1; . ASTUDY or THE RELATIONSHIPOF FACULTY i " _. 3; ' . INVOLVEMENTIN BUILDINGLEVEIJ‘VD-I '2 : j * ' S _ . DECISION-MAKINGTO THEDFACUI'L‘TY.‘ ‘ 2 , " . - ‘ PERCEPTION 0FTHEPRINC|PAL~ A ' Dissertation for the Degree of Ph D - ' _ ‘ ' ‘ w - MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSIW _ ' ' V, V A BILL¥~H.~ICONN it. .; v, ‘ f , ,L. ,2 .,. . , fA-.r.;-’2-r um...“- A! : ,—.. N, w, : p'rr—n-m'rrw - .xm unv- urm-«nrp ~—¢,~:.-..p4- r r (~41 ZIZ“ hu- v— .. < ," "won-u'r-vurzyo—p—‘w m4 Hun-u» rim.- rcsanauryz-gm- m...” —' 2"r!rn)1.'l'£‘~~“"l"l'W-NIVV‘rS-~ "Wm" “mum” Jru:nrry.~r q ,5”, w, u." .. .,.. L3 :3 D 4 i i V .. .p “a,” §\r;r-vn;l" ' mm m’” ””411“,? 5”" “ "1" , . I .,. .,, . .,... ’3’" rs -. w-v-uvxrmnnpm m- 2 ruin-J" "In,“ wet-"Mm, " "Hp" r.» v- ‘m "‘4— m ~¢~ "I; arm .{2’ n- $7"- -u-».wt.’.......-,,. I , “Ivy-«rm’lurmruuww- wmm- mum-r uw-a-ypnn-u; "nu-n... 4... _,,, W) 1-1 w'r‘tg: up «u- F:.-‘m-—----a"y.,l', f‘_ ”zrltlrrrfin'f 2'"; f“’ ‘r‘r—V ”/1"er “I’Vfl’zr‘v'fi-J'uwm— lu‘. ' ' ’ 22:2“ W M , Jam " l "mug-«V rm..- r- m. W, W, Jfg‘wrww ' ' '4' ‘ m Pen-awn. “fl rm. 1mgmm pn.-.. 7:222! 4i urn-m2- urn-1;. 2:434! ‘ h‘whfil 3pc- qIWAV m-m 2 . ;.... . ”I . M... y a)": s1- :3” n 1:." u 1- ‘nr’.’ martin-E ‘ . ~< . .. .,. ¥ 1"”;' 1.75.1343“. . ,4 . 4, 1y”: *2. LIBRARY llfllllflllflllflflllflllfllllfllj”W t, _ “53$?” This, is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF FACULTY INVOLVEMENT IN BUILDING LEVEL DECISION-MAKING TO THE FACULTY PERCEPTION OF THE PRINCIPAL presented by Billy H. Conn has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .D . degree in Administration and Higher Education 4 Pew/14W Major professor Date \\ Avbusl— M, 9+ 0-7639 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF FACULTY INVOLVEMENT IN BUILDING LEVEL DECISION-MAKING TO THE FACULTY PERCEPTION OF THE PRINCIPAL BY Billy H. Conn Purpose of the Study There is research support for the position that leadership effectiveness is affected by the perception of the leader that is held by those to be lead. There also is research support for the contention that people who consider themselves professionals desire involvement in decision-making that affects them in their professional activities. An inservice activity identified participatory decision-making as a crucial factor of faculty morale in the school which serves as subject in this study. A major objective was to relate the faculty involvement in the decision—making process to the faculty's perception of the principal. Methodology The Administrator Image Questionnaire was completed by faculty members on three separate occasions over a period Billy H. Conn of 1% years. The initial survey served to establish base— line data, and the subsequent surveys were conducted nine months and eight months respectively after the initial survey. During the interim the principal involved the faculty in determination of and implementation of a decision-making process. The Administrator Image Questionnaire contained twenty-three variables, of which twenty-one were selected for use in the study. The reliability coefficients of the variables ranged from .82 to .93. The twenty—one variable characteristics were assigned to three cate- gories: Decision—making Factors, Managerial Factors and Personal Factors. Each category contained seven vari- ables. A three by three fixed effects ANOVA time-series factorial design was used to analyze the data. Using a p i .05 no significant findings were reported. A one—way fixed effects ANOVA time—series design was used with the individual variables. Significant findings were reported for two variable characteristics: Sense of Humor and Attitude Toward Job. Conclusions In the subject school with the incumbent principal there was no significant relationship between the involve- ment of the faculty in the decision—making process and the faculty perception of the principal. Billy H. Conn The instrument used by the researcher in the study was designed to examine faculty perception. How- ever, a discrepancy may have existed between the per- ception of the faculty member and the intended administra- tive attitude and administrative behavior. Given the labor-management climate in Michigan education generally, and in the subject school particu- larly, which may have contributed to an adversary rela- tionship it is perhaps unreasonable to expect a positive impact of the principal's efforts to improve faculty morale and the organizational climate. The author sug- gests that effective team-management in this situation is an unreasonable expectation. Given the setting for this study, one might sharply question some of the managerial recommendations of Argyris, Likert, McGregor and Herzberg. A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF FACULTY INVOLVEMENT IN BUILDING LEVEL DECISION-MAKING TO THE FACULTY PERCEPTION OF THE PRINCIPAL BY Billy H. Conn A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of.Administration and Higher Education 1977 Copyright by BILLY H. CONN 1977 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is indebted to his wife, Mary Jane, and to his children for their encouragement and forebearance during the many years that he has been a student at Michigan State University, and particularly the final two -years of the doctoral program. A special form of appreciation is extended to Dr. Samuel A. Moore II, committee chairman, critic, teacher, protagonist and friend. The encouragement and stimulus of his example as a scholar served to motivate the author to complete the degree in the afternoon of his career. A special thank you to Dr. Glen Gerard for serving as clinical professor and valued advisor. The author is indebted to his associates on the faculty of the subject high school for their assistance in completing the surveys for this study, and for providing the author with a special kind of learning experience. Especially, the assistance of Mr. Earl Zetterholm has been appreciated--counselor, confidant, reviewer of Chapter I and friend. The author is grateful for the Opportunity afforded to him for the completion of this doctoral pro- gram to the innovative educators in the Department of ii Administration and Higher Education of the Michigan State University College of Education for providing the Alternative Program: Dr. Vandel Johnson, Dr. Richard Featherstone, Dr. Samuel Moore, II, and Dr. Louis Romano. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O v LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . l6 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . l8 Importance of This Study . . . . . . 21 Theoretical Basis for the Study . . . . 22 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . 23 II. A REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . 26 Education and Management . . . . . . 37 III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PRESENTATION OF DATA . 56 IntrOduCtj-On O O O O O O O O C O 56 The Sample . . . . . . . . . 57 Selection and Use of the Survey Instrument. 59 The Experimental Design . . . . . . . 65 Presentation of Data . . . . . . . . 68 IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 81 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . lOl iv LIST OF TABLES Degrees Earned to Age Relationship . . . . Experience to Experience in the Subject School . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Item Scores for Administrator Image Questionnaire. Normative Data Established 1968-1970 0 n n c o o J l o o a o Narrative Descriptors for Stem Characteristics Mean Item Scores for Administrator Image Questionnaire Obtained During this Study . . Cell Means, Column Means and Grand Mean for 3 x 3 Design . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of Factors . . . . . Standard of Deviations of Responses for Administrator Image Questionnaire Obtained during this Study . . . . . . . . . . One-Way Analysis of Variance of Character- istics . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 58 58 60 64 69 70 70 73 74 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Faculty Meeting Procedures . . . . . . 102 B. Administrator Image Questionnaire . . . . 105 C. Agenda for Faculty Meeting . . . . . . 108 D. Minutes of Faculty Meeting . . . . . . 