Fl IS! Pyflv‘x t‘ ‘1‘- I T E ? BE $1321.51. 5L. :R:‘\LE’N’J-'N" W?!" ’a 2:" ”JP-“flow 4“ ELLE“ U‘th— ‘2‘ 31441 fiissefla’cion for the 358W“ 0“ Ph' 0' MECHEGRN STATE N NVERSR‘Y FREE-ENC C. WW 0053 1976 10 ‘. llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l l/ This is to certify that the thesis entitled Role of the School Superintendent In Collective Negotiations presented by Frederic C. Windoes has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Educ. Admin. Major professor Date ~ May 14, 1976 0-7639 B’ ‘ BINDI ‘2", am 2633; ;' ll 830K amnm mc~ ‘ spasm" 3mm”) . ; flopyjlcmcu: i I ABSTRACT ROLE OF THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT IN COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS BY Frederic C. Windoes The purpose of this study was to determine the expectations which school board members, teachers, and superintendents hold for the role of superintendent in 11m process of collective negotiations. Prime research questions were these: 0 What is the superintendent's actual role in collective negotiations? - How satisfied are school board members, teachers, and superintendents with the superintendent's actual negotiation role? 0 What do they believe the superintendent's negotiation role should be? Tmusthe superintendent's actual and preferred or ideal Hues in negotiation were identified. In the context of rol - Eitheory, incumbents of three social roles were asked t . 0define the superintendent's role. The study population was in Michigan where teacher ora ' ° grnzations have bargained under labor law since 1965. u. 'v Frederic C. Windoes Ilquestionnaire was sent to an unstratified random sample, cme-fifth of the 504 K-12 districts affiliated with the lfichigan Education Association. (Excluded were 40 districts whhflrare Michigan Federation of Teachers locals, or bargain independently, or do not bargain.) Usable returns were received from 82 school board members, 86 superintendents, mml77 teacher organization presidents, an overall response rate of 81 percent. The following hypotheses were drawn and tested statistically: 1. School board members, teachers, and superintendents of K-12 districts report different expectations for the role of superintendent in the process of negotiation. There are differences in what school board members, teachers, and superintendents report is the superintendent's actual role in negotiation. There are differences in satisfaction among school board members, teachers, and superintendents regarding the superintendent's actual role. There are differences in what school board members, teachers, and superintendents believe the superin- tendent's negotiation role should be, the preferred or ideal role. Frederic C. Windoes In statistical treatment, the program employed was Finn's "Multivariance, Univariate and Multiple Analysis of Variance, Covariance, and Regression: A Fortran IV Program." Three hypotheses were accepted at the .05 level of confi- dence. Hypothesis Two was rejected. All three groups of role definers agreed in their perception of the super— intendent's actual negotiation role, but differences in satisfaction were significant--board members being satisfied with the status quo, superintendents less so, and teacher representatives being quite unsatisfied. Board members and superintendents favored the role of advisor to board nego- tiators only as ideal for the superintendent, but teacher representatives failed to agree among themselves. In Michigan, the dual role of advisor to both sides is becoming rare. Predicted future adversaries: the teacher organiza- tion's negotiation professional versus management's outside negotiation professional. Several ancillary questions were asked. In response, superintendents said that advisory consultation with teachers antedated mandatory bargaining and coexists with it. Most Michigan superintendents have had some training in negotia- tions. Superintendents are divided, whether or not univer- sity training programs have helped with negotiations. If they needed help with a negotiations problem, they would turn not to a university but to the Michigan Association Frederic C. Windoes of School Administrators and Michigan Association of School Boards. They assert that negotiations has changed working relationships with teachers and the board. As implications from the data, it was concluded that universities might do more to help with negotiations by offering training in organization deve10pment, conflict management, and politics of education. Superintendents might act so as to reduce the adversary effect of bargain- ing. As teachers deny the superintendent's instructional leadership, the managerial role was posited as the future role for the superintendent. ROLE OF THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT IN COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS BY \Q:.; ‘h“ Frederic C. Windoes A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1976 ii Copyright by FREDERIC C. WINDOES 1976 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The assistance, encouragement, and faith of many people helped make the dissertation possible. Particular thanks are due my chairman, Dr. Walter W. Scott, for his support, his skillful guidance, and insight into school administration. Drs. Wilbur B. Brookover, Richard L. Featherstone, George R. Myers, and Norman P. Weinheimer were ever helpful and constructive members of my guidance committee. I acknowledge the assistance of Drs. Andrew Porter and John Schweitzer of Michigan State University, Ibrahim Fakouri of Indiana State University, Hyman Kornbluh of University of Michigan, and Benson 8. Munger of the Michigan Education Association. Thanks are due the Maxwell Foundation for its generous financial support. Dr. Ernest O. Melby, Mr. and Mrs. S. R. Harrison, Jr., and Mr. and Mrs. Fred C. Windoes provided years of encouragement, as did my colleagues at Indiana State University. My deepest gratitude is to my wife, Emily Harrison Windoes, who sacrificed much. iii LIST OF TABLES Chapter TABLE OF CONTENTS I 0 THE PROBLEM O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theory and Definitions . