expression of dissatis- faction an inherent aspect of bureaucracy? At this point we want to investigate the distinctive characteristics of an educational bureaucracy more fully. Weber felt that charismatic and traditional authority was antithetical to rational behavior, yet "it is assumed that the superior at any point in the hierarchy is able to tell his subordinates what to do and to guide them in doing it. That is, it is assumed that he is more capable in all of his units' activities than any of his subordinate Specialists who perform them."32 _ 31James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1959), p. 173. 32Victor Thompson, "Hierarchy, Specialization and Organizational Conflict," in Organizations and Human Behavior: Eggus on Schools, ed. by Fred C. Carver and Thomas J. 5‘— Sergiovanni (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1969), pp. 19-40. .1; AL: 37 It appears that Thompson's statement neatly demon- strates the charismatic assumptions which are prevalent in a bureacracy. Abbott suggests that it also describes the ideology which exists in the educational establishment. He suggests that this concept of unity of command, which denies the relevance of non-hierarchical expertise within an organization is applicable only in an organization where specialization refers to tasks, where activities are divided into simple, repetitive routines. An industrial foreman having risen through the ranks might indeed have such ability, for indeed he may have greater skill than his subordinates. However, in the public school organization, specialization refers to people and not to tasks. It would appear unreasonable to accept industrial ideology as appropriate to the management of people-centered activities. Another problem involved with the implementation of innovation and change in the school has been centered upon the delegation of authority. Abbott suggests that there has been general acceptance of the notion that authority can be delegated to subordinates in the organization, but that responsibility rests with those in superordinate roles.33 __ 33Max G. Abbott, "Hierarchical Impediments to Inno- vation in Educational Organizations," in Organizations and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools, ed. by Fred D. Carver and Thomas J. Sergiovanni (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1969), pp. 42—50. 38 When this position is adopted, the administrator who feels that he must be responsible for the decisions of his subordinates must also accept the blame for their errors. Consequently, for self-preservation, he must retain the ultimate power to make decisions, or to veto the decisions of subordinates. Therefore, if is very diffi- cult for subordinates to implement or receive hierarchy support for innovative activity. Another dysfunctional aspect of bureaucratic organi— zation grows out of the hierarchical definition of roles. Although roles in general are defined in terms both of rights and obligations, there is a tendency in bureaucracies to emphasize rights when referring to superordinate roles, and to emphasize obligations when referring to subordinate roles. One of the "rights" of the superordinate role is to veto or affirm organizationally relevant proposals of subordinates. The writer would suggest that it should be considered as a responsibility but will agree that some incumbent superordinates emphasize their "rights" to an excessive degree. In addition, Abbott makes the excellent point that hierarchical relationships tend to overemphasize the right to veto and to affirm. He adds: Frequently, there is no organizationally legitimate means for appealing a superior's decision to veto a proposal, whereas a decision to approve will often be subject to confirmation by higher officials. 39 In one large university, for example, a proposal to introduce a new course, or to revise an existing one, must run the gauntlet of bureaucratic machinery which contains five decision points. At any one of these points, the proposal may be vetoed; however, final approval can be given only at the top of the hierarchy. Under these conditions it is remarkable that any revision of the curriculum occurs.34 The right to affirm, as well as the responsibility to do so in the interest of organizational goals has a number of built—in hazards. Abbott summarizes by saying: Such a system obviously favors the status quo and inhibits innovation from below. Yet, in an organization which consists largely of professionals, as is the case in an educational institution, mean— ingful and workable innovations almost necessarily originate at the lower levels of the hierarchy.35 One powerful aspect of the right to affirm in a bureaucracy is delineated by Thompson. He suggests that as one goes up the hierarchy, he has less and less value for other organizations.36 This makes for great anxiety which is most likely to express itself in conformism--which means conformism to the wishes of the superordinate. This is another block in the chain through which any innovation must pass. A status leader is not likely to affirm any action whiCh he perceives to be unacceptable to the superior in any organization. 341bid., p. 46. 351bid., p. 48. 36Thompson, “Organizational Conflict," pp. 19-41. 4O Commonality of Organizations The Public School Superintendent and the local executive were chosen for study because of organizational similarities identified through the application of Blau and Scott's Cui bono (who benefits) theory of organizational classification. According to Blau and Scott four basic categories of persons can be distinguished in relation to any given formal organization: 1. The members or rank-and-file participants. 2. The owners or managers of the organizations. 3. The clients. 4. The public at large. Four types of organizations result from the application of the Cui bono criterion: 1. "Mutual benefit Associations"—-where the prime beneficiary is the membership. 2. "Business Concerns"—~where the owners are the prime beneficiary. "Service Organizations"-—where the client group is the prime beneficiary. 4. “Commonweal 0rganizations"—-where the prime beneficiary is the public at large.37 Both the public school, a bureaucratic organization, and the chamber of commerce, often with only one professional employee, may be considered "service" and "commonweal" organizations within the typology suggested by Blau and Scott. 37Ibid., p. 63. Unit CA“ no . it A I urOk a ‘VU UC v: ‘- 41 They further state that special problems are associated with each type of organization. Service organizations commonly have problems associ- ated with the conflict between professional services to clients and administrative procedures, while the crucial problem posed by commonweal organizations is the development of democratic mechanisms whereby they can be externally controlled by the public. Both the public school and the chamber of commerce experience such problems with conflicts which develop in providing services to their prime beneficiary. Another analytical criterion of distinction is whether the "materials" worked on by the technical personnel of the organization are physical objects or people. The crucial difference between the resulting types-~production and service organizations--is that only the latter are confronted with problems of establishing social relations with the "objects" of their endeavors and of having to motivate them in various ways. The success of a teacher depends on doing this; that of an engineer does not.38 Blau and Scott suggest that each formal organization should be viewed as a social system in its own right and should be concerned with the solution of the four basic problems of social systems listed by Parsons. Those problems are: ___ 38Talcott Parsons, Structure and Process in Modern §pcieties (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960), pp. 20-21. 42 1. adaptation: the accommodation of the system to the reality demands of the environment coupled with the active transformation of the external situation; 2. goal achievement: the defining of objectives and the mobilization of resources to attain them; 3. integration: establishing and organizing a set of relations among the member units of the system that serve to coordinate and unify them into a single entity; and 4. latency: the maintenance over time of the system's motivational and cultural patterns.39 The people most concerned with the solution to these four basic problems are "status" leaders. For the purposes of this study we are only considering two formal organi- zations: the public school and the chamber of commerce. The premise is that the superintendent and the chamber executive work in the same communities, toward dif~ ferent goals, with people instead of objects, the superin- tendent in a bureaucracy and the executive largely with volunteers. The object is to determine if they perceive themselves to act differently in the pursuit of their organizational goals as measured by the LBDQ—Form XII. W Most recent definitions of leaders and leadership were explored in the work of McCloskey, Gouldner, and Stogdill. Stress was placed upon behavior exhibited in situations as opposed to personal traits of leaders. The importance of effective leadership upon organizational _h 39Talcott Parsons, et a1. Working Papers in the Theory of Action (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press;__ 1953), pp. 183-186. (T) '1) 1') I (I) 43 morale was emphasized by reference to the work of French. Behaviors of effective leaders in business and industry were listed. Since schools have been described as a hierarchy, bureaucratic theory as developed by Weber was described. Blau was cited as having made suggestions which speak to the unanticipated consequences which normally develop within a bureaucracy. Three sources of authority within organizations were described as charismatic, traditional, and rational. Problems within the public schools which develop largely through the bureaucratic impediments were considered. A rationale was developed which indicates that there are similarities existing between the public school organi- zation and local chamber of commerce organizations within each community. First, they both deal with people instead of objects. Second, both organizations serve the same people for different purposes. However, the public schools and the chamber of commerce are organized and supported in a different manner. Therefore the purpose was to identify significant dif- ferences in the self-perceived dimensions of leadership as described by the LBDQ—Form XII. Any differences identi— fied might suggest dimensions of behavior which could be emphasized in the preparation of status leaders who will function in a hierarchy. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY USED IN THE STUDY The Instruments The instruments used to gather data were the "Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII," often referred to as the LBDQ, by Dr. Ralph M. Stogdill, Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, and a personal data sheet constructed by the author for each school super- intendent and for each chamber of commerce executive under the direction of Dr. David C. Smith. The LBDQ was developed for use in obtaining descriptions of behavior of a supervisor by a group member whom he supervises. It can be used to describe the behavior of the leader in any type group or organization, provided the members of the group or organi- zation have had the opportunity to observe the leader in action as a leader of their group. It can also be used by the leader in describing his own behavior by substituting "I" for "he" in each of the short descriptive statements concerning behavior.1 The latter was the method chosen in —___ 1Ralph M. Stogdill, "Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII," An Experimental Revision (Columbus, Ohio: Bureau for Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, Ohio State Uni- versity, 1963), p. 12. 44 in 3:55 .lt T.i\'~un .. 45 this study to compare the self-perceived leadership behavior of the school superintendent and the local executive of the chamber of commerce. The origin of the measuring scales of the leader behavior description questionnaire began with the work by Hemphill.2 From this beginning, subsequent development of the scales was done by the staff of the Ohio State Leadership Studies and was described by Hemphill and Coons.3 The theoretical considerations underlying the descriptive method were outlined by Shartle.4 He observed that when the Ohio State Leadership Studies were initiated in 1945, no satis- factory theory or definition of leadership was available.5 Subsequently, empirical research found that a large number of hypothesized dimensions of leader behavior could be reduced to two strongly defined factors identified by 2J. K. Hemphill, Situational Factors in Leadership (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Educational Research, 1949). 3J. K. Hemphill and A. E. Coons, "Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire," in Leader Bphavior: Its Description and Measurement, ed. by R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1957), pp. 6-38. 4C. L. Shartle, "Introduction," in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, ed. by R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1957), p. l. 51bid. flv aluv ~15.” hug 46 Halpin and Winer6 and Fleishman7 as "Consideration" and "Initiation of Structure." These two subscales were defined factorially and have been used widely in empirical research, particularly in military organizations, industry and education.8 Halpin, however, stated the following: The dimensions of leadership behavior we have delineated obviously do not exhaust the field. It would be fatuous to imply that these dimensions constitute the criteria of leadership effectiveness. They do not. However, they probably do represent a criterion which should be taken into account in evaluating the leadership skill of the superin- tendent. Ours is only one approach to the study of the leaders' behavior. Other investigators will in turn supplement our findings, and will take into account additional variables which we were not ready to include in the present series of studies. Stogdill agreed with Halpin and sought to identify additional factors in order to account for observable differences in leadership behavior. Shartle, however, 6A. W. Halpin and B. J. Winer, "A Factorial Study of Leader Behavior Descriptions," in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, ed. by R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1957), pp. 39-51. 7E. A. Fleishman, "A Leader Behavior Description for Industry," in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Mgpsurement, ed. by R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1957), pp. 103—118. 8Stogdill, "Description Questionnaire," p. 2. 9Andrew W. Halpin, Theory in Research and Adminis- tration (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), p. 130. A . 47 observed that no theory was available to suggest additional factors.10 Stogdill had defined a new theory of role differenti- ation and group achievement and surveying a large body of research data which supported his theory, suggested that a number of variables are operating in a differentiation of roles and social groups. Some possible factors suggested by the theory were tolerance of uncertainty, persuasiveness, tolerance of member freedom of action, predictive accuracy, integration of the group, and reconciliation of conflict and demand. Additional factors suggested by the results of empirical research were listed as "representation of group interest, role assumption, production emphasis, and orientation toward superiors."ll Stogdill developed items for hypothesized subscales. Questionnaires were administered to successive groups fol- lowed by an item analysis. The questionnaires were then revised and administered again, reanalyzed and once more revised.12 The first report of the use of these scales was in the study of an army air borne division and in a state loShartle, "Introduction," p. l. 11R. M. Stogdill, Individual Behavior and Group Achievement (New York: Oxford University Press, 19597, p. 262. 12Stogdill, "Description Questionnaire," p. 2. 48 highway patrol organization by Marder.13 A later revised form of the questionnaire was used by Day14 in the study of an industrial organization. Other revisions of the scales were used by Stogdill,15 Goode,l6 and Day,17 in the study of ministers, leaders in the community development, United States senators and presidents of corporations. The new scales were also used by Stogdill in the study of industrial and government organizations. The LBDQ-Form XII is the fourth revision of the questionnaire.18 Each subscale is composed of either five or ten items’ and is defined by its component items. A subscale represents 13E. Marder, Leader Behavior as Perceived by Sub- ordinates as a Function of Organizational Level (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Library, 1960). 14D. R. Day, Basic Dimensions of Leadershipyand the Selected Industrial Organization (Columbus, Ohio: Doctor's dissertation, The Ohio State University Library, 1961). 15R. M. Stogdill; O. S. Geode; and D. R. Day, "New Leader Behavior Description Subscale," in The Journal of Psychology, LIV (October, 1962), pp. 259—269. 16R. M. Stogdill; O. S. Geode; and D. R. Day, "The Leader Behavior of the United States Senators," in Journal of Psychology, LVI (July, 1963), pp. 3—8. 17R. M. Stogdill; O. S. Geode; and D. R. Day, "The Leader Behavior of Corporation," in Personnel Psychology, XVI (Summer, 1963), pp. 127—132. 18Ralph M. Stogdill, "Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, Form XII," An Experimental Revision (Columbus, Ohio: Bureau for Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State University, 1963), p. 11. 49 a complex pattern of behaviors. The definitions of the subscales are found in the first chapter, pages thirteen and fourteen. Each item is keyed to one and only one scale. The response to each item is marked in terms of frequency of behavior-~a1ways, often, occasionally, seldom or never—— and the scoring is from 5 to 1. There are 20 items scored in the reverse direction, or 1 to 5. The reliability of a sub-scale was determined by a modified Kuder—Richardson formula. The modification con— sisted of correlating each item with the remainder of the items in the sub-scale rather than including the item with the sub-scale score including the item, a procedure which yields a conservative estimate of sub-scale reliability. These reliability co-efficients are shown in Table 3.1.19 A personal data sheet was constructed to obtain data about the population of the study. The data sought age, level of formal education, experience in position, tenure in position, and size of community served. A copy of the leader behavior description questionnaire—-Form XII and the Personal Data Sheet appears in Appendix A. lgIbid. all ‘H‘H‘f..<'t\ i'l’h! hr—Ifxfinflwhv Faifit INI'm. .(JSN,PI1NFA...N.. 50 .. |\\\.\\\\\ op. we. Hm. me. so uoaumasm me as. me. coanmuompsH .HH . >umusuu< . Pm. qwo N00 mm. Hm. Nmo mm. ®>H¥UHU®HW OH . . . mammrdem mm as me. as. as. am. as. as. on coapuspoua .m . . . o Hmcou .m me me me. we. as. mm. am. am. we coarse M m< O O O O l O OH ESW mp me me am mm. me. am. am mm a .p mHom .e as. me. mm. . . . . . . seepage em mm ms mm me am we oucmuoaoe .m NR». om. who Pb. NF. 0 o 0 who muspuzufim on me me ochmHuHcH .m mm. on. om. mm. mm. mm. mm. gm. mmmcm>flmm3mhmm .w mm. om. mm. as. mm. am. me. pm. pm. spcampumuao mucmumaoe .m Hm. Hm. mm. mm. 550 MFO COHpmHHflucoumm panama .m om. so. ow. am. mm. mm. «a. mm. mm. coapmpcmmmpamm .H muou .mmum .mmum .mwum .cmmq mumuw .Umx n . m Houpma cowmw>wo mcmm HOU honed .Quou .EEOU lanai ammuuuw< mmzrmfim >Eu< HHX Euomloamd wow AcomphszHmlhmpsxlUwHMHUOZV mwcmHUmemOU %#HHHQMHH®m H.m OHQMB 51 The Population and Administration of the Measuring Instruments The population for this study came from all of the communities in Indiana which support both the professional public school superintendent and the professional (paid) chamber of commerce executive. There are seventy such communities in Indiana. A letter, a copy of which appears in Appendix D, was written to both the superintendents and the chamber of com- merce executives requesting their support. After four follow—up letters and a number of telephone calls, completed questionnaires were received from 68 superintendents and 65 chamber of commerce executives. However, since we were con- cerned with only those "status" leaders serving the same populations our final response to both categories came from sixty communities. The response then represented 86 per cent of the population. Scoring of Instruments and Tabulation of the Data The completed responses were collected and then numerically scored to determine the index score. The respondent indicated his response by drawing a circle around one of the five letters, (A, B, C, D, E,) following each item. Most items were scored: A--5 B--4 C--3 9—-2 s--1 52 A circle around A gave the item a score of five; while a circle around E gave the item a score of one. Items numbered 6, 12, 16, 26, 36, 42, 46, 53, 56, 57, 61, 62, 56, 66, 68, 71, 87, 91, 92, and 97, were scored in the reverse direction, or: A--l B-—2 C--3 D--4 E—-5 The score was written after each item in the margin of the questionnaire. The scores were then transferred to LBDQ-Form XII-~record sheet and totaled. The scoring was done again independently to establish accuracy. A copy of the LBDQ-Form XII—~record sheet appears in Appendix A. The scores of the 12 scales were transferred onto scoring sheets and processed in the computer center at Michigan State Uni- versity. The personal data sheets were analyzed to ascertain age, sex, educational level, experience in the role, tenure in position, and the population of community served. This information was transferred to scoring sheets and processed in the computer center at Michigan State University. Hypotheses to be Tested In attempting to determine differences in leadership behavior, the following null hypotheses were formulated: 1. There are no statistically significant dif- ferences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII 53 between public school superintendents and local executives of chambers of commerce in Indiana. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the oldest superintendents and the youngest superintendents. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the most experienced superintendents and the least experi— enced superintendents. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ—Form XII between the superin- tendents with the longest tenure in position and the superintendents with the shortest tenure in position. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ—Form XII between the superin- tendents from the largest communities and the superintendents from the smallest communities. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between superintendents 10. ll. 54 who hold the doctorate and those who do not hold the doctorate. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the oldest chamber of commerce executives and the youngest chamber of commerce executives. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the most experienced chamber of commerce executives and the least experienced chamber of commerce executives. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the chamber of commerce executives with the longest tenure in position and the chamber of commerce executives with the shortest tenure in position. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the chamber of commerce executives from the largest communi- ties and the chamber of commerce executives from the smallest communities. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 55 measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between men and women who are local executives of the chamber of commerce in Indiana. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the oldest superintendents and the oldest chamber of com— merce executives. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the most experienced superintendents and the most experi- enced chamber of commerce executives. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ—Form XII between the superin- tendents with the longest tenure in position and the chamber of commerce executives with the longest tenure in position. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ—Form XII between superin— tendents from the largest communities and chamber of commerce executives from the largest communities. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as 56 measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the youngest superintendents and the youngest chamber of commerce executives. 17. There are no statistically significant dif— ferences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between the least experienced superintendents and the least experienced chamber of commerce executives. 18. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ—Form XII between the super- intendents with the least tenure in position and the chamber of commerce executives with the least tenure in position. 19. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ—Form XII between superin- tendents from the smallest communities and chamber of commerce executives from the smallest communi~ ties. Experimental Design Study of the statistical aspects and experimental design was made using Winer's criteria for selecting good experimental design. The criteria used were: 57 1. The analysis resulting from the design should provide unambiguous information on the primary objectives of the experiment. In particular the design should lead to unbiased estimates. 2. The model in its underlying assumptions should be appropriate for the experimental material. 3. The design should provide maximum information with respect to the major objectives of the experiment for minimum amount of experimental effort. 4. The design should provide some information with respect to all the objectives of the experiment. 5. The design must be feasible within the working conditions for the experimenter.20 Techniques used in Data Analysis Guilford suggests that, when possible, one should use the most powerful parametric tests available. He states that these tests come under the general heading of analysis of variance.21 These possibilities were discussed with personnel of the Michigan State Office of Research Con— sultation and the decision was made, with their concurrence, to use the one-way analysis of variance technique for test- ing for differences between mean scores on all nineteen hypotheses. This technique is identified as the (UNEQl) routine by the Michigan State University Computer Center. For the purposes of this study, the alpha level is set at .05. _..L. 20 . . . . . . . . B. J. Winer, Statistical Principles in Experimental $2.5ng (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962f, p. o 21J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psyphology $29 Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956), p. 258. 58 Summary The instrument used in this study is the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form XII developed by Dr. Ralph M. Stogdill of the Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University-~and was used with his permission. A copy of his letter of authorization appears in Appendix B. The background which resulted in the development of the questionnaire is discussed with emphasis on the sub- scales of "consideration" and "initiation of structure" first identified by Halpin and Winer. Stogdill later developed ten additional sub-scales and the twelve are now identified as: l. Representation--speaks and acts as the repre- sentative of the group. 2. Demand reconciliation--reconciles conflicting demands and reduces disorder to system. 3. Tolerance of Uncertaintye—is able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety or upset. 4. Persuasiveness—-uses persuasion and argument effectively; exhibits strong convictions. 5. Initiation of structure-—clearly defines own role, and lets followers know what is expected. 6. Tolerance of freedom--allows followers scope for initiative, decision, and action. 7. Role assumptignr-actively exercises the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others. 3» e 1F 59 8. Consideration-—regards the comfort, well-being, status, and contributions of followers. 9. Production emphasis—~applies pressure for productive output. Predictive accuragy--exhibits foresight and lO. ability to predict outcomes accurately. ll. Integration-—maintains a closely knit organi- zation; resolves intermember conflicts. 12. Superior orientation--maintains cordial relations with superiors; has influence with them; is striving for higher status. The reliability of each subscale was determined by a modified Kuder—Richardson formula and the reliability coefficients so determined in a number of studies were listed. The population for this study came from all of the communities in Indiana which support both the professional public school superintendent and the professional (paid) chamber of commerce executive. There are seventy such communities in Indiana. A response was secured from both professional areas in sixty communities. Therefore, the responses recorded represent 86 per cent of the population described in this study. Nineteen null hypotheses were formulated and tested using the one-way analysis of variance technique. This 6O technique is identified by the Computer Laboratory at Michigan State University as the (UNEQl) routine. The alpha level was set at .05. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Nineteen hypotheses were prepared to analyze the self-perceived leadership behavior of public school super- These intendents and chamber of commerce executives. comparisons were made among groups as well as between groups. The data relating to each of the nineteen hypotheses were All separately analyzed and are reported in this chapter. hypotheses have been stated as null or test hypotheses for the purpose of statistical measurement. All cases were tested using the (UNEQl) routine of the Michigan State Uni- versity Computer laboratory which is a test for one-way analysis of variance. _flypothesis l the mean scores of all superin- In hypothesis one, tendents are contrasted with the mean scores of all chamber The null hypothesis was: of commerce executives in the study. There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between public school superintendents and local executives of chambers of commerce in Indiana. Analysis of the data suggests that there are signifi— cant differences in three of the twelve leadership dimensions (Table 4.1) measured. 61 I1. Fill-{\ru 62 maooo m2 mmo.o m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 mH0.0 m2 m2 .Pmum :m: MO suwflanmnoum uaumaumnm wuchHchmHm mmo.w mwO.H mmoov mmvoa moaoo ®¢¢.m mam.N omw.o me.H mno.w mHh.m vHH.m :rm: mmwom hNoom momom NOH.¢ wmmov mamov NHw.v Hem.v va.¢ Hem-v HHH.N ovm.m mmwoov mmv.oN mmmuma mma.mm hom.H¢ hHH.hm mmmomm mmm.ov mmv.hm mmH.mm hamowH hom.mH ow ow ow ow ow om om om // mom.m ¢OH.H mmv.H Hmm.m mmh.N Hmm.v 5mm.m mmm.m mmm.v wHo.v smo.H mmm.a bwm.wm oom.om bab.ma omm.nm omH.Hv oom.mm mms.oe ooo.Hv eam.wm oow.mm mmo.mH ow ow ow om ow ow ow ow ow om ow COH#M#COHMO uowuwQSm COHukaOwaH ®>H#UHUGHQ mHmmSQEm COH¥flHWUHWCOU WHONW Eovwwunm who WUCMHWHOFH. DNH HH 0 O H 63 l5 .‘ .a , Significant differences were identified‘in the dimensions of: a. Tolerance of Uncertainty ‘. b. Predictive Accuracy Superior Orientation c. The writer noted that the "F" scores for four other dimensions of leadership were high enough to merit attention. They are: a. Representation b. Demand Reconciliation c. Tolerance of Freedom d. Role Assumption In the seven dimensions previously mentioned superin- tendents' mean scores were higher except in the dimension of "Superior Orientation." ‘fiypothesis 2 In hypothesis two, the mean scores of the oldest superintendents are contrasted with the mean scores of the youngest superintendents. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between the oldest superintendents and the youngest superintendents. Analysis of the data suggested that there were no significant differences in the twelve leadership dimensions - i measured. (Table 4.2) h: F-flv f.\ m!‘ 64 mz ema.fi Hom.m oom.ov ma oom.m ooo.om ma coanmncmauo uoaumadm .ma m2 mom.H oom.a sov.om ma Hmm.m som.nm ma coanmuomnCH .HH m2 som.o oom.a mmm.oa ma moo.H som.oa ma suousuu< m>anuHomuo .oH m2 oso.a moo.m som.om ma meo.o som.om ma mammraEm COHuUSUoum .0 m2 Hao.m moo.m soo.oo ma mso.m mmm.Ho ma coanmumowmcoo .m mz Hmo.o mma.o mmm.om ma oom.o som.om ma cownoeomm< maom .s mz mmm.a mom.m mmm.ao ma omm.m oom.oo ma sooomum mo wucmumaoe .0 m2 sme.o moo.m ooo.ao ma mos.m soo.oe ma musnoounm mo cownmunacH .m mz mao.H Hmm.m mmm.om ma msm.e oom.om ma mmmcm>ammsmuwm .v mz oHv.m omo.m oov.mm ma omm.m oom.mm ma snowmnuoucp mo mucmumHOB .m m2 mmm.o mom.a mmH.oH ma mea.m oom.ma ma coanoanwucoumm pcmEmo .N mz mmH.o oov.a mmm.0m ma eom.m soo.om ma coanmncmmmuaom .H uanmaumnm :h: M0 UH#Mflflm#m Qm Cmmz 2 CW Gmmz Z >paawnmnoum :m: pampcmuCHummsm ucmpcmpCHquSm mCOflmcmEHQ mucmuwmficowm ummmcsow pmmpao aflcmuwpmmq HHx euom OQmA mcu co mbcmpcoucHuOQSm umumcso> Orv cam mucmpcquHuOQSn umwpao wzu mo mwmcoammu may Cmequ mucmflum> m0 mfimhamcm >m3lwco m MO muasmmm N.