113 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION "Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself." Learning is inextricably a part of the human experience regardless of our age, although it may be a less formalized experience as we grow older. Learning about oneself and the effects of interaction with one's associates and colleagues is a part of life's education. In this study the researcher has investigated the relationship that decision-making by the faculty of a secondary school has to the perception of the principal held by these same faculty members. The decision-making in this study relates to the conditions of employment within the given building which may be considered pre- rogatives of management. Without reasonable harmony among various humans the system has little chance to be dynamic in pursuit of its goals.2 One means of seeking harmony within the organization without abdication of responsibility is to share decision-making authority with other members of the organization. A principal who chooses to share 1 decision-making authority with teachers should recognize that the limits of the sharing may be governed by the need patterns of the teachers and of the principal. Need patterns are variables that affect the behavior of indi- viduals and groups of individuals. The strengths of the needs vary within individuals, and among individuals, as circumstances affect the person, and the situation. At a given time the need patterns of teachers, either individually or collectively, or both, may govern the effectiveness of the teacher's involvement in the decision-making process. The need patterns may also affect the satisfaction of the teachers with their involve- ment in the decision-making process. Accordingly, the need patterns of teachers and of principals may be variables affecting harmony within the organization. The need pattern may be a variable affecting the teacher‘s percep- tion of the principal. In a later discussion within this chapter the author provides an overview of the development of a common need within a faculty group which is the subject of this study: faculty involvement in building level decision- making. In Chapter II the author relates the development of administrative theory and its application to educational administration. The elements of management are examined with particular attention given to decision-making. The relationship of effective school administration is pre— sented and shared decision-making is suggested as an essential element of that relationship. A specific func- tion of administration is to develop and regulate decision- making processes in the most effective manner. An effec- tive manner is one which results in accomplishment of the stated objectives.3 Shared decision—making can also have negative effects upon the organization. Factors to be considered in the deve10pment of a decision-making process are discussed. The act of sharing implies communication must take place. Communications often affect relationships in ways which one may not intend. For this reason, and for others, effective communication is an element of effective manage- ment.4 The link in the communication system which closes the loop is feedback. A survey questionnaire is one means a principal may use to obtain feedback information and also provide the respondent anonymity. Finally, the author attempts to show that the principal is obligated to seek a leadership role if he aspires to be an effective manager. It is within this context that the concepts of nominal and de facto leader- ship are discussed. Shared decision-making is suggested as one of the factors that can enhance the perception of the principal as leader by the faculty. Background The principal involved in this study arrived at his new assignment in mid-August of 1972. The high school is the only high school in a suburban district adjacent to a major university. The high school faculty numbers about 55 teachers and specialists serving a student body of approximately 1125. The district is a former rural area which had a rapid residential growth during the 1960's forming an upper-middle class community. The residents are well educated and have similar expectancies for their children. The residents tax themselves at a high level to support educational programs within the district. The peOple who haVe increasingly settled in the district are representatives of the professions, manage- ment executives, university professors, entrepreneurs and other comparable high level position and status peOple in the educational and governmental fields. The residents are active in all aspects of the community including governance of the educational enterprise and the township. The total area of the school district is 25 square miles with a student population of approximately 3500 and a total pOpulation of 13,000. Approximately 60% of the housing are single family units and the remainder is multiple unit housing of various types. The state equalized valuation is 88 million dollars with residences comprising about 86%, business and industry about 12% and farms and others comprising the remaining 2% of the real properties. Between 1968 and 1972 the high school students became involved in many of the attendance and conduct patterns that caused disruption on American high school campuses. The problems reached a crisis in 1972 when the faculty went to the public with their dissatisfaction. A series of events had occurred which faction- alized the faculty with respect to the leadership within the district. A change of membership occurred in the Board of Education which resulted in a change in philoso- phy and policy. This change in board membership led to a change in the superintendent, direction of curriculum, and high school principal positions. During the 1968—1972 era a number of program innovations had occurred. The nine week term system was one of the developments. When the faculty and high school administration developed the term system the college model was followed quite closely. The faculty specified a number of sine qua non requirements for implementing the term system. The board of education provided funding for most of the recommended additions including textbooks, library books, a full—time registrar, and a fourth counselor. The one requirement that was not met was the salary for department head positions. The local education association began negotiating for the salary and positions in 1970. The 1972-1973 school year opened with the teachers ratifying their master agreement with the Board of Educa- tion at 7:00 a.m. on the first day of school. The educa— tion association had again been unsuccessul in obtaining agreement upon the department head position and salary. The faculty members who had previously been serving as voluntary department heads withdrew from those responsi— bilities. Despite the withdrawal from the de facto department head roles the faculty in general were respon- sive and cooPerative in relating to the new principal. However, the faculty remained factionalized with respect to the previous year's develOpments, change of administra- tion and change of phiIOSOphy. The faculty in 1972 was composed of veteran teachers most of whom had obtained all of their teaching experience in this high school. Approximately fifty percent of the faculty was under thirty years of age and approximately 40 percent were between 30 and 45 years of age with most of the latter group in their thirties. The younger faculty members had joined the faculty during the period of rapid expansion in the mid to late 1960's. Most of the latter group and senior faculty members were locals with strong ties in the community and in the community churches, while others were with strong social- political ties in the community. The remaining staff members were commuters with no particular ties to the community or school. The majority of the teachers, members of the Board of Education and residents of the community knew what they wanted the school to change—from, but there was no clarity with respect to what they wanted to change- to. On one matter there was agreement at least with a large majority of the community. They wanted decisive administrative action. Unfortunately, student misconduct and innovative programming were subjected to the same criticism and one was wedded to the other in the minds of many parents. The faculty did not hold the same Opinion, but apparently had been unable to find a way to separate the two in the eyes of the community. During the 1972—1973 school year the new princi- pal acted to effect changes which would improve the academic aspects of the program. Plans were prepared which would improve the ninth grade curriculum the following year. However, the initial and primary concerns were student conduct and student attendance. The emphasis was placed on enforcement and compliance with current student regulations and procedures, rather than changes to the existing regulations. Consequences were established for deviant behavior which had largely been ignored in the past. During the latter part of the school year the faculty prepared for a seven year North Central Associa- tion visitation. The preparations carried over to the fall semester of the 1973—1974 school year with the actual visitation occurring on December 10, 11 and 12, 1973. The Visitation Committee report was received in February of 1974. The North Central Visitation Committee Report contained the following: "The quality of the self-study while impressive in bulk, was not impressive in terms of quality of self-investigation. Most areas of the self-study were done in a cursory way without the depth usually found in a comprehensive