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . The Role Theory and Its Application . School as a Social System . . . . . . Bureaucrats and Professionals . . . . A Social Systems Model . . . . . . . Background of Role Theory Role Prescriptions . . . Role Perceptions . . . . Role Performance . . . . Heuristics of Role . . . . . . . . . Role Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . Administrator Perception of Role Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . Role Expectations . . . . . . . . . Role Subjects Other Than Superintendents . . . . . . . . . . Superintendents Prior to Negotiation Collective Negotiations and the Changing Role of the Superintendent . . . . . . Skills of Conflict Management . . . . Superintendents Negotiating Under Benign Conditions . . . . . . . . . Negotiations with Teacher Militancy . The Shifting Climate for Administration . . . . . . . . . . The Authority Problem . . . . . . . . iv Page viii mnwwl—t i—‘ \l 10 12 14 14 18 20 22 23 26 32 35 43 47 51 53 68 74 Chapter Page Michigan's Public Law 379 . . . . . . . 81 Effects on the Superintendent's Role . 83 Joint Decision-Making Outside Negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Joint Committees for Consultation . . . 91 Management by Objectives . . . . . . . 95 Managerial Role of the Superintendent . . . 96 Leader Behavior of Superintendents . . 97 Leadership, Administration and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Defining the Managerial Role . . . . . 107 Controversy over the Managerial Role . 113 The Manager as Leader . . . . . . . . . 115 Predicting the Future . . . . . . . . . 119 The Emerging Role . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 III. POLITICS OF MICHIGAN'S COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Historical Background of Collective Negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Michigan Education Association Versus the Federation of Teachers . . . . . . . 137 Ideology of Interest Groups . . . . . . . . 141 School Board and Administrator Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Cooperation Within Management . . . . . . . 151 Michigan Association of School Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Power Politics and Legislative Process . . 158 Politics of Education in Michigan . . . . . 159 Ideologies and Dissensus . . . . . . . 161 Michigan Education Association . . . . 162 Michigan Federation of Teachers . . . . 163 Michigan Association of School Boards . 164 Michigan Association of School Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 IV. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Rationale of the Study . . . . . . . . 173 Selection of the Sample . . . . . . . . 176 General Methods of the Study . . . . . 178 Assumptions Underlying the Study . . . 180 Chapter VI. Page Testable Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . 181 Research Questions of the Study . . . . 182 Statistical Treatment . . . . . . . . . 183 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS . . . . . . . 185 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Extent of Participation . . . . . 186 Role Expectations Held for Superintendent . 187 Convergence- Divergence in Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Acceptance- Rejection of Hypotheses . . 190 Intercorrelations . . . . . . . . . . . 195 The Superintendent's Actual Role . . . 198 Satisfaction with the Actual Role . . . 200 The Superintendent's Ideal Role . . . . 202 Management's Chief Negotiator . . . . . 204 Chief Negotiators of the Future . . . . 206 Role Conflict and Need for Change . . . . . 208 Superintendents' Preferred Behavior . . 208 Superintendent Behavior Which Boardmen Prefer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Superintendent Behavior Which Teachers Prefer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Advisory Consultation . . . . . . . . . 217 Superintendents' Training in Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Universities as Resources . . . . . . . 221 Sources of Help . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Changed Working Relationships . . . . . 225 Trends Affecting Educational Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Negotiation Shifts the Power . . . . . 234 Politics of Education . . . . . . . . . 239 The Superintendent of the Future . . . . . 243 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . 249 Substantive Findings . . . . . . . . . 250 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Related Research . . . . . . . . . . . 252 What Universities Might Do . . . . . . 252 Organization Development . . . . . . . 256 vi Chapter Page What Superintendents Might Do . . . . . 257 Questions for Future Research . . . . . . . 261 Appendix A. COVER LETTERS TO SUPERINTENDENTS, BOARD PRESIDENTS AND TEACHER REPRESENTATIVES . . 266 B. QUESTIONNAIRES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 273 vii 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Role Definers According to District Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceptions of Role Definers According to District Size--Ce11 Means and Cell Frequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Correlation Matrix for Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of variance 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Actual Negotiation Role of Superintendents Satisfaction with Superintendent's Actual R018 0 C O O O I C O O I O O O O O O O O 0 Ideal Negotiation Role for Superintendent Teacher Representatives' Choice of Ideal ROle O O I O O O O I O O O O I O O O I O 0 Chief Negotiator for Management Now . . . Predictions for Future Chief Negotiator . Extent of Advisory Consultation Before Collective Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . Extent of Advisory Consultation Since Collective Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . Extent of Superintendents' Training in Collective Negotiations . . . . . . . . . Superintendents' Satisfaction with Training for Negotiation . . . . . . . . . Sources of Help with Negotiation . . . . . Changes in Superintendents' Working RelationShips O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 viii Page 187 189 196 197 199 201 203 204 205 207 218 219 220 222 224 225 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Traditionally the superintendent of schools has been, simultaneously, professional leader of the teachers and executive officer of the school board. Collective negotiations makes it difficult for him to perform in both roles, especially when teachers and board members hold contradictory expectations for the superintendent's profes— sional behavior. Moreover the superintendent has a profes- sional self-image, a set of expectations to guide his own behavior. The problem of this study, then, is conformity to role expectations: What is the superintendent's actual role in collective negotiations and what do board members, teachers, and superintendents think it should be? 5953. Collective negotiations (collective bargaining in education) is changing the relative power relationships lflhiCh have long existed in public education among the board <>f education, administration, and teachers. Consequently, .it seems that negotiations is transforming the role of scflaool superintendent. More than ever subjected to incompatible expectations for their behavior, superintendents nationally report that it is becoming increasingly difficult to perform as superintendents. This is particularly true in Michigan where the leg- islature in 1965 passed an act authorizing public employees to bargain collectively. As a result, Michigan has been thrust into the forefront of social change in educational administration while the job of superintendent is opera- tionally redefined. Teachers in 520 school districts now share in decision-making with their board-administration under substantial direction from the Michigan Education Association and the Michigan Federation of Teachers.1 Generally without training in negotiation, to their dismay, superintendents have found themselves "in the middle," unprepared to deal with this phenomenon. Some superintendents have chosen to be negotiators. Some have had the duty imposed on them. Some boards have hired professional negotiators. After nine years of these changes, it seems use- ful to determine the current situation as it has evolved.2 Michigan has seemed to be a forerunner of national trends. Whether or not this conjecture is valid, a study of the 1In twelve additional districts the teachers bargain independently of the MBA or MFT. In another twelve districts the teachers have not chosen to bargain. 2The law had little discernible effect the first year after enactment. superintendent's role in negotiations might contribute to current knowledge of educational administration. Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine the expectations which school board members, teachers, and superintendents hold for the role of superintendent in the process of negotiation. The prime research questions are: . What is the superintendent's actual role in collective negotiations? 0 What do school board members, teachers, and superintendents think it should be? 0 Who are likely to be the negotiators for each side in the future? Thus the superintendent's actual and preferred (or ideal) roles in negotiation will be identified. Hypotheses It is assumed that board members, teachers, and superintendents have expectations for the role of super- intendent in the process of teacher-board negotiation. Put theoretically, to test hypotheses concerning expectations for the superintendent is to test theoretically derived Ihypotheses involving expectations for and the behavior (of incumbents of positions in a social system. Research hypotheses of the study are as follows: H School board members, teachers, and superintendents of K—12 districts in Michigan report different expectations for the role of the superintendent in the process of negotiation. H There are differences in what school board members, teachers, and superintendents report is the super— intendent's actual role in negotiations. H There are differences in satisfaction among school board members, teachers, and superintendents with the superintendent's actual role in negotiation. H There are differences in what school board members, teachers, and superintendents believe the negotiation role of the superintendent should be, the preferred or ideal role. Theory and Definitions The theoretical construct of the study is the social systems model of organizational behavior, in which the school is viewed as a social system (a little society); and admini- istration is viewed as a social process. Participants in negotiation are regarded as members of an ad hoc social system. Besides social systems theory, role theory provides conceptual tools for the investigation, including several of the following definitions: An expectation is an evaluative standard applied to a position incumbent. A role is a set of expectations applied to a posi- tion incumbent, the school superintendent in this case. Although the superintendent interacts with people in other positions, he is considered here only in relation to the counter positions of board member and teacher. Hole conflict is a position incumbent's awareness that he is confronted with incompatible expectations for " his behavior. in»: The managerial role is one of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling activities which will lead to an effective fulfillment of the schools' objectives. Collective negotiations (collective bargaining in education) is a process in which representatives of the teachers of a school district meet with representatives of the school board to make offers and counteroffers on "rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other conditions of employment" (Michigan statute). There is some confusion whether collective negoti- ations is a singular or plural term. By convention, it is becoming the practice to follow a procedure set forth by Lieberman and Moskow: In this book, "collective negotiations" is treated as a singular subject when regarded as a process and as a plural subject when regarded as a number of discrete acts of negotiation.3 Negotiation (singular) in this study is limited to the process of across-the—table bargaining. Ove rview This first chapter has been devoted to the rationale (if the study, a statement of the problem, and an explication (If the purpose of the study. 