¢ maflme 65 Of the twelve dimensions measured, only two had notably larger "F" scores: "Tolerance of Uncertainty" and "Consideration." In both cases the scores of the oldest superintendents exceeded that of the youngest superintend- ents. Hypothesis 3 In hypothesis three, the mean scores of the most experienced superintendents are contrasted with the mean scores of the least experienced superintendents. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between the most experienced and the least experienced superin- tendents. Analysis of the data suggested that there were no significant differences in the twelve leadership dimensions measured. Of the twelve dimensions measured, only two had notably higher "P" scores: "Tolerance of Uncertainty" and "Predictive Accuracy." In both cases, the mean scores of the most experienced superintendents exceed the mean score of the least experienced superintendents. (Table 4.3) Han EUCL OQSJ GED (or... "WHCMWHUCOUCHHUQSW MUUUCOHurvnmvan UUQwWH Qc~¥ UCMW MUCU~.Uflu.vH«CHL~MVnu~JW mvfivUE.u.H.cvan~vnfu QWCE «UPLU WC WwmeCQfiwh CED. COQ3¥COA CUCQHUCKK “HO wwflfixnjnfic: >53|QCC an. want .the Hair»: rut? .VHQC. 66 m2 moo.o voo.m mme.om ma oso.m soo.oe ma connoncoauo uoaumasm .NH mz Hms.o nos.H som.om mu moo.m soo.am ma coanouownCH .HH m2 moo.m osm.a som.oa ma emm.a som.om ma somuoooe o>anuuomuo .oa m2 mHH.o Hos.m mma.sm ma mmo.m ooo.sm ma mwmmLQEm coau05poum .0 m2 oma.o «mm.m soo.ao ma moH.m mmo.Ho ma coflnmuooamcoo .m mz omo.o msm.m oom.mm ma Hsm.m soo.om ma coanoeomm< maom .s mz Hom.o omm.m oom.ao ma omm.m mmm.ao mu eooomue MO mucmumaoe .0 m2 omo.o soo.m mmm.ae ma omo.o soo.oa ma ousuuounm mo coanmunacH .m mz ooo.o som.o ooe.om ma omo.o mmm.om ma mmoco>wmosmumo .o m2 emo.m mao.m ooo.mm ma oao.m oom.om ma sunflonuouco mo mucmumaoe .m mz som.o Nos.a mos.ea ma omo.H ooe.ma ma coanowawucoumm UCMEmQ .m mz mom.o mom.H sov.om ma omm.m som.oa ma cOanmncmmmuomm .H uaumaumum cow: 2 com: 2 =m= mo owannmum om ncmocmncaumasm om ncmoconcnumosm mpflaflnmnoum :m: Umucmfiummxm poucmflummxm mcoflmcmEHQ wUCMUfichmHm unwed Dmoz aflcmumpmmq HHX Show OQmA wzp co mwcwpcmpcauwQSn pwucwflummxm ummma any can mucmpcmucflquSn pwucwfluomxm umOE mnp we mmmcoammu mnw cmmzpwfl wucmflum> mo mflmhamcm wmzlmco m mo muHSmmm m.v mHQmH 67 Hypothesis 4 In hypothesis four, the mean scores of the superin- tendents with the longest tenure in position are contrasted with the mean scores of the superintendents with the shortest tenure in position. The null hypothesis follows: There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between the superin- tendents with the longest tenure in position and the superintendents with the shortest tenure in position. Analysis of the data suggested that there was a significant difference in the "Consideration" dimension. This is one of the two leadership dimensions initially identified by Halpin. Two other dimensions measured had notably higher "P" scores: "Predictive Accuracy" and "Integration." In all three cases, the mean scores of the superintendents with the longest tenure in position exceeded the mean scores of the superintendents with the shortest tenure in position. The mean scores for the "Demand Reconciliation" dimenSion are identical. (Table 4.4) 68 mz HmH.0 mem.m mmH.mm ma oem.m www.mm ma coaumucmauo uoaumasm .NH mz @00.m 0mo.a 00m.0m ma meH.N 00N.HN ma coapmummucH .HH mz o0m.a m0e.a 00¢.ma ma www.a 00m.0m ma wumusuu< m>fipuapmum .0H mz 0m0.0 v¢0.m mmm.0m ma mm0.¢ mma.0m ma mammcaem COHuUSUOMQ .m mm0.0 0mm.m mem.m mme.mm ma H00.m mmH.mv ma coaumumpamcou .m mz 000.0 00v.m 000.mm ma 0m0.¢ www.mm ma COHpQESmmd maom .e m2 mm.0 mmw.m 00m.0v ma 0v0.N 000.0v ma Eopmmum mo mucmumaoe .0 m2 evm.0 0vm.m mmm.0¢ ma mae.m mmm.0¢ ma wuspusuum we coapmHuHCH .m mz mma.0 Ham.v mme.mm ma vwm.m e00.mm ma mmmcm>amm3mumm .v m2 Hem.a sma.m som.om ma Hmm.m mmm.om ma snowmnumuco mo mucmumaoe .m m2 000.0 vmm.a e00.ma ma 0ma.m e00.ma ma coaumflafiucoumm panama .m mz wm0.0 www.a mma.0m ma mev.m 000.0m ma coapmpcmmmuamm .H UHpmempm :m: we UHumHuMpm mm and: 2 am new: 2 coamcmEHQ wuHHHQMQoum :m: ucmpcmpCHuwmdm bcmpcmucflumasm Qflcwumpmmq muchHMHcmHm muscwe #mmmq muscma umoz HHX Euom Gama urn co coaufimoa CH muncmp ummpuocm ecu spas mpcmpcprflquSm cam coaufimoa CH muscwp ummmcoH mcu cuflz mpcwpcmuCH lawman mo mmmcoammu map cwmzumfl OUCMHum> mo mflmhamcm >m3ImCO m we muHSmmm v.v OHQmB 69 Hypothesis 5 In hypothesis five, the mean scores of the superin- tendents from the largest communities were contrasted with the mean scores of the superintendents from the smallest communities. The null hypothesis follows: There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between the super- intendents from the largest communities and the superintendents from the smallest communities. Analysis of the data suggests that there were no significant differences between these two groups. The only dimension with a notably higher "F" score was "Tolerance of Uncertainty." The superintendents from the largest communities had the highest mean score on this dimension. (Table 4.5) 7O mz m00.0 m0m.¢ ewm.mm ma v00.m mme.mm ma coaumucmauo uoauwasm .NH mz m0m.H m¢m.a www.0m ma mm0.a bmv.am ma coepmummDCH .HH mz mN0.0 Hom.0 mmm.mH ma mmH.H 000.0m ma wumusuu< m>apuapmum .0H mz mm0.0 mma.m 00N.0m ma omm.v mmm.mm ma mammcdem soap03poum .0 m2 mmm.0 mvv.m 000.Hv ma vmm.m >00.Hv ma coaumuwpamcou .m mz ¢m0.0 mom.m www.mm ma mme.m www.mm ma coauaESmm< waom .e mz mv0.0 mbm.m o0m.av ma «m0.m 000.H¢ ma Eonmmum mo wucmumaoe .0 m2 m00.0 0mm.m 000.Hv ma mmm.m mmm.Hv ma musuusuum mo coaumHuHCH .m mz mm0.H Hmm.m 000.em ma m¢¢.m 00w.mm ma mmmcm>amm5mumm .v mz HmH.m mvm.m mmH.mm ma mmm.m 000.>m ma >chmuquCD mo wucmuwaoe .m mz mmm.0 mom.H 00m.mH ma nmm.m mmm.ma ma coaumaaaucouwm panama .m mz m00.0 0w0.m www.0m ma emm.a 00m.0m ma coaumucmmmumwm .H Uflumwpmpm uwumaumum am new: 2 am and: z :m: we :m: pumpcmpcfiumasm ucmpcmpcaumdsm mcoamcmsao wuaafinmnoum >uHCDEEOU muHCSEEOU magnumpqu muchHMHCmHm bmmHHmEm unwound HHVA SHOW NVng 03...“. CO mOHn~HCSEEOU HWQHHMEW 03g. Eoum mucmpcmpcflquSm pcm mmeHCSEEOU unwound wcp Eouw mucmpcouCHquSm mo wmmcoanmu wcu ammZumn mucmwum> Mo mflm>amcm >m3lmco 0 mo muasmmm mow OHQMB 71 Hypothesis 6 In hypothesis six, the mean scores of the superin- tendents holding the doctorate were contrasted with the mean scores of those superintendents who did not hold the doctorate. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant dif— ferences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between superintendents who hold the doctorate and those who do not hold the doctorate. Analysis of the data suggested that there were no significant differences between these two groups. (Table 4.6) The only dimensions with a notably higher "P" scores were "Integration." and "Superior Orientation." Superin- tendents with the doctorate had the higher mean score on "Superior Orientation," while superintendents without the doctorate scored higher on "Integration." You will note that the scores on "Initiation of Structure," which was one of the two dimensions of leadership initially identified by Halpin, are exactly the same. The superintendents with the doctorate scored higher on "Consideration," the other dimension identified by Halpin, although the difference does not produce a notably larger "F" score. 72 m2 ooo.m mmm.m mmfi.oo on Hom.o mHo.mm Ho counmncmauo uowuwadm .NH mz mom.m mmo.H mam.om ma smo.fi HAH.HN Ho coaumummnCH .HH mz ooo.o mmo.a ems.oa om mom.a nos.oa He soousuu< m>auuaomuo .oH mz moo.o Hoo.m Ham.om ma mmH.¢ mom.om Ho mammrosm coauuspoum .0 m2 mmo.H mmo.m voo.oo ma omm.m moe.ae He coanmumowmcou .m mz va.o mom.v oum.mm on Hom.¢ mmo.mm Ho coanoesmm< oaom .o mz ooo.o som.m mom.oo on mmo.m ooo.oe Ho eoommum mo mucmumaoe .0 m2 ooo.o oom.m ooo.He ma Noe.m ooo.Ho so musnusuum no cownmwnacH .m m2 oom.o ooo.o ome.mm ma mes.o moo.mm Ho mmmcm>ammsmuoo .o mz ooo.o HmH.o omo.mm oH emo.m ooo.om Ho sncamuuouce mo mucmumaoe .m mz HHH.o oom.H mma.oa ma oma.m ooo.ma Ho sownmuauucoumm UCmeQ .N mz ooo.o mao.H mmo.om on moo.m mo.om Ho coanmncmmmuamm .H uanmanmnm uaumanmum am some 2 om com: 2 =h: M0 :h: ®#MHO#UOD £¥H3 mwmuopUOD mCOHmCGEHQ suaaanonoum ncmocmncauwosm usornaz ourmumommq muchHMHcmHm Dempcowcfiumasm HHX Euom 00mg wnu Co wwmuowUOU mcw .UHOS you 0U 0:3 mwcmpcwucfiuwasmopcm wwwuovuop mcp OCHUHon mucwpcwucflumasm mo mmeOQmmu mnp cmwzwmfl mocmaum> wo mfim>amcm %m3lmco M MD muflzmmm m.v wHQMB 73 Hypothesis 7 ~ In hypothesis seven, the mean scores of the oldest chamber of commerce executives are contrasted with the mean scores of the youngest chamber of commerce executives. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant dif- ferences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between the oldest chamber of commerce executive and the youngest chamber of commerce executive. Analysis of the data suggests a significant difference exists in the dimensions of "Persuasiveness" and "Superior Orientation." The youngest executives score higher in both dimensions. Two other dimensions, "Predictive Accuracy" and "Integration" show notably higher "P" scores. The youngest executives have higher scores in all four dimensions of leadership. (Table 4.7) 74 m2 HMH.0H 0mm.m e00.mv ma mm.mm 000.0m ma coauwucmauo uoaummsm .NH mz vom.m 0mm.m ewm.am ma H0m.m 000.0H ma coabwumwMCH .HH m2 Hem.m sma.m ooo.oa ma moo.m ooo.ma mu sumusuu< m>auuapwum .0H mz mvm.a mom.m mmm.mm ma vwm.v mme.0m ma mammndem ceauuspoum .0 m2 mva.0 mmH.m www.mv ma vam.m www.mv ma coaumuwpamcou .m mz m00.0 NHO.¢ mmm.om ma Hom.v smm.em ma COHpQESmm< maom .b m2 m0m.0 m0m.m www.0v ma mvm.m 00m.mm ma Ecummum mo mucmuwaoe .0 m2 meo.m mom.m ewm.av ma new.m mma.mm ma musuusupm mo coaumauHCH .m m00.0 meH.NH vma.v 000.0m ma 0em.m s00.mm ma mmmcm>ammsmumm .w mz moo.o ooo.o oom.mm ma moe.m mmm.mm ma sncumuumuc: mo wucmumaoe .m mz Hmm.m mmm.m mma.ma ma v00.H 000.ma ma coaumflaaucouwm pcmEmo .m m2 0eH.0 mmH.m 000.0N ma mom.a 00v.0m ma coaumpcmmmummm .H uapmflumum oanmflumum am cow: 2 am amp: 2. :h: co :m: mw>flusumxm mm>flusumxm mCOHmcwEHD wuflaanmnoum umwmcsow ummpao chmumpmmq wusmuamacmflm HHX Euom Gama map so ®>Hpsuwxm mUquEOU mo uwnfimcu umwmcso> wnu pcm mw>fiusuwxm mUHmEEOU mo MOQEmcU ummpao on» mo wwmcoammu mnu cmm3pwn mu¢maum> mo mflm>amcm >m3Imco m M0 mpHSmmm Nov OHQmB 75 Hypothesis 8 In hypothesis eight, the mean scores of the most experienced chamber of commerce executives are contrasted with the mean scores of the least experienced chamber of weommerce executives. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant dif- ferences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between the most experienced chamber of commerce executives and the least experienced chamber of commerce executives. Analysis of the data suggested that a significant difference exists in the "Tolerance of Uncertainty" dimension of leadership. The most experienced executive has the highest mean score on this dimension. Two other dimensions with notably higher "P" scores are "Demand Reconciliation" and "Initation of Structure." The most experienced executive has the higher score on "Demand Reconciliation," while the least experienced executive scores highest on "Initiation of Structure." The mean scores on "Role Assumption" are identical. (Table 4.8) 76 mz m0e.0 >00.¢ 000.0m ma v0>.m 00m.0v ma coapmucwauo uoauwasm .NH m2 mm0.0 mHv.v mmm.0m ma mow.m mme.0m ma coeumuowMCH .HH mz moo.o omm.m som.ma ma som.a soo.oa ma sumuoou< m>apuapmum .0H m2 mv0.0 m0N.v 500.em ma 0mm.v 000.mm ma mammrdem COHpUSUOum .0 m2 m0m.0 mmm.