self—study effort in North Central Association schools." The faculty review of the report and faculty response to the Board of Education occurred during April of 1974. An ad hoc committee approach had been used as a means of accomplishing these tasks. Later in the spring of 1974 two teachers were denied tenure by the Board of Education acting upon the recommendation of the high school principal. Following this action remarks attributed to a member of the Board of Education circulated in the community that the denial of tenure was the beginning of a clean—up of the high school faculty. During negotiations that spring and summer the education association was again unsuccessful in bargaining for the position of department head although a faculty selected ad hoc committee of their colleagues had met with the high school principal and developed a job description for department heads prior to negotia- tions. These factors contributed to creating a negative attitude on the part of teachers when school Opened in the fall of 1974. While the teachers, generally, were wont to per- form any role attributed to a department head, or to represent their respective departments in committee meet- ings, they still wanted a role in decision-making. Several attempts to use the ad hoc committee approach for developing plans and reports were unsuccessful. The informal leadership persons among the faculty did not respond to requests to join the committees, and for the most part the committees were composed of non-tenured teachers who had little influence on their colleagues. Generally, the North Central Report recommendations were not acted on by the high school staff. The question of department heads probably was not the over-riding issue in creating faculty unrest during the 1974—1975 school year, as the denial of tenure to the two staff members and the accompanying activities of student petitioning and use of the grievance procedure in 10 these cases resulted in divided faculty Opinion. In the absence of departmental leadership the principal worked with individuals or teams to revise the curriculum. This practice caused allegations, mostly voiced in the faculty lOunge, of private deals and posturing to the administra- tion. During the 1974—1975 school year the emphasis moved from student related concerns to program improve— ment and instructional improvement. The Board of Educa- tion, in particular, was interested in having the North Central Association Visitation Committee recommendations implemented in the high school program. The faculty did not receive the increased observation and evaluation activity as an effort to improve instruction. The activity was viewed by many teachers, and the more mili— tant teachers particularly, as carrying out the allega- tions attributed to one Board of Education member to clean-up the faculty at the high school. The organizational climate issue reached a crisis in the spring of 1975. Some members of the faculty pro- posed to the principal that inservice activity be focused on improving staff relations, both teacher to teacher and faculty to administration. The organizational climate issue had been district—wide and the superintendent had provided a workshop for administrators and a few selected teachers in February of 1975. The high school faculty ll inservice committee members proposed that the same con- sultant be employed for a two-day inservice in late April. The object of the workshop was to improve high school organizational climate and colleagial relationships. Ms. Betty Dillon, Director of Staff Development for the Lincoln, Nebraska public schools, provided the leadership for the conference. The outcome of the workshop clarified several issues, and provided the following recommendations: (a) until teachers had a greater voice in building level decision the "poor climate" mentality would persist; (b) teachers did not want small groups making decisions binding upon the entire faculty; (0) regular departmental meetings should be conducted with an administrator chair- ing the meeting, and with pre-published agenda; (d) teachers wanted the principal more accessible to them despite the logistical problem of a 55+:l ratio; (e) the faculty understood the principal's position with respect to final responsibility for building level decisions but wanted input assured; (f) communications among and between individuals and groups must improve to avoid the effects of unfounded rumors; and (g) faculty meetings should be regular (not too frequent) with agenda pre- published. In addition, the faculty members advanced several topics they viewed as faculty matters upon which 12 they wanted final and exclusive decision authority: methods of instruction; content of courses; hours courses taught; textbooks; make—up of classes; departmental budget; new courses; departmental Objectives; courses taught; hiring of new faculty; teaching assignments; use of conference hour; methods of grading, etc. Some of these topics are reserved by law to the Board of Education, others are considered to be management rights, and others are specifically reserved to the administration by contractual agreement. During the summer of 1975 the high school admin— istrators developed a plan to implement the faculty recom— mendations. A schedule of faculty meetings and depart— mental meetings for the first half of the school year was published for inclusion in the faculty handbook. A major revision was made of the faculty handbook to create more positive phrasing wherever possible, and to simplify and clarify procedures relating to daily Operations. When the 1975—1976 school year opened the local education association appointed a high school monitoring committee and published a list of duties and tasks that the high school faculty should refrain from performing. The memo specifically stated that the administrators, as acting department heads, should perform the tasks. The administrators assumed that this was the opening move in preparing for 1976 negotiations and did not react to the l3 memo other than to continue to assign duties and tasks in the same manner. If a request was refused by a teacher the administrator did not make an issue of the refusal unless performance was a matter consonant with the master agreement stipulations. During the winter holiday a formal decision- making process involving the faculty as a whole was develOped. The decision-making process was accepted by the faculty by a vote of three-fourths majority (see Appendix A). Faculty meeting agenda listed the items as information items or decision-making items. .Decision- making subjects required a two-thirds affirmative vote for ratification, and any issue had to be of school-wide concern. Departmental issues would be determined in a similar manner within the departmental meetings. Minutes of all meetings were maintained and published. During the fall semester the required presence Of all three high school administrators at departmental meetings had become a burden. There seemed to be an increase in the number of other meetings which required the presence of a high school administrator. With faculty agreement the departmental meeting obligations were shared among the three administrators during the second semester. The school year seemed to proceed smoothly, and the closing of school in June was accomplished without too much difficulty. The monitoring committee did not publish 14 an admonition to the staff not to perform department head type tasks in the closing days, but that was gen‘ erally ignored as faculty members individually submitted requisitions for books, supplies and materials as they had done in previous years. The principal served on the Board of Education negotiating team during the summer and early fall of 1976. School Opened without settlement of the master agreement, however, teacher attitude and response to administrative requests was very good. The master agreement was rati— fied in early October. One of the final issues to be resolved was the salary for the positions of department head. 'While the issue was finally won by the education association it was not to the complete satisfaction of high school teachers. The stipend was considered inade- quate and only five positions were created. Immediately after ratification steps were taken to appoint the department heads. The job description had been prepared by central Office and high school administra- tors prior to review by the high school faculty. The job description presented to the faculty was more comprehen- sive than the model that had been prepared two years earlier. The faculty was displeased with the process by which the job description was developed and the more militant teachers were generous in their criticism of the process and the product. 