3Myron Lieberman and Michael H. Moskow, Collective Neguvtiations for Teachers: An Approach to School Adminis- traz ion (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966), p. l. In Chapter II, pertinent literature is reviewed—— bearing on social systems theory, role theory, negotiations, and the managerial role of the superintendent. Chapter III deals with politics of education and background of educa- tional decision-making in Michigan. Chapter IV presents the design of the study. Chapter V presents an analysis of results. Finally, Chapter VI is a summary of the study and statement of conclusions. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE In this chapter, topics to be treated are under the following headings: 4. 5. The school as a social system. Role theory and its application. Collective negotiations and the changing role of the superintendent. Joint decision-making outside negotiations. The managerial role of the superintendent. What is said under these rubrics is intended to provide a rationale for the study, hence discussion of previous research is combined with explication of the cited topics, which are generally related. The School as a Social System A social system is a patterned set of activities which are interdependent with respect to some common output. All social systems have two major concerns: accomplishing their objectives and maintaining them- selves over time. A school, for example, must educate its students and maintain itself as a functioning organization in continual Operation.1 1David W. Johnson, The Social Psychology of Educa- tion (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1970), pp. 20. In Chapter I it was said that the theoretical construct of this study is the social systems model of organizational behavior, in which the school is viewed as a social system and administration is viewed as a social process. The conceptual tool that the school may be thought of as a social system in itself has proved of heuristic value for understanding the structure and functioning of that institution. The school has a formal structure with positions ranked on a descending scale as: school board, administrators, teachers, and pupils. Its primary principle of organization is authority. The community supports the school and is, in turn, served by it. The community's point of entry into the system is through the school board. The school is a socialization agency of considerable importance in child rearing, especially in developed coun- tries, where socialization via schools is undertaken on a broad scale. It is a web of interactions and associations, subject to internal stresses and tensions, both actual and potential. It is a formal organization with professional as tne11.as bureaucratic aspects. Administrators outrank teach— eers, although both are employees of the school board. Both tfliink of themselves as professionals but they are subject to ccurtrol by the board, which is usually made up of "laymen." Administrators and teachers must contend with contradictory demands and constraints.2 The superintend- ent's professional career is largely influenced by lay control (more so than is the teacher's). Occasionally, therefore, he may accommodate to "unprofessional" criteria in the performance of his job. Teachers are professional employees in a bureaucracy whose functions are carried out according to prescribed routines. The school has its own internal life, a distinct culture with folkways, mores, and tradition. In other ways it mirrors the larger community of which it is a subunit. An educational sociologist, Bidwell, says the class- room teacher is not readily subject to external discipline.3 He cites Durkheim, who was critical of the possibility of control by colleagues, fearing that teacher organizations would become another source of "tyranny" over teachers. Attributing the thought to Durkheim, Bidwell continues: With the appearance of teaching as an organized occupation comes a collective thrust toward autonomy. Teacher organizations sanctify teachers' moral and intellectual superiority and assert their right to 2This is a principal theme of Neal Gross, Ward 8. bMason, and Alexander W. McEachern, Explorations in Role .Analysis: Studies of the School Superintendency Role (New ‘Yorkx John Wiley and Sons, 1958). The Gross study is a landmark in administrative research, which has influenced (a great number of studies including the present one. 3Charles Bidwell, "Sociology of Education," in .Encgcflopedia of Education Research, ed. by Robert L. Ebel (4tJl ed.; New York: The Macmillan Co., 1969), p. 1249. 10 occupational autonomy as specialists and cultivated men. Hence this sense of superiority . . . sets the whole teaching occupation against the force of state supervision and public Opinion.“ Teachers withdraw for mutual support and common defense into closed circles of fellow teachers.5 Bidwell cites what is purported to be a gap in knowledge of educational administration: As for the characteristics of school adminis- trators under varying social conditions, even in- formed speculation is 1acking, despite an extensive literature on the administration of American school systems.6 Bureaucrats and Professionals A characteristic feature of schools is that school administrators are executives of organizations staffed by professionals. This is the other side of the coin which says the teacher is a professional employee in a bureau- cratic setting. The problem of bureaucratic and profes- sional standards coexisting in schools has been given due attention.7 Difficulty in resolving issues of authority and autonomy may have contributed to the movement for collective bargaining by "professionals." The negotiations movement tips the balance against the administrator's author— ity and leadership in favor of the teachers' autonomy. “Ibid. SIbid. 