¢ 000.Hv ma 00¢.v mma.mv ma coaumumpfimcou .m mz 000.0 ema.m 000.0m ma 000.m 000.0m ma coauQESmm< maom .b m2 Hh0.0 v00.m mmm.0v ma mmm.m mma.mm ma Sepmwum mo mucmuwaoe .0 m2 emm.m 0mm.m www.0v ma wH¢.m mme.em ma muspusuum mo coaumeHcH .m mz vmm.0 mv¢.v www.0m ma vea.v 00m.em ma mmmcm>flmm5mumm .v vm0.0 mae.m mma.m 000.mm ma mem.m 00v.vm ma wucampumucp mo mucmumaoe .m mz 0mm.m 0mm.a 00v.ea ma 0mm.H 000.ma ma coapmflaflucoumm panama .N mz 000.H m0m.m 000.0N ma mv¢.m 000.0H ma coapmpcwmmumwm .H Uflpmwbmum uauwwpmpm mm cme 2 am new: 2 :m: we =m: m>flusumxm m>Hpsumxm mCOHmcmEHQ wwfiaflnmnoum pmucmfiuwaxm pwucmaummxm magnumpmmq mUCMUHMHcmHm umqu umoz HHx Euom Gama exp :0 mm>audumxw muumEEou mo quEmnu pmucmflummxm pmmma wcu pcm mm>ausumxm muumEEou m0 HmQEmcu poucmfiumaxm umoE mLu mo mwmcoammu wcu cmm3umn mucmflum> mo mflmhamcm hmBImco m MO muHSmwm m.v wHQmH 77 Hypothesis 9 In hypothesis nine, the mean scores of the chamber of commerce executives with the longest tenure in position are contrasted with the mean scores of the chamber of commerce executives with the shortest tenure in position. The null hypothesis follows: There are no statistically significant dif— ferences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between the chamber of commerce executives with the longest tenure in position and the chamber of commerce executives with the shortest tenure in position. Analysis of the data suggested no significant dif— ferences between these two groups. (Table 4.9) The three dimensions measured which have notably higher "P" scores are "Representation," and "Persuasiveness," and "Superior Orientation." In all three cases, executives with the shortest tenure have the higher mean scores. (r1 Ill fix AL! hluit. .fx‘ ft I L. Mlv FL Me» mna~ . ..> 78 mz mmm.m mmm.v 00v.Hv 0H 00m.m >0v.mm 0H COfiymycano uoaumasm .NH 02 0m0.a 00H.¢ 000.Hm 0H >0H.m e0m.0m ma cofiymummyCH .HH 02 000.0 00m.m 00m.ma 0H vm0.a e0m.ma 0H wumysuu< m>ayuapwum .0H 02 0me.a mme.m e0v.mm ma mem.v e0¢.bm ma mammcaem coayuspoum .0 02 m00.0 0H0.m mmm.m¢ ma mmm.m 000.Nv 0H coaymumpamcou .0 m2 000.0 00H.m mmm.sm 0H eo0.m 00m.em ma coayQESmm< maom .e 02 m0¢.0 v00.m 000.0w 0H mem.0 e0m.mm ma Eopmwym mo mucmuwaoe .0 02 me0.H N00.v n00.av ma 000.v e0v.0m ma wusyusyym mo coaymflyaCH .m 02 mm0.m eme.v 00m.0m 0H vmv.m mme.mm 0H mmwcm>flmm3mymm .w 02 0e0.0 mea.m e0m.mm 0H 000.0 000.vm 0H >ycwmyumUCD mo mucmymaoe .m 02 0N0.0 m0v.m mmm.0a 0H 000.H e0v.0a 0H coaymflaflucoumm panama .m 02 ev0.m emm.m 00m.0m ma 00H.m 00m.0a ma coaymycmmwuamm .H uwymaymym UHymaymym am cow: 2 am cmmz z :m: we :m: ®>Hysuwxm m>Hysumxm mCOflmcmEHQ hyfiafinmnoum muncme myscme mflcmumpmmq mUCmUHMHcmHm ymwyuocm ymmmcoq HHX Ehom Gama any so GOHyHmOQ CH wudcwy ymmyuozm mcy nyfl3 mm>Hysumxw OUMOEEOU yo quEmSU paw COHyHmOQ ca muscmy ymwocoa may nyflz mm>flysumxm mUHmEEOU mo Hwnfimsu mo wmmcoamwu wry Gmm3ywn OUCMHHM> mo mflmhamcm >m3lmco M MD myadmmm Gov OHQGB 79 Hypothesis 10 In hypothesis ten, the mean scores of chamber of commerce executives from the largest communities are con- trasted with the mean scores of chamber of commerce executives from the smallest communities. The null hypothesis follows: There are no statistically significant differ- ences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between the chamber of commerce executives from the largest communities and the chamber of commerce executives from the smallest communities. Analysis of the data suggested a significant dif- ference in the dimensions of "Superior Orientation" and "Tolerance of Uncertainty." Two other dimensions with notably larger "F" scores were "Demand Reconciliation" and "Integration." In each of these four cases, executives from the largest communities had the highest mean scores. (Table 4.10) 80 Hoo.o N0m.ma veh.m e00.bm ma vom.m e00.Hv ma coaymycwauo uoaummsm .NH 02 mm0.m H00.H mmm.mH ma Hm0.m 000.Hm ma coaymummyCH .HH 02 000.0 Hm0.H e00.ma 0H Hm0.m mma.0a 0H >umusuu< m>ayuuowum .oa mz vmm.0 omm.v mmm.em ma mma.v e00.0m ma mammcaem coayUSUOMQ .0 02 0m0.0 mm>.0 00m.0v ma 00¢.v h0¢.0v 0H coaymumpamcou .0 02 0H0.0 000.0 e00.>m ma 00H.m b0m.em 0H coayQESmm< maom .b 02 HNH.0 H00.0 mmm.0m ma 00>.m >0m.0m ma Eoommum we mucmumaoe .0 m2 NBH.0 vem.¢ mmm.mm ma 0vN.m mmm.0¢ ma undyusuym mo COHyMHyHCH .m 02 000.H 00v.v 000.0m ma 00m.m mmm.em ma mmmcw>flmm5mumm .v Hv0.0 vem.v 0m0.0 >00.0m 0H Nae.m >0m.vm ma >yCHmyumucD yo mucmumaoe .m m2 000.m 00m.m 00m.ea 0H Hma.m 000.0H ma coaymflaaucoumm pCMEmD .N m2 oHH.H Nos.m ooo.oa ma «so.m mmm.ma ma conymycmmmuomm .H uaymfiymym uaymflymym mm cmmz 2 am com: 2 :h: M0 :h: ®>Hyfiwam ®>HyDU®XQ mCOHmCTEHD >yHHHQonum >yHCSEEOU >yHCSEEOU aflcmumpmmq mUCMUHmwcowm ymeHmEm ymmmumq HHx Euom Coma wry co mmHyHQDEEOU ymmaamfim mcy Eoum mm>Hysumxm muumEEou mo umnemnu paw mwfiyflCSEEou ymmmuma wry Eoum mm>flysumxw wuymEEou mo umnsmcu m0 mmmcommmu mny cmmZme mucmflum> mo mamhamcm >m3lmco m we myasmwm 0H.¢ magma 81 Hypothesis 11 In hypothesis eleven, the mean scores of men who are chamber of commerce executives were contrasted with the mean scores of women who are chamber of commerce executives. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differ- ences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between men and women who are local executives of the chamber of commerce in Indiana. Analysis of the data suggested significant differences in the leadership dimensions of "Representation," "Persuasiveness," and "Tolerance of Freedom." In these dimensions found to be significantly dif- ferent, women had the highest mean score in only the "Tolerance of Freedom" dimension. Four other dimensions having notably higher "F" scores were "Tolerance of Uncertainty," "Role Assumption," "Consideration," and "Integration." Women score highest in the "Tolerance of Uncertainty" and "Consideration" dimensions of leadership. (Table 4.11) 82 m2 mmN.H hem.m ooo.om m moo.m mom.oo Hm acaymycowuo uoaumasm .NH mz mom.m eso.m www.ma o moo.m ooo.om Hm coHyouomuCH .HH mz mmo.o mom.a www.ma o HON.N ooo.ofi Hm suousuue m>wyuaomuo .oa mz em0.o amm.m HHH.om o ooo.m oam.wm Hm mammrQEm coayusooum .0 m2 oem.m mmm.¢ www.mo o oom.o mmo.oo Hm coanoumoamcou .0 m2 Hmo.m om0.0 has.em o omo.m omm.om Hm coayoesmm< maom .e Hmo.o mmo.m moo.m ses.mo o mom.o Hoo.mm Hm soommum mo mucmumaoe .0 m2 mmm.o mmm.0 HHH.om o mom.m oom.oo Hm ousyusuym mo coaymayacH .m omo.o moo.m Has.e oss.om o mmN.o moo.sm Hm mmocm>ammsmumm .e m2 mso.m mmH.o mmm.mm o omo.o oom.mm Hm >ycamyumuco yo mucmumaoe .0 m2 mmm.a mmfi.m ooo.oa o Hoo.m use.ma Hm coaymuaaucoumm panama .N smo.o 00m.e oom.v mmm.oa o Hmo.m ooo.oa Hm coaymycmmmuamm .H anywaymym uaymaymym on com: 2 on some 2 :m: mo :m: mm>wyzumxm mo>Hysomxm mCOHowEHQ hyflaflnmnoum cmeoz cm: dacmuopmmq muchHMHC0Hm HHN SHOE OQmQ ®£# CO mw>Hysumxw muumEEou mo quEmfiu CmEOB pcm mm>Hysuwxm wuuoEEou mo MQQEmcu cmE Mo mmmcoamwu mcy cmmZme mucmflum> mo mflmhamcm >m31wco m yo myasmwm Ha.v manna 83 Hypothesis 12 In hypothesis twelve, the mean scores of the oldest superintendents are contrasted with the mean scores of the oldest chamber of commerce executives. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between the oldest superintendents and the oldest chamber of commerce executives. Analysis of the data suggested significant differ- ences exist in the "Predictive Accuracy" dimension of leader- ship. Other dimensions having notably higher "F" scores were "Persuasiveness," and "Integration." In all three cases superintendents had the highest mean score. (Table 4.12) 84 m2 me.o mm0.m ooo.om ma oom.m ooo.om ma couyoycmuuo uoaumasm .NH mz ooo.m Hom.m ooo.oa ma Hmm.m eoN.Hm ma couymuooycH .HH omo.o amm.m mso.m ooo.oa ma mm0.H som.oa mu somusou< o>ayuwoouo .oH mz ooo.o ooo.o mms.om ma mee.o aom.om ma mamoroem coayuspoum .0 m2 oom.H oam.m som.mo ma meo.m mmm.ao ma coaymuooamcoo .0 oz Hoo.a Hom.e som.sm ma oom.o som.om ma couyoesmm< maom .5 m2 moo.o mom.m ooo.om ma omm.m som.oo ma soomoun mo mucmumHOB .0 m2 mos.o sHo.m mma.om ma Noo.m soo.oo ma ousnosuym uo coanoayucH .m mz mmm.m oem.m soo.mm ma mew.o ooo.om ma mmoco>wmmsmumo .e mz Hmm.m mso.m mmm.mm ma omm.m oom.mm mu sncwoyumuco Mo mucmuwaoe .m mz 0mm.a oo0.H ooo.oa ma moa.m oom.wa ma couymuawocouom panama .m mz oea.o moo.a ooe.om ma eom.m ooo.om ma conymycomonoom .H ouymaymym uaymaymym on com: 2 on some 2 :m: :m: m>Hysuwxm ycmpcmyCHquSm mCOHmCmEHQ syaaanmnouo ymmoao ymooao oarmuoomou muchflMHcmflm mny mo noncommmu may somZme mucmflum> Mo mfimwamcm >m3ImCO m Mo myasmmm HHX Euom coma wcy co mm>HySUmxm woumEEOU mo umnfimcu ymeHo mny paw mycopcoycfiquSm ymmUHo Naov OHQmB 85 Hypothesis 13 In hypothesis thirteen, the mean scores of the most experienced superintendents are contrasted with the mean scores of the most experienced chamber of commerce executives. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between the most experienced superintendents and the most experienced chamber of commerce executives. Analysis of the data suggests that no significant differences exist between these two groups. The dimensions of "Initiation of Structure," "Tolerance of Freedom," and "Role Assumption," have notably higher "F" scores. In all of these cases, the most experienced superintendents had the highest mean scores. (Table 4.13) 86 m2 wmm.o V0b.m ooo.oe my ooo.m soo.oo my couyoycmauo Moaumasm .NH mz eo0.o mow.m mms.om ma ooo.m hoe.am ma cowumuooycH .HH m2 omm.H som.a poe.oa ma smm.H som.om ma sumusuo< o>uyuwooum .oa mz mso.o 0mm.e ooo.mm my mmo.m ooo.om ma mummroem coayusooum .0 m2 Hmo.o 0oe.q mma.mo ma moH.m mmm.Ho ma coaymumoamcou .0 m2 sso.o ooo.m ooo.om ma Hem.m ooo.om ma counoenmm< maom .s mz Hmo.e mmm.m mma.om ma omm.m mmm.ae ma soomoue mo mucmumaoe .0 m2 Hmm.m mao.m mme.sm ma omo.e e00.oe ma onsyusuym mo coayoaywcH .m mz Ham.o vea.e ooo.om ma om0.e mmm.om my mmmco>ummsmuoo .e mz who.m mom.m ooo.om ma 0H0.m ooo.om ma sycamyumuco mo mocmumaoe .m m2 Nom.H omo.a ooo.oa ma omo.a ooo.oa ma coayoaayucoumm panama .N mz mso.o ooo.m oo.oa ma 0mm.m som.oa ma cowboycomonomm .H uwymyymnm paymaymym om com: 2 om some 2 :m: mo :m: m>Hysumxm ycmpcmyCHumosm mCOHmCmEHQ hyHHHQonum .me ymoz .me ymoz oflcmumpmmq muchHMHcmflm HHX Show OQmA mfiy CO mm>Hysumxm pmucmflumaxm ymOE mcy pcm mycmpcmycflumozm pmucmflumaxm ymOE may mo mmmcoammy mny cmm3ymfl mucmaum> mo mfimhamcm >m3lmco m mo myHDmmm mH.v manmh 87 Hypothesis 14 In hypothesis fourteen, the mean scores of the superintendents with the longest tenure in position are con- trasted with the mean scores of the chamber of commerce executives with the longest tenure in position. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between the super- intendents with the longest tenure in position and the chamber of commerce executives with the longest tenure in position. Analysis of the data suggested that no significant differences existed between these two groups. (Table 4.14) The dimensions of "Representation," "Tolerance of Uncertainty," "Persuasiveness," "Role Assumption," and "Predictive Accuracy," have notably higher "F" scores. In all cases, superintendents had the highest mean scores. I If ~1Fluri .Ih rfv\ Pix Va. .F ~ W.» ..:.. . Vin 88 m2 Coma mcy co coHyHmom CH muscmy ymmmcoH mcy CyHB mm>Hysumxm muumEEou we umnEmcu mcy cam ceHyHmoe CH muscmy ymmocoH mcy cyHS mycmecmyCHmeSm mny we mmmcoemmu mLy :mmZymn mUCMHHm> we mfimxamcm >m3lmco m we myaemmm ooo.o oom.m ooo.om ma oom.m s00.mm ma coayoycowuo yeaumenm .ma m2 msm.a sma.m s0m.om ma msa.m oom.am my coaymuooycH .HH mz oom.m ¢m0.H s0~.ma ma omo.a oom.om ma spousuu< m>ayuaomuu .oa m2 om0.o ovm.o o0¢.am ma mm0.o mma.0m ma memoroem ceflyuepeym .0 m2 sma.o mmm.m ooo.me my Hoo.m mma.mo my connmumoamcoe .0 m2 ome.m som.m oom.sm ma ooo.o ooo.om ma coayoezmm< maom .o m2 oom.o mem.0 o0m.om ma oe0.m ooo.oe ma soommum mo mucmumaee .0 m2 mam.o mmo.o ooo.om ma mae.m mmm.oe ma ousyusuym mo coHymHyHcH .m mz mmo.m eme.m mms.mm ma ewm.m ooo.mm ma mmocm>ummsmnmm .e m2 mom.m ooo.m ooo.om mu Hmm.m mmm.om ma sycamynooco MO wucmeHOB om mz HAO.o mom.H s0¢.ma ma omH.m soo.oa ma coayoaaaucoumm ecmEmQ .m mz osm.m 00H.m oom.0H my ma¢.m ooo.om my coaymycommuamm .H oaymaymym uaymaymym mm some 2 on some 2 :m: we :m: m>Hyeumxm ycmpcmyCflumesm mCOHmcmEHQ >yHHHQonum muscme muzcme eflnmumpmmq mucmuaMHC0Hm ymm0coq ymm0coq HHx snow ¢H.v mHQmH 89 Hypothesis 15 In hypothesis fifteen, the mean scores of the super- intendents from the largest communities are contrasted with the mean scores of the chamber of commerce executives from the largest communities. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between superin- tendents from the largest communities and the chamber of commerce executives from the larges communities. Analysis of the data suggested that significant differences exist in the "Superior Orientation," "Tolerance of Uncertainty," and "Tolerance of Freedom" dimensions of leadership. Executives have the higher mean score in only the "Superior Orientation" dimensions. (Table 4.15) Higher "F" scores were noted in the dimensions of "Representation" "Persuasiveness," "Production Emphasis," and "Predictive Accuracy." Superintendents had higher mean scores in all of these dimensions except "Production Emphasis." 9O 000.0 0m0.0 vom.m e00.av 0H v00.m mme.0m ma coaymycmyue uoaumdsm .NH 02 000.0 Hm0.m 000.Hm ma 000.H e0v.am my coaymu0myCH .HH mz 0m0.m Hm0.m mma.0H my m0w.a 000.0m my >emusou< m>flyoapmu0 .0H mz Hmo.m mma.o e00.mm ma omm.e mmo.mm ma mwmoroem cowy05poum .0 02 mm0.0 00v.¢ o0¢.0v ma mmm.m e00.av my coeymympflmcou .0 m2 ooo.o moa.m som.em ma mms.m soo.mm mu coHyQESmm< mwom .0 ew0.0 00¢.0 00o.m e0m.0m ma v00.m 000.Hv my Eoommum we mucmumaoe .0 02 mmm.a 0mm.m mmm.0v 0H 0m0.m mm0.wv ma musyesuym we coaymflyHCH .m 02 H0m.m 00m.m mm0.em ma wee.m 000.0m ma mmmcm>ammemumm .v Hm0.0 mva.m mae.m e0m.vm 0H 0N0.m 000.em ma >ycfimyumece we mecmumaoe .m 02 em0.0 HmH.m 000.0H ma omm.m mmm.0a my coaymflaaecoemm pcmEme .m 02 000.m vee.m mmm.0H 0H >00.H 00m.0m ma coaymycmmmyemm .H owymwymym ewymaymym em cmmz z 00 com: 2 :m: we :0: m>Hysemxm ycmpcmycHumesm mcoamcmefle wyfiaanmnoum >ywceEEou >yHCSEEOU owrmumpmmq mucmofiwflcoflm ymmmumq ymmoumq HHX Euom OQmA mcy co mmHyHCSEEeO ymmmuma mcy Eeuw mm>Hysemxm moumEEou we quEmcu mcy Dam mmHyHCSEEOU ymmoyma mcy Eouw mycmpcmyCHquSm mcy we mmmcoenmu mcy cmmBme mucmflum> we mflmwamcm >m3umco m we myasmmm mH.v mHQmB 91 Hypothesis 16 In hypothesis sixteen, the mean scores of the youngest superintendents are contrasted with the mean scores of the youngest chamber of commerce executives. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between the youngest superintendents and the youngest chamber of commerce executives. Analysis of the data suggested a significant differ- ence in the "Superior Orientation" dimension of leadership. The youngest executives had the highest mean score on this dimension. (Table 4.16) Higher "F" scores are noted on the "Role Assumption" and "Consideration" dimensions of leadership. The superin- tendents had the highest mean score on "Role Assumption" while the executives had the highest mean score on "Consideration." It was interesting to note that the mean score on the dimension of "Demand Reconciliation" is exactly the same for both groups. 92 oHo.o oas.s omm.m www.me ma Hem.m oom.oe ma cowboycmauo Howumedm .NH m2 eHH.H omm.m A0N.Hm ma oom.H ooo.om ma cownmuomycH .HH mz omo.o oma.m s00.oa ma oom.a mmm.oa ma somusuo< m>uyuaomum .oH mz oom.o msm.m mmm.mm my moo.m som.sm ma mammroem coayuepeum .0 m2 moa.m mma.m www.me mu mm0.m a0o.oe ma coanmuooamcoe .0 m2 mma.m mHo.e mmm.sm ma mma.e mmm.om mu cowyoesmm< maom .e m2 oom.a mom.m som.oe ma mom.m mmm.ae mu eooomne we museumaoe .0 m2 oeo.o mso.m som.ae ma woe.m ooo.ae ma musyusuym mo coaymaywcH .m m2 mmo.o emfi.o ooo.om ma Hmm.m mmm.om ma mmmco>ammsmuoo .e m2 ooo.o oms.o oom.mm ma emo.m ooe.mm ma sycamyumuco we mocmumaoe .m m2 ooo.o mmm.m mma.oa ma mom.u mma.oa ma coaymfiayocooom pcmEmQ .N mz mma.o me.m ooo.om ma 0o¢.a mmm.om ma cowboycmmmnoom .H uaymwymym zmz wo uaymwyoym om some 2 am some 2 mcoamcmeo hyHHHQerum :h: m>Hysemxm ycmecmyCHumesm Qflcmumpmmd muchHwHC0fim ymmmcsow ymmocsow HHX Show Gama mcy co mm>flysumxm muumEEoe we umflfimcu ymm0c30> m£y pcm mycmpcmycfiumesn ymmoceo> mcy we wmmceemmu mcy cmmzymn mucmfium> we mHm>Hmcm >m31mco m we myHSmmm 0H.¢ magma 93 Hypothesis $2. In hypothesis seventeen, the mean scores of the least Analysis of the data suggested a significant differ- ence in the "Tolerance of Uncertainty" dimension of leader- ship. (Table 4.17) The dimensions of "Demand Reconciliation," and "Persuasiveness" have notably higher "F" scores than do other dimensions. The superintendents had the higher mean scores on all three dimensions of leadership. . 1 1.: (l..\ .P (ACCtI!(\ ”my. ~.luruv 1N: Iain/(17+crl. fierbcmflLawkr ~70 w...x1...xn.... ..... 5:: 94 mz HHo.o ooo.e ooo.om ma eoo.m mms.om ma counmncmfluo yoaumesm .NH mz moo.o mue.¢ mmo.om ma sos.a som.om ma connouooyCH .HH mz Hom.o omm.m www.ma ma oem.H s0m.oa ma sumusuu< o>ayuwomum .oH mz omH.o mom.e eoo.em mu Hoe.m mma.sm ma manoroem coayuspoum .0 m2 omH.o 0mm.e ooo.Ho ma emo.m so¢.ae ma cowymumoamcoo .0 m2 mmo.a omH.m ooo.om ma mem.m oom.mm ma coHnQESmm< maom .5 m2 ooo.o eo0.m mmm.oo ma omw.m oom.He ma sooooum we mecmumaefi .0 m2 HmH.H oom.m som.oe ma soo.m mmm.ae ma ousyusuym mo coflnoayaca .m mz ooo.o meo.e oom.om ma som.e woe.om ma mmmco>wmosmuom .e moo.o NHA.HH ooH.m ooo.om ma mao.m aoo.mm ma snowmyumuc: we mucmumHOH .m mz som.m omo.H ooe.sa ma Noe.a mme.ma ma couymuauucoumm ecmEmQ .0 m2 omH.o mom.m oom.om ma mom.H woe.om ma cownmncmmouoom .H uaymwymym :e: mo uwymaymym om cow: 2 om some 2 mcoamamsao >yHHHQonum :m: m>Hysemxm ycmpcmyCHquSm Qanmumpmmq muchwacmwm .me ymmmq .me ymmmq HHX EMOM OQmi—H mfiu. CO mmerDDUmwvnm QUHGEEOU MO quEmLU pmucmflumexm ywmmH mny paw mycmpcmycflumesm pmucmflumexm ymmmH msy we mmmcoammu mny Cmmzymfl mecmflum> we mHm>Hmcm >m3lmce m we myHSmmm 0H.¢ mHQmB 95 Hypothesis 18 In hypothesis eighteen, the mean scores of the superintendents with the least tenure in position are con- trasted with the mean scores of the chamber of commerce executives with the least tenure in position. The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences among the dimensions of leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ Form XII between superin- tendents with the least tenure in position and the chamber of commerce executives with the least tenure in position. Analysis of the data suggested that significant dif- ferences exist between the two groups in the dimensions of "Consideration" and "Production Emphasis." Chamber of commerce executives had the higher mean score in both dimensions. The dimensions of "Tolerance of Uncertainty," "Role Assumption," and "Superior Orientation" have higher "P" scores than the remaining dimensions measured. The executives have a higher mean score in only the "Superior Orientation" dimension of leadership. (Table 4.18) 96 m2 000.N NNN.¢ 00e.Hv 0H m>0.m mmH.0m 0H COHymycmHue uoHymesm .NH 02 0m0.H 00H.¢ 000.Hm 0H 0m0.H 00m.0m ma COHymu0myCH .HH m2 Hso.o mom.m oom.oa mu moH.H ooe.oH ma sumusuo< m>HyUHomu0 .0H oH0.0 m00.0 0me.m e0v.0m 0H ¢e0.m mmm.0m ma mHmmCQEm COHyUSUoum .0 mH0.0 000.0 0H0.m mm0.m¢ 0H 0om.m mms.0m 0H COHymumpHmCOU .0 02 m00.m 00H.m mmm.em 0H 00v.m 000.0m 0H COHyeESmm< mHom .e 02 He0.0 000.0 000.0v 0H 0m0.m 00N.0v 0H Eonmmum we moCmumHoe .0 02 0mm.0 m00.¢ e00.Hv 0H 000.0 mm0.0v 0H musyusuym we COHymHyHCH .m 02 000.0 eme.¢ 00m.0m ma HHO.¢ mme.0m 0H mmmCm>Hmmemymm .v m2 ooo.m mHH.m www.mm ma ema.m Hom.em ma snowmnumoco wo moCmumHoe .m 02 000.0 00v.m mmm.0H 0H vmm.H n00.0H 0H COHyMHHHUCOUmm pCmEme .m 02 o00.0 s0m.m 00m.0m 0H 0e0.H mmH.0m 0H COHymyCmmmuQmm .H UHymHymym 2%: W0 Uflvmflymym Om GMT: 2. CW C002 2 mCOHmCTEHQ hyHHHanoum :m: m>Hysemxm yCmpCmyCHumesm QHCmumpmmA mUCmUHwHCOHm mMSCmB ymmmq mueCmB ymmmq HHx Show 0004 mcy Co COHyHmoa CH muecmy ymmmH mcy CyH3 mm>Hysumxm moumEEou we quEmnu mcy pCm COHyHmoe CH muscmy ymmmH mcy ecm myCmecmyCHquSn mny we wmmCOQmmu mCy Cmmzymn mUCmHum> we mHmhamCm xmBImCo m we mstwmm 0H.v mHQmB 97 Hypothesislg In hypothesis nineteen, the mean scores of the superintendents from the smallest communities were con- trasted with the mean scores of the chamber of commerce executives from the smallest communities. The null hypothesis follows: There are no statistically significant differ- ences among the dimensions of leadership behavior chamber of commerce executives from the smallest communities. Analysis of the data suggested that significant differences existed between the two groups in the dimensions of "Demand Reconciliation," and "Tolerance of Uncertainty." Superintendents had the higher mean score in both dimensions. "Predictive Accuracy" is the only other dimension having a notably higher "F" score. The superintendents also had a higher mean score in this dimension. (Table 4.19) 98 m2 mso.o was.m Hom.om ma ooo.o www.mm ma coyymycoano COHumeem .NH m2 oem.H Hmo.a mmo.oH ma mom.a soo.om ma coaymuomycH .HH m2 mmo.m Hmm.H Hoo.oH ma Hoo.o mmo.oH ma sumusoue o>uyuuoouo .oa m2 oem.fi omm.e mmo.sm ma oma.m oom.om ma memoroem COHyoepoum .0 m2 Hem.o mms.m oom.oe ma oeo.m ooo.He ma coayoumowmcoo .0 m2 oom.o oom.m ooo.om ma oom.m H0N.wm ma cowyoesmm< oaom .H mz 0mm.a Hmm.o mmo.mm ma msm.m A0N.He ma sooomue we mUCmumHeB .0 m2 mom.o eem.e mmo.om ma 00m.m ooo.ae ma musyuouym wo coayoHyHcH .m mz Hoe.o 00¢.e ooo.om ma Hom.m oo0.sm ma mmmcm>ummsmumo .e mao.o mom.e mmo.0 ooo.om ma ooo.m mma.mm mm sycflmyuooco we meCmumHOB .m mmo.o 00H.e 00m.m oom.sa ma 00m.H oo0.mn ma cowyouaaucouom UCMEmQ .N mz emm.o N0H.N ooo.oa ma ooo.m Hom.om ma cowymycmmouoom .H owymHymym UHymHyoym om amp: 2 on some 2 :0: mo :0: m>Hyouoxm ncmocoycHnooom coamcoeHo hyHHHanoum >yHCSEEeU >yHC5EEou QHCmumpmmA mUCmUHwHCmHm ymmHHmEm ymmHHmE0 HHX Show Oqu mLy CO mmHyHCCEEeU ymmHHmEm mcy Eeuw mm>Hysumxm muumEEeu we quEmcu mny UCm mmHyHCDEEou ymmHHmEn mcy Eouw myCmpcmyCHquSm mry we mmmCeQmmu mCy Cmmzymn mUCmHum> we mHmemCm >mzlmco m we myHSmmm 0H.v mHQMB 99 Summary In Chapter IV the hypotheses originally posed in Chapter I have been expanded and analyzed. They are now restated in question form and addressed on the basis of the data developed during the course of this study. Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis one sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between the public school superintendents and executives of chamber of commerce in Indiana? The superintendents were found to have a statistically significant higher mean score in the leader- ship dimensions of "Tolerance of Uncertainty" and "Predictive Accuracy." Executives of chamber of commerce had a statistically significant higher mean score in the leadership dimension of "Superior Orientation." Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis two sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between oldest and youngest public school superintendents? No statistically significant differences were found between these two groups of superintendents in the dimensions of leadership behavior measured by the LBDQ Form XII. lOO Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis three sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between most experienced and least experienced public school superin- tendents? No statistically significant differences were found between these two groups of superintendents in the dimensions of leadership behavior measured by the LBDQ Form XII. Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis four sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between long tenure and short tenure public school superintendents? The superintendents with longest tenure in position were found to have a statistically significant higher mean score in the "Consideration" dimension of leadership behavior. Hypothesis 5 Hypothesis five sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between large community and small community public school superintendents? No statistically significant differences were found between these two groups of superintendents in the dimensions of leadership behavior measured by the LBDQ Form XII. Hypothesis 6 Hypothesis six sought a response to the question: IS there a difference in leadership behavior between public 101 school superintendents who hold the doctorate and those that do not? No statistically differences were found between these two groups of superintendents in the dimensions of leadership behavior measured by the LBDQ Form XII. Hypothesis 7 Hypothesis seven sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between the oldest and youngest chamber of commerce executives? The youngest chamber of commerce executives were found to have statistically significant higher mean scores in the leadership dimensions of "Persuasiveness" and "Superior Orientation." Hypothesis 8 Hypothesis eight sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between most experienced and least experienced chamber of commerce executives? The most experienced chamber of commerce executives were found to have a statistically significant higher mean score in the "Tolerance of Uncertainty" dimenSion of leadership. Hypothesis 9 Hypothesis nine sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between long ° 9 tunure and short tenure chamber of commerce executives. 102 No statistically significant differences were found between these two groups of chamber of commerce executives in the dimensions of leadership behavior measured by the LBDQ Form XII. Hypothesis 10 Hypothesis ten sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between large community and small community chamber of commerce executives? Chamber of commerce executives from the largest communities were found to have statistically significant higher mean scores in the leadership dimensions of "Tolerance of Uncertainty" and "Superior Orientation." Hypothesis ll Hypothesis eleven sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between men and women chamber of commerce executives? Men who are chamber of commerce executives had statistically significant higher mean scores in the leader- ship dimensions of "Representation" and "Persuasiveness." Women who are chamber of commerce executives had a statistically significant higher mean score in the "Tolerance of Freedom" dimension of leadership. Hypothesis 12 Hypothesis twelve sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between the 103 oldest public school superintendents and the oldest chamber of commerce executives? The oldest public school superintendents had a statistically significant higher mean score on the "Predictive Accuracy" dimension of leadership. Hypothesis l3 Hypothesis thirteen sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between the most experienced public school superintendents and the most experienced chamber of commerce executives? No statistically significant differences were found between these two groups in the dimensions of leadership behavior measured by the LBDQ Form XII. Hypothesis l4 Hypothesis fourteen sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between the long tenure public school superintendents and the long tenure chamber of commerce executives? No statistically significant differences were found between these two groups in the dimensions of leadership behavior measured by the LBDQ Form XII. Hypothesis 15 Hypothesis fifteen sought a response to the question: IS there a difference in leadership behavior between large community public school superintendents and large community 104 public school superintendents and large community chamber of commerce executives? Public school superintendents had statistically significant higher mean scores in the leadership dimensions of "Tolerance of Uncertainty" and "Tolerance of Freedom." Chamber of commerce executives had a statistically significant higher mean score in the "Superior Orientation" dimension of leadership. Hypothesis I6 Hypothesis sixteen sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between the youngest public school superintendents and the youngest chamber of commerce executives? The youngest chamber of commerce executives had a statistically significant higher mean score in the "Superior Orientation" dimension of leadership. Hypothesis l7 Hypothesis seventeen sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between the least experienced public school superintendents and the least experienced chamber of commerce executives? The least experienced public school superintendents had a statistically significant higher mean score in the "Tolerance of Uncertainty" dimension of leadership. 105 Hypothesis 18 Hypothesis eighteen sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between the least tenure public school superintendents and the least tenure chamber of commerce executives? The least tenure chamber of commerce executives had statistically significant higher mean scores in the "Consideration" and "Production Emphasis" dimensions of leadership. Hypothesis l9 Hypothesis nineteen sought a response to the question: Is there a difference in leadership behavior between small community public school superintendents and small community chamber of commerce executives? Small community public school superintendents had statistically significant higher mean scores in the "Demand Reconciliation" and "Tolerance of Uncertainty" dimensions of leadership. CHAPTER V W This study sought to isolate and identify differences in leadership behavior among and between public school superintendents and chamber of commerce executives in Indiana. The public school can be considered a "domesticated" organization, and the chamber of commerce a "wild" organi- zation within the typology suggested by Carlson.1 According to Carlson, "Domesticated" organizations do not compete for clients; their continued existence is guaranteed; operating funds are not closely tied to per- formance; and they are protected by the society which they serve.2 Carlson describes "wild" organizations as groups that must struggle for survival; their existence is not guaranteed; financial support is tied to the quality of _ 1Richard O. Carlson, "Environmental Constraints and Organizational Consequences: The Public School and Its Clients," Behavioral Science and Educational Administration, The Sixty-third NSSE Yearbook. Edited by Daniel E. Griffiths (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1964), pp. 262.276. 2Ibid., p. 266. 106 107 performance; and they are not protected by the society which they serve.3 The basic hypothesis was that there are differences in the self-perceived leadership behavior of public school superintendents and chamber of commerce executives in Indiana. Further it was hypothesized that differences within and between groups will be found on the basis of age, sex, education, experience, tenure in position, and size of community served. Nineteen hypotheses were formulated and tested using a one-way analysis of variance technique. Each hypothesis was presented and the results reported in Chapter IV. Conclusions The nineteen hypotheses can be condensed into seven major questions. A table has been developed for each ques- tion. The tables indicate the hypothesis involved on the left margin. Symbols are used to indicate higher mean scores on noted leadership dimensions between contrasted groups. Tables 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 have been developed to best express an overview of differences identified on the basis of age, experience, tenure in position, and size of community served. A connecting line was drawn to identify contrasting groups. 3Ibid., p. 267. 108 First, are there self-perceived differences in leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between public school superintendents and chamber of commerce executives in Indiana? (Table 5.1) As shown in Table 5.1, statistically significant differences in favor of superintendents were identified in the "Tolerance of Uncertainty" dimension and the "Predictive Accuracy" dimension. Table 5.1 Summary of self—perceived differences in leadership behavior as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between public school superintendents and chamber of commerce executives in Indiana Chamber of Public School Commerce Analysis Leadership SUperintendents Executives Dimensions (N-60) (N-60) (Hypothesis) 1 Representation # Demand Reconciliation # Tolerance of Uncertainty ‘ Tolerance of Freedom # Role Assumption # Predictive Accuracy ‘ Superior Orientation * #Higher mean score accompanied by notable "F" value. 'Higher mean score with probable significance beyond .05 alpha level. 