15 A second procedural step met even more resistance. The faculty position since 1968 had been to elect the department member to serve as department head. The nego- tiations had placed the position in the extra-pay for extra-duty classification, which provided a procedure for the building administrator to appoint persons to those positions. Faculty members were invited to apply but there were few candidates who initiated an application, hence the principal directly and indirectly recruited some candidates. The latter activities relating to the department head issue were cited in the faculty lounge as examples of inconsistent administrative behavior not in keeping with the decision-making process. Another aspect of the decision-making process arose following the appointment of the department heads. The faculty advised the depart- ment heads that they did not wish to have the department heads assume any decision-making role. The department heads would only serve as a communications link between the department and the administration. This latter position served to block group decision-making on topics such as final budget preparation review (1977) when it may become necessary to implement some reductions. Certainly, the decision-making process could be used in a large group setting such as a faculty meeting of the whole, but the actual give-and-take of dollar reduction 16 within categories could not be efficiently accomplished in the large group setting. The latter develOpment served to emphasize that management and decision-making are subjects of continuing challenge. Purpose The author's purpose in the study was to examine the relationship of the faculty involvement in the decision-making process and the faculty perception of the principal overa period of time. The foregoing overview provides the reader with a perspective of the dynamics of change occurring during the period before and during the study. The study provides the author with a means of monitoring the principal's activities, both direct and indirect, which affected the involvement Of the faculty in the shared decision—making process. Methodology The researcher used the Administrator Image Questionnaire (see Appendix B) as develOped by the Educator Feedback Center of Western Michigan University. The Educator Feedback Center compiled the responses of the faculty submitted by the researcher and provided a mean score and a standard of deviation for each of the twenty-three stems of the questionnaire and an overall mean and standard of deviation for the twenty-three items. 17 The faculty completed the questionnaire on three separate occasions during the study. The data collected in September of 1975 will serve as base-line information. It was in the 1975-1976 school year that shared decision- making was introduced as a faculty activity following the organizational climate workshop conducted in April of 1975. The second collection of data occurred in late May of 1976 at the completion of one school year of experience with the process, and prior to the collective bargaining sessions of 1976. The third collection of data occurred in January of 1977 following the appointment of department heads. The data were used in two ways. First, twenty-one of the tWenty-three stems were categorized into three categories: decision—making; management; personality. A three by three ANOVA model was used to test for signifi- cance and interaction. A Tukey Procedure was to be imple- mented if a significant F Statistic was found. Secondly, the twenty-three stems were individually analyzed using a one-way fixed effects ANOVA statistical procedure. Significance was determined at the .05 level Of confidence. The validity of the study is affected by the following: 1. The study is limited to one high school faculty and one high school principal. l8 2. It is assumed that the respondents have been objective in their responses to the stems provided on the questionnaires. 3. The study has not attempted to account for the variables of a situational type which may have been operating at the times the questionnaire was administered which may have been atypical. 4. The study assumes the reliability of the instrument used to assess faculty perception. 5. The findings of the relationship between the categories are associational and not causal. Definition of Terms Secondary school. Secondary school as used with- in this study refers tO an organization of grades 9-12. The researcher recognizes that often the term refers to various other grade organizations from 6 through 12. Decision-making. Decision-making refers to activities engaged in by the faculty and/or administrators that results in a voting procedure to determine a course of action, establishment of regulation or the negative thereof. Building level. Building level refers to activities, responsibilities and/or authority within the high school organization. Faculty members. Faculty members refers to the employees of the high school who are professionally certified by the State of Michigan. 19 Principal. Principal refers to the incumbent of the high school in this study who has held the position since 1972. Department head. Department head refers to a certificated person who coordinates the activities of two or more teachers on the faculty of the subject school. This person also prepares budgetary recommendations, teacher assignment recommendations, master schedule recommendations, course development or revision recom- mendations and serves as a liaison person between the faculty and the administration of the school. Administration. Administration and management will be used interchangeably in this study, although the tendency is to use administration to describe the same activities in the public sector that management describes in the private sector. Need patterns. Need patterns refers to the com- bination of needs Operating within a given individual at a given time without attempt to judge or assess the effects such combinations have upon the actions of the individuals referred to. Needs. Needs refers to those physiological or psychological factors which influence the behavior of peOple as develOped by Maslow in his hierarchy of needs. Decision-making factors. Decision-making factors refers to those characteristic stems included in the 20 Administrator Image Questionnaire which the author deemed most appropriate to this category. Consideration of others: (Is he patient, understanding, considerate and courteous?) Supportiveness: (Does he support those responsible to him?) Openness: (Does he consider divergent views?) Encouragement of staff participation: (Does he encourage you to raise questions and express opinions?) Innovativeness: (Is be willing to try new approaches or methods?) Fairness: (Does he treat staff members in an unbiased and impartial manner?) Awareness: (To what extent is he aware of problems that exist at your level?) Managerial factors. Managerial factors refers to those characteristic stems included in the Administrator Image Questionnaire which the author deemed most appropriate to this category. Technical competence: (Does he have a thorough knowledge and understanding of his field?) Ability to delegate responsibility: (Does he assign tasks to personnel capable of carrying them out?) Decision—making ability: (Does the evidence indicate that he is able to make constructive decisions?) Evaluating ability: (To what extent does he objectively evaluate programs and practices?) Success in Communicating expectations: (Does he clearly define and explain what is expected of staff members?) Leadership skill: (Does his leadership result in the attainment of mutually acceptable goals?) Maintenance of staff morale: (Does he create a feeling of unity and enthusiasm among those in contact with him?) Personal factors. Personal factors refers to those characteristic stems included in the Administrator Image Questionnaire which the author deemed most appro- priate to this category. 