6Ibid. 7See Myron Lieberman, Education as a Profession (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1956). 11 Although the formal organizational structure remains unchanged, the balance of power has shifted. Foley8 conceives of the environment of an educa- tional system as having an internal professional component and an external public component, which influences change and the differentiation of function within the internal organization. One might ask the rhetorical question, does bargaining change the internal professional component? It would seem so, when powerful teacher organizations develop as agencies external to the local district. Sexton offers evidence, now somewhat dated, which suggests that schools of education may not be doing an adequate job in preparing administrators to understand organizational realities: Of fifteen standard textbooks on school admin- istration selected at random, Daniel E. Griffiths found not a single source which devoted as much as a full chapter to organization, or the definition of duties, reSponsibilities, power, and authority.9 Sexton observes that "much unresolved conflict in the schools can be traced to the absence of judicial and appeals 8Walter J. Foley, "The Future of Administration and Educational Evaluation," Educational Technology, X (7), (July 1970), 20-25. 9Patricia Cayo Sexton, The American School: A Sociological Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice— Hall, Inc., 1967), attributed to Daniel E. Griffiths et al., Organizing the Schools for Effective Education (Danville, 111.: Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1962), p. 3. 12 systems."1° This lack may contribute to the growth of teacher unionism. Increased size and impersonality in organizations like schools have their negative features. Presthus says, "Feelings of helplessness and of frustration occur as organizational power and demands Checkmate the individual's "11 Too, this problem is exacerbated claims for autonomy. when the individuals concerned think of themselves as pro- fessionals. A Social Systems Model In a seminal work on the school as a social system, Jacob W. Getzels12 asserts that structurally administration is the hierarchy of relationships between subordinates and superordinates within a social system. Functionally admin- istration involves allocating and integrating roles and facilities to achieve particular goals of the system, commonly defined as a complex of elements in mutual interaction. A social system has two dimensions of activity which are analytically distinct but actually interactive. One is the nomothetic or normative dimension of institution, role, 1°Ibid., p. 72. 11Robert Presthus, The Organizational Society (New ‘York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), p. 17. 12Jacob W. Getzels, James M. Lipham, and Roald F. Ckunpbell, Educational Administration as a Social Process (New York: Harper and Row, 1968) . 13 and expectation in which organizational goals are pre-eminent. The other is the idiographic or personal dimension of indi— vidual, personality, and needs disposition in which personal goals are pre-eminent. (As Getzels' model is generally familiar to students of educational administration, it is cited here because it assumes that the school is a social system. The model has proved useful to conceptualize con— flict. As will be shown in the next section, study involving role theory incorporates the elements of institution, role, and expectation but ignores the personal dimension. In the constructive tension between organizational goals and per- sonal goals, role theory focuses on the former.) Modifying a statement by Spindler,l3 the following definition is offered: A social system is a structure by which people are classified according to statuses and roles, aligned as to equivalent, superordinate or subordinate positions, and ranked according to their relative power or prestige. In systems terms, the external political context in which education operates affects the internal leadership style of administrators. (This inference is drawn from "the politics of education" which is treated in Chapter III.) Systems theory permits defining the boundary of the :system under investigation. As the medical-surgical team in 21 hospital operating room may be conceptualized as a little 13George D. Spindler, ed., Education and Culture: Arzthropological Approaches (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963) . 14 mmial system, an empirically isolable system, the present Mmdy focuses on a similar system abstracted from a larger mm. For purposes of analysis, the investigator has arbi— trarily placed a boundary around three positions or roles Nmich are functionally related: the school board member, mmmrintendent, and teacher. Role theory provides a set (E related concepts as well as empirical data to aid in tmderstanding the relationships within the school system. Role Theory and Its Application A social system is made up of a number of roles and role expectations. The "role" of the superintendent of schools is expounded at length in convention speeches, journal articles, and textbooks usually without explicit definition of what "role" means. In this section, several definitions are offered, as well as the rationale for the social scientist's use of role to study a social system. Role theory has been widely used in social psychology, sociology, and anthropology, particularly as applied to people in social institutions. Broadly speaking, "role" means what one does or is expected to do in a position. Background of Role Theory Role theory has a fairly short history, which began ‘with William James' originating the concept of the