109 Such a result is consistent with Carlson's con- tention that the public school is a "domesticated" organi- zation. Uncertainty and postponement might possibly be more easily accepted under such circumstances. The acceptance of his contention would also explain the significant difference in the "Predictive Accuracy" dimension. It would appear that predicting outcomes would be easier in a stable situation. Statistically significant differences in favor of executives were found in the "Superior Orientation" dimension. This is also consistent with Carlson who describes a "wild" organization as one that must maintain social relations with clients in order to retain clients. Perhaps the public school superintendent might consider strengthening his own behavior in this dimension of leadership as a means of more nearly relating the school to the immediate environment which it serves. The superintendents had higher mean scores supported by notably higher "F" scores in six of the seven dimensions shown in Table 5.1. Second, are there differences in leadership behavior among and between these groups on an age basis? (Table 5.2) As shown in Table 5.2 no differences were identified between the oldest and youngest superintendents. Since this study was concerned with self-perceived differences, and none identified by the oldest and youngest Table 5.2 Summary of self-perceived differences in leader— ship behavior on an age basis as measured by the LBDQ-Form XII between public school superin- tendents and chamber of commerce executives in Indiana Oldest Youngest Oldest Youngest Analy— Leadership Supt. Exec. Exec. sis Dimensions (N-15) (N—15) (N-15) (Hypothesis) 2 No differences 1/ identified 12 Persuasiveness # Indiana Chamber of Commerce 2-4-69vw LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE-Form XII Originated by staff members of The Ohio State leadership Studies and revised by the Bureau of Business Research Purpose of the Questionnaire On the following pages is a list of items that may be used to describe the behavior of your supervisor. Each item describes a specific kind of behavior, but does not ask you to judge whether the behavior is desirable or undesirable. Although some items may appear similar, they express diflerences that are important in the descrip- tion of leadership. Each item should be considered as a separate description. This is not a test of ability or consistency in making answers. Its only purpose is to make it possible for you to describe, as accurately as you can, the behavior of your super- visor. Note: The term, “group,” as employed in the following items, refers to a depart- ment, division, or other unit of organization that is supervised by the person being described. The term “members,” refers to all the people in the unit of organization that is supervised by the person being described. Published by Bureau of Business Research College of Commerce and Administration The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio Copyright 1962 DIRECTIONS: a. READ each item carefully. b. THINK about how frequently the leader engages in the behavior described by the item. c. DECIDE whether he (A) always, (B) often, (C) occasionally, (D) seldom or (E) never acts as described by the item. (I. DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters (A B C D E) following the item to show the answer you have selected. A - Always B - Often C — Occasionally D - Seldom E - Never e. MARK your answers as shown in the examples below. Example: He often acts as described ...................................... A C D E Example: He never acts as described ...................................... A B C D ® Example: He occasionally acts as described ................................ A B © D E 1. He acts as the spokesman of the group ................................ A B C D E 2. He waits patiently for the results of a decision ......................... A B C D E 3. He makes pep talks to stimulate the group ............................ A B C D E 4. He lets group members know what is expected of them ................ A B C D E 5. He allows the members complete freedom in their work ................ A B C D E 6. He is hesitant about taking initiative in the gratip ..................... A B C D E 7. He is friendly and approachable ...................................... A B C D E 8. He encourages overtime work ........................................ A B C D E 9. He makes accurate decisions .......................................... A B C D E 10. He gets along well with the people above him ......................... A B C D E 11. He publicizes the activities of the group .............................. A B C D E 12. He becomes anxious when he cannot find out what is coming next ...... A B C D E ’_____‘L l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 21. 24. 26. 28. 31. 32. 33. 35. A - Always B — Often C - Occasionally D — Seldom E -- Never His arguments are convincing ........................................ He encourages the use of uniform procedures .......................... He permits the members to use their own judgment in solving problems. He fails to take necessary action ...................................... He does little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group. .. He stresses being ahead of competing groups .......................... He keeps the group working together as a team ....................... . He keeps the group in good standing with higher authority ............ He speaks as the representative of the group ........................... . He accepts defeat in stride ........................................... . He argues persuasively for his point of view ........................... He tries out his ideas in the group .................................... . He encourages initiative in the group members ........................ He lets other persons take away his leadership in the group ............ . He puts suggestions made by the group into operation ................. He needles members for greater effort ................................ . He seems able to predict what is coming next .......................... . He is working hard for a promotion .................................. He speaks for the group when visitors are present ..................... He accepts delays without becoming upset ............................ He is a very persuasive talker ......................................... . He makes his attitudes clear to the group ............................. He lets the members do their work the way they think best ............ . He lets some members take advantage of him ......................... A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A wwwmwwmwmmwwwwmwmmmmmmmw OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDCUUUUU mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm 111171 37. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 45. 47. 48. 49. 51. 52. 53. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. A — Always B - Often C - Occasionally D - Seldom E — Never He treats all group members as his equals ............................. . He keeps the work moving at a rapid pace ............................ He settles conflicts when they occur in the group ...................... His superiors act favorably on most of his suggestions .................. He represents the group at outside meetings ........................... He becomes anxious when waiting for new developments .............. He is very skillful in an argument .................................... . He decides what shall be done and how it shall be done ................ He assigns a task, then lets the members handle it ...................... . He is the leader of the group in name only ............................ He gives advance notice of changes ................................... He pushes for increased production ................................... Things usually turn out as he predicts ................................ . He enjoys the privileges of his position ................................ He handles complex problems efficiently .............................. He is able to tolerate postponement and uncertainty ................... He is not a very convincing talker .................................... . He assigns group members to particular tasks ......................... He turns the members loose on a job, and lets them go to it ............ He backs down when he ought to stand firm .......................... He keeps to himself ................................................. He asks the members to work harder ................................. He is accurate in predicting the trend of events ........................ . He gets his superiors to am for the welfare of the group members ....... A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B C D E B C D E B c D E B C D F. B C D E B C D E B C D E B C D E B C D E B C D E B C D E B C D E B C D E B C D E B C D E B C D E I B C D E B C D E l B C D E B C D E . B C D E ‘ B C D E g B C D E l B C D E l A - Always B — Often C - Occasionally D - Seldom E - Never 61. He gets swamped by details .......................................... 62. He can wait just so long, then blows up ............................... 63. He speaks from a strong inner conviction .............................. 64. He makes sure that his part in the group is understood by the group members 65. He is reluctant to allow the members any freedom of action ............ 66. He lets some members have authority that he should keep .............. 67. He looks out for the personal welfare of group members ............... 68. He permits the members to take it easy in their work .................. 69. He sees to it that the work of the group is coordinated ................ 70. His word carries weight with his superiors ............................ 71. He gets things all tangled Up ......................................... 72. He remains calm when uncertain about coming events ................ 73. H5 is an inspiring talker .............................................. 74. He schedules the work to be done .................................... 75. He allows the group a high degree of initiative ........................ 76. He takes full charge when emergencies arise .......................... 77. He is willing to make changes ........................................ 78. He drives hard when there is a job to be done ......................... 79. He helps group members settle their differences ....................... 80. He gets what he asks for from his superiors ........................... 81. He can reduce a madhouse to system and order ........................ 82. He is able to delay action until the proper time occurs ................. 83. He persuades others that his ideas are to their advantage ............... A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A wwwmwwwww a: moon: 00000000000000 0 C O U U aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaccv A - Always B - Often C - Occasionally D — Seldom E - Never 84. He maintains definite standards of performance ....................... A 85. He trusts the members to exercise good judgment ..................... A 86. He overcomes attempts made to challenge his leadership ............... A 87. He refuses to explain his actions ...................................... A 88. He urges the group to beat its previous record ........................ A 89. He anticipates problems and plans for them ........................... A 90. He is working his way to the top ..................................... A 91. He gets confused when too many demands are made of him ........... A 92. He worries about the outcome of any new procedure .................. A 93. He can inspire enthusiasm for a project ............................... A 94. He asks that group members follow standard rules and regulations ..... A 95. He permits the group to set its own pace .............................. A 96. He is easily recognized as the leader of the group ...................... A 97. He acts without consulting the group ................................. A 98. He keeps the group working up to capacity ............................ A 99. He maintains a closely knit group .................................... A 100. He maintains cordial relations with superiors .......................... A was wwmwmwwwwmmwwww 00000000 000000000 UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU to --".~. MICHIGAN sran UNIV. LIBRARIES llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 31293103179705