21 Verbal fluency: (Does he express his ideas smoothly? Is he articulate?) Sense of humor: (Does he have a sense of the ridiculous? Does he laugh at his own mistakes?) Self-control: (Does he maintain control of his emotiOns when things are not going right?) Performance under stress: (How does he function under pressure?) Flexibility: (Is he able to adjust rapidly to changes in plans or procedures?) Attitude toward job: (Does he show interest and enthusiasm toward his work?) Achievement drive: (Does he have the initiative and persistence needed to accomplish meaning— ful goals?) Importance of This Study The foregoing overview of the conditions affecting the operation of a high school provides a basis for this study. The study is also related to the doctoral program alternative sponsored by the Department of Administration and Higher Education within the College of Education of Michigan State University. Importance for this study can be found in the following review Of literature but is perhaps best emphasized by Owens: Teachers are increasingly demanding greater pro- fessional autonomy and authority in the making of decisions regarding instruction and curriculum and freedom from bureaucratic control and domina— tion. In this context it could be useful for the school administrator to review and clarify his own understanding of the kind of organization he belongs to and to spell out the strategy by which the best decisions may be made in his own school. This study deals with the perception of the faculty members with respect to the principal over a period of time. During this period of time the principal worked with the faculty in determining and implementing a 22 decision-making process which involved faculty members in shared decision—making. While this study is limited to one faculty and one principal it could have significant effect in suggest— ing that shared decision—making may be an important factor in improving labor—management relations for the building administrator, that it may be one means by which a building administrator may enhance de facto educational leadership. The study is important to the administrators of the subject school district for it may provide information which may be helpful in the future administration of the school from which the data‘mxe gathered. Teachers today seek a stronger voice in the administration of schools and this factor is an important aspect of labor-management relations.6 It is important that a building administrator have an understanding of the impact of certain procedures and how the faculty perception of those procedures may affect his leadership. Theoretical Basis for the Study The theoretical basis for this study is found in the literature which is reviewed in Chapter II. Specifi- cally the writings of Roald Campbell and his associates provide a basis for this study. "Superintendents and principals will find it increasingly necessary to use staff expertise in their decision-making. This will 23 require more adequate communication than in the past. Administrators will have to clarify all roles more care— fully."7 Paul Zaccarine found that teachers range from apathy to final say to collegiality in attitudes toward decision-making. He suggested that since various indi- viduals and groups could be operating at any time in the cycle of decision-making that the administrator needs more skills and information to move the group to a more mature stage of decision-making.8 Goldman suggested that teachers who were allowed to participate in decision-making felt the principal was fulfilling the leadership role in the most desired manner.9 Both researchers cite the study of the impact of personality variables on the interpersonal relationships as a desirable activity for future researchers. Hypotheses The researcher expected to find a positive relation- ship between the perception that a faculty has Of the principal, and their involvement in decision-making. The scores received on the Administrative Image Questionnaire will be incremental over time as the faculty becomes more involved in the participatory decision-making process. 1. There will occur a significant difference in the mean scores obtained over time in the Decision—making Factor category. 2. There will occur a significant difference in the mean scores obtained over time in the Managerial Factor category. 24 There will occur a significant difference in the mean scores obtained over time in the Personality Factor category. There will be a significant finding of interaction between the Factor categories when considered over time. FOOTNOTES : CHAPTER I 1John Dewey, Great Quotations (New York: Pocket Books, 1967), p. 307. 2James E. Heald and Samuel A. Moore II, The Teacher and Administrator Relationships in School Systems (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968), p. 181. 3Daniel E. Griffiths, "Administration as Decision— making," in Organizations and Human Behavior, ed. Fred D. Carver and Thomas J. Sergiovanni (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1969), p. 139. 4Glen A. Bassett, The New Face of Communications (New York: The American Management Association, 1968), p. 198. 5Robert G. Owens, Organizational Behavior in Schools (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1970), P. 103. 6Robert A. Dobkin, "Tea 'n' Treats Won't Satisfy Militant Teachers," The Lansing State Journal, 26 December 1976, sec. A, p. l. 7Roald Campbell, et al., The Organization and Control of American Schools (Columbus, Ohio: The Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1970), p. 265. 8Paul Zaccarine, "A Study of Teachers' Participa- tion in Decision-making and Their Consequent Perception of Administrator Control" (Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1970). 9Harvey Goldman, "A Study of the Teacher- Administrator Relationship and Influence of Need Patterns" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966). 25 CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF LITERATURE Because one cannot understand the present without some knowledge of past thinking or action cursory attention will be given to the historical develOpment of current theories, practices and organizational arrangements. There are many disciplines that have contributed to the develOp- ment of administrative theory and while mention may be made of the contributions it is not the author's intent to pre- sent a comprehensive review of these contributions, theories or concepts. The origin of organizations is probably rooted in prehistory when man and woman joined tribes or clans for mutual safety. Leadership emerged when the most persuasive or "wise" person was recognized by the other members of the group as the person who should regulate the affairs of the group. The development of early organizations was rooted in the primitive economic needs as well and may serve to be a similar primordial bond.1 The challenge facing organizations as they became more complex was less the ability to devise innovative means of operation than it was to summon sufficient power to satisfactorily maintain collective existence.2 The 26 27 need for political power to protect the economic and religious enterprises gave rise to what is recognized today as bureaucracy, a system Of functionaries within which the incumbents know their role and their place within the hierarchy of authority and power. The automatic suc- cession of monarchs had not guaranteed competency and the emergence of widespread commerce hastened the development of a new class.3 People became a "natural" resource as trade and commerce required increased production of the commodities and services involved in the exchange. People themselves became commodities as they were bought and sold in the same manner as machines capable and necessary in the pro— duction of goods or services. The human being became a mere extension of the machine as the age of industrializa- tion emerged.4 Industry and commerce became more complex and required the employment of managers to oversee the various components of operations. Those that had possessed the economic means to establish an enterprise were assumed to possess the necessary managerial skill to operate the enterprise. Those who did not possess the skills went out of business, or were discharged if they were in some— one's employ. The parallel in the public sector may be the political "boss," the "spoils system" and success at the polls. 28 As the twentieth century approached perhaps the first to make a written contribution to the subject of administration was Woodrow Wilson with the publication of "The Study of Administration" in 1887.5 Over two decades were to pass before a significant event would set the study of administration in motion. Taylor's theory of scientific management became popular in the early 1900's as the modern era of industrialization was developing in the pre-World War I era.6 Taylor's theory related to the unit cost of production determination through the isola- tion of operations and the study of time and motion in the operations. Taylor's thirteen key steps were intended to maximize management of the human resource and increase production. People were a means to an end. The work of Henri Fayol is not often referred to by more recent authors. Fayol, a Frenchman, advanced ideas more in keeping with the notions of Wilson. In 1916 Fayol proposed the five elements of administration to be: to plan; to organize; to command; to coordinate; and to con- trol.7 Fayol also proposed fourteen principles to be essential to the application of the five elements to a particular situation. He stated that administrative ability "can and should be acquired in the same manner as was technical ability, first in the school, later in the workshop."8 29 The close of the World War I era of rapid expansion was signaled by the recession of 1921. During the twenties the economic boom was also accompanied by labor disputes, a time appropriate for the publication of Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy. The bureaucratic model was intended to minimize personal conflict and friction within the organi- zation