social self to account for the range of identities a person has I: I. 15 according to the groups he belongs to. Any one man may have multiple social selves, as many "as there are distinct groups of persons about whose opinion he cares," to each group of which he "shows a different side of himself."1“ If two or more selves are incompatible, he may have to choose between them. So the individual selects what James called his "image," to which he conforms. This image derives from the expectations of others in his own "set," as well as from those others who have occasion to deal with his group. Thus, while the layman feels free to escape a cholera-ridden city, a medical practitioner considers himself bound to remain.15 In his use of "image" and "set," it is evident that James was a forerunner of role theory. Another pioneer, Willard Waller, undertook to analyze the role of teachers in the social setting in which they work. Considering the interaction of self and others, Waller early demonstrated that the individual seldom responds exactly to the role demands of his group, which fact can lead to conflict. Waller made the succinct observation that "to play a role is to regulate one's behavior by the imagined judgments of others."16 l"Donald Thomas Williams, Jr., "The Concepts, Status and Role, as They Affect the Study of Higher Education" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1963), p. 69, citing William James, The Principles of Psychology (New York: Henry holt & Co., 1890), p- 294. lsIbid., p. 69. 16Willard Waller, The Sociology of Teaching (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1932), p. 322. Waller was the first scholar to view the school as a social system. 16 George Herbert Mead helped make "role" a respectable mxfiect of investigation and inspired a number of students to follow in his tradition.17 He stressed the importance cf role perception as a determinant of social action. In Chaling‘with problems of interaction, Mead furthered the concepts of "role taking" and the "generalized other," which means substantially the same as "society,' the German man, or the French on. Ralph Linton conceived of the role concept as a means of connecting culture with social structure and offered these definitions which have become classic: A status, as distinct from the individual who may occupy it, is simply a collection of rights and duties. . . . A role represents the dynamic aspect of a status. The individual is socially assigned to a status and occupies it with relation to other statuses. When he puts the rights and duties which constitute the status into effect, he is performing a role. Role and status are quite inseparable, and the distinction between them is of only academic interest. There are no roles without statuses or statuses without roles.18 Linton stimulated interest in the concepts of status and role. Although an individual may play various roles (in a contemporary metaphor he "puts on different hats," signify- ing a shift in role), he rarely enacts more than one role at a time. Ordinarily one role at a time is active, while the 17George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self, and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934). 18Ralph Linton, The Study of Man (New York: D. Iqopleton-Century, 1936), pp. 113-114. 17 others are latent. (In the same week, a school superintendent might play ad seriatim such roles as these: church deacon, fraternity brother, military reserve colonel, Rotarian, and United Fund committee member. Meanwhile, other identities continue, as: husband, father, son.) Linton thought of a social system as embodying guidelines for the behavior of members of the system. He stressed the reciprocal aspect of behavior. He held that role meant the "legitimate expectations" of people toward those in other positions in the same social system.19 Thus, role was a set of behavioral standards ascribed by society. In an effort to reflect Linton's vieWpoint, Williams constructed the following definition. Role is "the sum total of socially-prescribed attitudes, values, and behavior his acceptance of which enables an individual through performance to validate his claim to statuses in his society."20 Role Prescriptions The keywords in defining role are prescriptions, perceptions, and performances. Neal Gross et al. place Linton's formulation under the rubric of normative culture 19Ralph Linton, The Cultural Background of Person- <2lity (New York: D. Appleton-Century, 1945), p. 77. 20Williams, op. cit., pp. 102-103. l8 patterns21 as one of three categories of role definitions which they analyze. Taking the normative culture pattern, an individual in a given situation is expected to behave according to norms ascribed by "society" for that position. Classified with Linton is Newcomb, who holds that "the ways of behaving which are expected of any individual who ocupies a certain position constitute the role . . . associated with "22 In this first category Gross at al. that position. emphasize behavioral standards which describe the rights and duties (or obligations) of status and assert that role is "the behavior an individual must engage in 'to validate' "23 Over time we learn so well the incumbency of the status. prescriptions that guide our behavior we "internalize" them and, in fact, no longer need external promptings. Role Perceptions In another category of role definitions are scholars who see role as "an individual's definition of his situation with reference to his and others' social positions."2” A criterion is that the person sees his behavior as "situa- tionally appropriate . . . in terms of the demands to 21Gross, op. cit., p. 11. 22Ibid., pp. 12-13, citing Theodore M. Newcomb, .Social Psychology (New York: The Dryden Press, 1951), p. 280. 23Ibid., p. 12. 2"Ibid., p. 13. 