through clearly identifying roles, responsibilities and authority. The system also provided for rights and procedures with respect to workers at all levels.9 In the early years of the Great Depression (circa 1930) an experiment was conducted at the Western Electric Hawthorne plant that would have an effect on the theories of management. The study at the conclusion seemed to refute the principle of scientific management. Roethlis- bergerlo who participated in conducting the Western Electric study published Management and the Worker which related the informal organization to the formal organiza- tion. The human relations school of management was to soon enter the scene fostered by the developments set in motion at the Hawthorne plant. The Functions of an Executive,11 written by Chester Barnard, a corporation executive, integrated the concepts and theories of administration and management up to the middle 1930's. Simon has been credited with opening new vistas of administrative theory with the publication of Administrative Behavior in 1945.12 Simon contributed the 30 concept of vertical specialization which emphasized the relationship of hierarchy to typology of decision-making. Erich Fromm, writing about the condition of man in the industrial society and in the political systems which followed World War I, stated that man would attend to other acts only when man had time and energy left after satisfying his primary needs.l3 Fromm later wrote that culture and society influenced man in determination of goals and he referred to man's grouping behavior as herd conformity. Man should free himself to make independent judgments as to what was, and what was not right for him- self.14 In Motivation and Personality Maslow applied his theory of a hierarchy of needs which he saw as the deter- miners of man's striving behavior.1 While Maslow saw needs in a hierarchy with psycho- logical needs in the upper ranks, Herzbergl6 suggested that psychological needs were a second category of needs opera- tional with physiological needs with the combinations dif— fering within every individual. Herzberg's motivation- hygiene theory made distinction between individuals who were dependent upon physiological need factors as primary, and the individuals who were more dependent upon psycho- logical need gratification. Herzberg suggested that organizational policies and practices should be developed which would attract the desired type of employees. 31 An individual's behavior may be caused by the environment in which the person lived and worked was the opinion forwarded by Leavitt.17 Thus, people working in organizations were influenced by the working conditions and by the goals of the organization. Although people may be goal directed in their behavior it may not necessarily be the goals of the organization that direct or influence that behavior. In this position Leavitt was in some agree- ment with the proposition of Fromm written a few years earlier. The Organizational Society18 was an examination of the behavior of individuals and groups in the organization and the need to develop bureaucratic skills for survival in the complex organization. Presthus identified three modal patterns of accommodation that were typically used in com- 19 The upward-mobile is essentially plex organizations. the organizational man, the indifferent separates meaning- ful activity from work, and the ambivalent is frustrated by the conflict between his desire to be a goal setter and his inability to influence goal setting within the organization. In proposing his Theory Y of management McGregor20 recognized the challenge to tap the capacities of people to contribute to the goals of the organization. It was McGregor's opinion that the limits of human collaboration in the organizational setting are not human limits but 32 limits of managerial ingenuity in discovering how to realize the potential. The large complex organizations and their dysfunc— tions led to an initiation of a search for more effective management systems. The early 1950's seemed to be the period when the interest began to move from human relations to examination of behavior and motivation. Human relations has not lost importance but motivation has emerged as a very important aspect of organizational life.21 In the early 1960's Etzioni wrote that within the organization, social and personal considerations have gained an importance as compared to the traditional con- cern for production and administrative efficiency. Effective human control can be only exercised by a manager who has an understanding of the human situation that he is managing. Effective management is the capacity to diagnose individual and group situations being alert to changes, and understanding the employees' sentiments with respect to the organization and the organization's goals. Effective classification of human situations and skillful methods of working with employees will provide control in the modern organization.23 The movement of management with respect to employees is further exemplified by the writing of Douglas Basil in a 1971 publication of the American Management Association: "The structure may be designed for maximum 33 efficiency, but the individual will insist that it also be designed for maximum human satisfaction."24 Basil proposed that neither leader nor worker controls the destiny of the organization. It is interaction of leader with each of the employees and groups and the social and economic situa- tion which will determine the effect of leadership supplied to the organization. Basil's position is supported by other authors among them Van Fleet25 who listed twenty-two mistakes that managers make that contained the essentials of effective management proposed above. Van Fleet's remedies and sug— gestions are consonant with the theories of the current writers and references are made to the authors referred to today as eminent in the field of management, such as Peter Drucker. Drucker in 1974 defined management as: task; discipline; people.26 The knowledge worker (e.g., teachers) will be productive only when he is self-motivated and self-directed in Drucker's view. The new breed of employees do not necessarily expect work to be enjoyable but they expect their work to be achieving of acceptable goals. The integrity of the manager will be determined by his subordination to the common task and the objective needs of the task will become the authority for action.27 References have been made throughout the literature to the essential presence of leadership among the 34 characteristics of a manager. In Drucker's view institu- tions without management would be a mob rather than an organ of society that exists to contribute a needed service to society. According to Hill there are three primary views that exist in current literature regarding the most effec- tive way for leaders to influence the people with whom they work. 1. Effective leaders are characterized by supportive behavior exhibited toward people who report to them. 2. Effective leaders are flexible enough to consider contingency plans and approaches to problems because they realize every situation is different. 3. Effective leaders utilize participative decision-making as supervisional control mechanisms.28 What leaders believe of themselves influences what they believe about others. If they possess self-esteem their personal integrity and security are not violated in inter- personal exchanges.29 Rogers30 has defined self-esteem as the degree of similarity between what you are and what you would like to be. In a similar context Florey and MacKenzie see the difference between the manager's perception of his actions and activities and the workers' perception of the manager's actions and activities as the credibility gap. It is not a question of whether a manager has a credibility gap or not, 35 but how large it is. The size of the credibility gap is a concern for the manager who attempts to integrate the goals of the individual with the organizational goals. A manager may utilize a communication system which includes the tech- nique of feedback to become aware of the degree of his credibility gap and as a means of monitoring his own per- formance.31 Basil supports the need for managers to use a wide range of communication techniques and estimates that managers spend 70% of their time giving and receiving com— munications.32 The communications system is sometimes referred to as a communications loop and feedback is the element within the system that closes the loop. Feedback may be obtained using various techniques but the survey questionnaire is one means of reasonably giving the respondent anonymity and may produce greater candor on the part of the respon- dent. When one uses an opinion survey one must remember that judgments of perceivers are often distorted when a strong need is attached to an event. Social forces affect perception through group identification, social aspirations