19 expectations of those in his group."25 Thus the individual's perception of other people's expectations for him is salient. Also in this category is Talcott Parsons, who has stated: A role . . . is a sector of the total orienta- tion system of an individual actor which is organized about expectations in relation to a particular interaction context, that is inte- grated with a particular set of value-standards which govern interaction with one or more alters in the appropriate complementary roles. "Alters" means others and "apprOpriate complementary roles" can be expressed as persons in counter or reciprocal posi- tions. If ego is the superintendent of schools, then alter might be a school board member, who serves in a counter or reciprocal position. Parsons is interested in the individual's system of orientation as he acts in ways which are normatively regu- lated and goal-seeking in character. In an effort to encompass Parsons' meaning, Gross et al. say that, "in an interaction situation each actor has an orientation to the other and is himself an object of orientation; both are part (of his role."27 Perceptions of conflicting prescriptions 25Ibid., attributed to Stansfeld Sargent, "Concepts Cd? Role and Ego in Contemporary Psychology," in John H. Rcflxrer and Muzafer Sherif, eds., Social Psychology at the Cemvssroads (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), p. 360. 26Ibid., citing Talcott Parsons, Thr Social System (Gljancoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1951). pp. 38-39. 27Ibid., p. 14. 20 held for them by others (including board members and teachers) constitute an operational definition of role conflict of school superintendents. Role Performance In the remaining category of role definitions, Gross et al. classify definitions which conceive of role as the behavior of actors occupying social positions.28 The hallmark is performance, action, actual behavior. This idea avoids an ambiguity which arises when a person says one thing but does another, and it avoids the amorphous character of what is "prescribed by society." After offering a representative sample of varying concepts, Gross and his associates indicate that a common- ality in definition is concern for the normative element of social behavior—-for expectations as a force in shaping human conduct. They arrive at a conclusion which is suc- cinct and operationally useful: Three basic ideas which appear in most of the conceptualizations considered, if not in the definitions of role themselves, are that indi- viduals: (1) in social locations (2) behave (3) with reference to expectations.29 Ir1 summing up the problem of definition, Gross' statement is (quoted at some length: 28Ibid. 29Ibid., p. 17. 21 Almost all of the authors have used the role concept to embrace the normative element of social behavior. People do not behave in a random manner; their behavior is influenced to some extent by their own expectations and those of others in the group or society in which they are participants. . . . Some- times the expectations referred to are "ascribed by society"; in other formulations they are held by members of the group in which the actor participates. Regardless of their derivation, expectations are presumed by most role theorists to be an essential ingredient in any formula for predicting social behavior. Human conduct is in part a function of expectations.3° "Expectations" may be used in a future-time orien- tation or in a normative sense, what should be. As Gross et al. use it, a role is ". . . a set of expectations, or in terms of our definition of expectations, it is a set of evaluative standards applied to an incumbent of a particular position."31 It is evident that "expectations" is defined in a normative and not in a predictive sense. Standards are ". . . a set of expectations applied to an incumbent of "32 Obviously, a position by some role definer or definers. such a definition is directed toward the perceptions of peOple who are the actual definers of the expectations. 'This is operationally useful, as will be shown. The concept may consequently be used in analyses in which the incumbents of the position as well as non-incumbents of the position are the definers 3°Ibid., pp. 17-18. 3lIbid., p. 60. 3zIbid., p. 324 22 of the role or, in general, in analyses of a role as defined by any population an investigator wishes to specify. Heuristics of Role Role study can contribute to the solution of prob- lems in educational administration. Before Gross, most role literature uncritically accepted the postulate of role con- sensus, with expectations ascribed by "society." Gross tested this postulate and achieved findings which demon- strate that there are variations both within and between groups of role definers. The assumption of consensus precludes the use of the degree of consensus on role definition as a variable that may enter into theoretical hypotheses of relevance to a number of impor- tant social science problems. The empirical research . . . suggests that the questioning of this postulate permits the investigation of potentially significant questions. . . .3“ Newcomb once observed that there seems no end of definitions of role. Indeed, every scholar who deals with role appears to define its meaning to please himself. The :near-truth of this becomes apparent in Biddle and Thomas, .Role Theory: Concepts and Research,35 as definitive a work (n1 role as there is likely to be for years to come. This unark is massively comprehensive, yet the authors complain 33Ibid., p. 61. 3" 1bid., p. 320. 35Bruce J. Biddle and Edwin J. Thomas, eds., Role Thenory: Concepts and Research (New York: John Wiley & Sons I 1966) . 