and expectations of the perceiver.33 If an administrator confines his behavior to making decisions with respect to the decision-making process rather than making terminal decisions for the organization his behavior will be more acceptable to his subordinates. If the administrator perceives himself as the controller 36 of the decision-making process rather than the maker of organizational decisions then the decisions will be more effective.34 A specific function of leadership in manage- ment is to develop and regulate the decision-making process in the most effective manner. An effective manner is one which results in the accomplishment of the stated goal or objective.35 The administrator's major contribution is as an interpreter of the demands of the organization. His behavior will reflect the kind of assumptions that he makes about the organization's internal conflicts. His person- ality and the situation in which he acts will contribute much to his behavioral patterns. Current literature sug- gests that situation and trait are two of the important elements that influence the person who functions in the capacity of a leader.36 Knowledge of the various theories of management and leadership can contribute to an understanding of leadership patterns and styles, but when these theories are applied it is apparent that great leaders are those who adopt appro- priate leadership styles to deal with their particular situations.37 Management Of the status quo may be achieved without visibly exercising leadership skills. It is questionable whether maintaining the status quo in a dynamic society can be considered effective management. 37 Education is not a manufacturing process; it is a social process in which human beings are continually inter- acting with one another in unpredictable and usually unobservable ways.39 The educational process takes place in the formal sense within schools and we consider schools to be social organizations. The development of organiza— tions and the development of processes which men have used to manage organizations has been briefly reviewed in the private sector. A brief review of the development of educational administration during the past twenty—five years follows. The review is not intended to be compre- hensive but to present what seems to be a paralleling of the private sector in theory and practice. Education and Management A finding reported in the early 1950's suggested that high school principals lacked specific training in administration and that their appointment often was a reward for many years of loyal teaching service. Without special training the new principal often performed in the same manner as he had perceived of his predecessor.40 The question of whether this was good administration or bad administration, effective management or ineffective manage- ment, was not asked nor commented on, only the need for more specialized management training was emphasized. 38 Educational administration as a field Of study and expertise seems to have been greatly influenced by develop— ments in the private sector. In fact, the field of educa- tional administration as an explicit discipline within higher education is fairly new, although the professional associations of school administrators have their roots in the nineteenth century. The formation of the National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration in the late 1940's perhaps signaled the changes which seemed to be cued by management in the private sector.41 Morphet, et al., in 1959 called for a new form of educational administration to meet the dynamic period that the education sector would face in the future. Morphet stated that the preceding decade had been a period of sig— nificant advancement in the development of the theory of educational administration.42 The Conference of Professors of Educational Administration, The University Council of Educational Administrators and the support of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation had contributed to advancement through training and research projects. Publications resulting both directly and indirectly from the projects continued to spur the advancement of educational administration as a discrete discipline.43 For more than twenty years J. Lloyd Trump has been an advocate of change in the structure and programming of secondary schools suggesting that the principal spend 75% 39 of his time providing leadership for instructional improve- ment and 25% of his time on administrative matters. The principal must exercise administrative skill in developing members of the organization who can carry out their duties with a minimum of direction from the principal.44 Heller in his discussion of staff development states that regard- less of his administrative style it is the obligation of the principal to lead. The spheres of contact and points Of reference are vastly different for principals and teachers and the sources of information for principals are much broader and more varied.45 Moore and Heald refer to the administrator as the individual responsible for moving the organization toward goals: "hence, he is leader and administrator."46 Owens sees the concepts of administration and leadership as mutually exclusive in their definitions, and that the term administrative leadership serves to blur the boundaries of the problem.47 Administration is concerned with the smooth operation of a school through use of established procedures and structures. "When they are wearing their 'administrative hats' principals tend to View themselves as executive-managers in the tradition of "48 Leadership, on the other hand, corporation executives. is related to changes in the organization either in goals or in procedures. The exercise of leadership is likely to be disruptive of the existing state of affairs within the 40 organization. However, principals are expected to be both administrators and leaders and perhaps that is one reason schools have been resistant to change. The stability of a school has often been associated with the quality of educa- tion in the minds of the community members. The role of the effective principal may be viewed differently by different sets of people. If maintenance of the status quo, organizational equilibrium, is the Objective then the administrative role becomes the primary concern for the principal seeking approval from the control group. If the community controlling group identifies change as the primary objective for the school organiza— tion then the leadership role may be the primary Objective for the school principal. It is not often the situation will be that clearly defined, if ever. The dichotomy of roles is unlikely to be found in any situation.49 The challenge for a school principal is to find the prOper place on the continuum which will meet the expectations of the various groups with which he interacts. Owens sug— gests that the principal who is interested in developing his leadership in harmony with current research will devote less time to administration and more time to leadership, and Obtain an objective assessment of his leadership behavior.50 As one seeks to plan to exercise leadership the question arises, leadership as defined by whom? 41 The difficulty in defining what a leader does, or in constructing a value theory of what he should do is certainly due in part to the fact that the leader is usually required to do different things at different times according to conditions of the group and its common culture as a system.51 Mitchell, in his review of literature with respect to definition of leadership stated: As can be seen from preceding discussion, leader behavior and leadership have, over the years, enjoyed a variety of definitions and descriptions. Each one was peculiar to a specific group and author and left its mark on their particular study or theory.52 In addition to the trait-approach and the situation- approach to the study of leadership and leader behavior used in the past the interaction-influence system has emerged as a means of examining the factors which affect the organizational goal directed activity. The system con- sists of patterns of administrative behavior and dimensions of administrative process interacting with the dynamics of the organization and the people.53 Halpin, in his essay on the subject, urges the abandonment of the study of leadership as a trait and suggests the analysis of the behaviors of leaders as the leader functions vis-a-vis the members of the group in the performance of his role. "In short, the behavior of leaders varies widely from one leadership situation toanother."54 As a forerunner of the changes to take place in educational administration The High School Principal and 42 Staff Work Together was published in 1957 as a guide for the principal who accepted the premise that working with teachers in resolution of school problems would maximize program improvement. "If educational leaders wish to be as