34-2—1. ’ 23 that "the methods, knowledge, and theory in role have not yet evolved into an articulate, defined, and well-integrated discipline" and there is "no comprehensive statement of its concepts, theory, and knowledge."36 Nevertheless, more than a decade of role studies testify to the heuristic value of role concepts in research of educational administration. Role study can illuminate and contribute to the solving of problems. Its usefulness turns on its ability to explain what is, not merely to speculate on what ought to be. Role theory as applied has proved to be a useful formulation in uncovering potential and actual sources of conflict in organizations. A useful concept in role theory is that of role conflict, which is treated next. Role Conflict Role conflict is defined as a position incumbent's awareness that he is confronted with incompatible expecta- tions for his behavior, so complete fulfillment of the expectations is impossible. In inter-role conflict, for eexample, an administrator perceives that his family expects trim to spend evenings with them, but his employer expects 11in1to spend after-office hours in community activities. TTne executive role and family role are in conflict, since 36Ibid., p. vii. 24 expectations from the two sources are contradictory. In intro—role conflict--the more common subject of research-- the administrator perceives that different kinds of people have different expectations for his performing a single role. Teachers want him to press for salary increases, while other interest groups want him to hold salaries down. (Collective negotiations may be freeing superintendents from this dilemma, if the superintendent does not take part in the bargaining. In any event, conformity to both expectations is impossible.) Parsonsa7has pointed out the added problem which occurs with conflict on the level of "institutionalized" or legitimated role expectations. He calls for establishing "motivationally acceptable alternatives" but does not explain what is meant. With institutionalized role expectations, it seems that both sides claim legitimacy for conflicting expecta- tions, as if the superintendent in negotiations attempts to perform in a dual role--executive officer of the school board and professional leader of the teachers. It is dif- ficult enough to enact separately each part of the dual role lout simultaneous enactment in negotiations seems impossible. 37Talcott Parsons, The Social System (Glencoe, Ill.: (The Free Press, 1951), pp. 280—283. 25 Moreover, to the extent that "dual role" carries the possibility of dual allegiance, there exists a strong potential for role conflict. It should be clear that role conflict does not imply the existence of personal conflict but, rather, conflicting sets of expectations which have the potential to create difficulty. The effects of role conflict are usually costly, both in personal and organizational terms, leading to "tension, dissatisfaction with the job, lack of confidence in the organization, and distrust of and dis- respect for colleagues."38 Contradictory role expectations impinging on the individual from any source produce role conflicts which yield, for the individual, intensified internal conflicts, increased tension, and reduced satisfaction. "It is quite clear that role conflicts are costly for the person in emotional and interpersonal terms,’ conclude Kahn et al.39 Parsons, too, is concerned with problems of the .individual: Role conflicts may be either internal or external integrative problems, depending on whether or not the roles in question have been 38Robert L. Kahn and Donald Wolfe, "Role Conflict in (Drtyanizations," in Robert L. Kahn and Elise Boulding, eds., Pvaez'and Conflict in Organizations (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1964), p. 157. . 39Robert L. Kahn et al., Organizational Stress: £§tuciies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964), p. 71. 26 internalized. . . . If they are internalized, the actor wants to do two incompatible things at the same time and he has a conflict between need-dispositions.“° It was stated earlier that a person's behavior is a function of role and personality. The greater the intensity of role conflict, the less is his personal role effectiveness. Administrator Perception of Role Conflict Administrators of public agencies have a particular need to perceive accurately the expectations of others. Hencley"l examined the conflict patterns of school super- intendents. Of his sample of superintendents (in a year prior to negotiations), 72 per cent inaccurately perceived the expectations of reference groups in one or more of these ways: 0 Although actual expectations of the reference group and the superintendent's preferred course were the same, the superintendent perceived them as different. 0 Although the superintendent believed that his preferred course and expectations of others were the same, actually they differed. 0 Although various groups strongly supported the superintendent's preferred course, he failed to perceive this. I'°Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, eds., Toward a General Theory of Action (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959), p. 122. “lstephen P. Hencley, "A Typology of Conflict Between School Superintendents and Their Reference Groups" (unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1960). 27 0 The superintendent misjudged his reference groups' expectations which were the opposite of what he believed they were."2 With such gross misperception, one wonders about the accuracy with which these Midwestern superintendents presumed to "represent" their teachers. In considering the performance of his sample of superintendents, Hencley reiterates the axiom that the administrator should know and understand his community. And he should be aware of the expectations which different reference groups hold for education. To safeguard against naiveté, Hencley urges that administrators-in-training be made aware of the working of their "perceptual screens," which distort perceptions of reality. DeGood"3 demonstrated that a positive relationship exists between the effectiveness of a school administrator and his ability to perceive the values held in his community. Also, the effective administrator is not so likely to be influenced by his own values as is the less effective one. Successful administrators attempt to determine the direct- tion of a group's expectations and, what is more difficult, time intensity with which those expectations are held. To loe innocent or ignorant of the perceptions of significant