effective as possible they must try to understand how what is being done looks to others participating and how it affects them."55 Leavitt urges principals to be ini- tiators of organizational action and to make work interest- ing, challenging and exciting for others, and that one of the ways to accomplish this is through the involvement of the faculty members in the decision-making process. Etzioni refers to professional authority versus administrative authority as a source of conflict within the organization that employs professionals. While he finds that teachers do not meet his criteria for profes- sionals, he acknowledges that teachers do consider them- selves to belong to that reference group. He observes that "teachers resent interference by principals" and generally believe they should exercise more discretion and control over their activities.57 Presthus states that inherent tension exists in organizations between those in hierarchi- cal roles and those who play specialized roles. The specialist deplores the fact that those in hierarchical roles control the conditions of individual participation and exercise a disproportionate influence on the determina- tion of goals and objectives of the organization.58 43 There are those who propose that teachers should assume the management of the schools.59 In their proposal it is recognized that various functions must be attended to but the hierarchical functions of such as the school manager must be subject to "the collective will of the "60 Hoban further proposes that the entire teaching staff. role of principals becomes that of change agent who moves from school to school phasing-out the role of principal as a specialist in administrative change. Specialized faculty members demand more autonomy and are not likely to be as concerned with rules and regulations as administrators. They are likely to be irritated by schedules, directives and regularized proce- dures. Anything that they perceive to be impediments to performing their jobs will be met with resistance because they believe themselves to be the best authority for determining the conditions. In working with specialists distributive justice is difficult to achieve for it simul- taneously affects various persons and elicits various responses. It is a challenge for the administrator to achieve mutual adjustment so concerted activity directed toward the goals of the organization will occur. Mutual adjustment is dependent in a large measure on the confi- dence one has in his colleagues, and faith in their commit- ment to the larger goals of the school.61 44 The resolution may not be easily attained simply by providing a decision-making process which involves faculty members. Basil reports that the structure for decision-making may be designed for maximum efficiency, but that the individual will insist that it also be designed for maximum human satisfaction.62 Campbell also recognized the risk of conflict due to the diverse roles of specialized faculty members and the effects on a decision-making process. The emphasis on clarification of the diversity for all involved would be a means of increasing awareness and a potential for reducing conflict.63 The shared decision-making process within a school could increase role-conflict, but Christie suggests that this conflict can be used as a force for change by the principal to move the school toward its goals.64 A principal must be aware of the informal influence structure operating within a school. The informal groups generally have existed within the school over a period of years and will transcend the impact of changing principals. Another factor the principal must be aware of are the ties that the groups may have to the community through the union, the board of education and social organizations other than the school. To be successful in obtaining de facto leader- ship the principal must analyze the situation for the 65 functioning organization. The board of education may confer nominal leadership upon the principal by delegation 45 Of authority, but it will be the faculty that confers de facto leadership upon the principal. Leadership in education, because it has elements not found in other forms of administration, is becoming more difficult as the organization becomes more specialized. Choices must be made with respect to the decision-making authority that will be assigned to the various role incum- bents within the organization. Jensen found that a number of conditions affected the decision-making process and policy. The first condition occurs when it is not possible to identify the source of decisions and therefore the rationale cannot be identified by those affected by the decision. A second condition relates to goal-setting and resource allocation that is not consonant with the expect— ancies of those within the organization. A third condition is the use of decision-making authority for patronage or to build personal power. A fourth condition is the unresolved internal differences which affect the ultimate decision creating a winners-losers situation. A fifth condition is the over-regularizing and reporting required of the organi- zation by an external power group. Jensen acknowledges that other operational variables affect the educational enterprise, but that the five conditions are the major factors which may be found in any educational system. It is their dysfunction which affects the organizational decision—making in negative ways, inclusive of poor morale 46 problems and the loss of personnel that is costly to the system.77 A study of decision-making in suburban communities of Michigan disclosed that the form of decision-making is heavily conditioned by the social context of the community. A second factor is the organizational skill that is applied to the overall process inclusive of the political aspects of the decision-making.67 In brief, the educational leader must be knowledgeable of the various publics involved, their positions of political power and their respective positions on the issues. The successful educational leader will effectively organize the variables to produce a pro- cess for decision—making that will optimize conflict. In application to schools the work of Everett Rogers supplies added support for recognizing the opinion leaders. The opinion leader usually conforms more closely to the social system, engages in more social activities, has higher social status than followers, uses more cosmopo- lite and technically accurate information than followers and is usually more innovative than followers. The opinion leader will have more influence in uncertain situations than in clear—cut situations. The more bright, independent and Opinionated teacher usually has greater concern for the decision—making 69 within the organization. It has also been found that the flatter the organizational structure the greater the job 47 satisfaction among teachers.70 The factors relate to the involvement within the school's decision-making process in the elementary sector. Normally, the elementary schools are smaller organizations than secondary schools and associations are more frequent and of greater depth between colleagues. It would seem appropriate for secondary school principals to seek means by which the advantages of the smaller organizations can be employed in the more complex society of the secondary school. The literature suggests the efficacy of shared decision-making in the school organization. A commitment to the principle of shared decision—making carries a responsibility to plan for logical selectivity and reason- able procedures. Planning a decision-making model is a method of guiding and directing so that the decisions and actions affect the organization in the desired way. The leader must be committed to planning, to aggressive com— munication and to maximizing involvement. Few errors damage the human side of planning more than errors in com- munication.71 A remark attributed to former President Eisenhower seems to sum up the importance of planning: "a plan is nothing, but planning is everything." Communication is an essential element in working with the majority of teachers today. They are generally under forty years of age and belong to the generation of whom McLuhan said, "theirs is a need for communication."72 48 Earlier in the chapter the need for effective communica- tions systems in private sector management was presented. It is no less true for those who manage the educational enterprise as the reviewed literature suggests. "In dealing with the interpersonal relationships which are inextricably bound up in organizational behavior, we are constantly confronted with the truism that much of behavior is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder."73 Perception may be defined as the process by which the person Observes and evaluates the world around himself. A dictionary definition provides: "the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind."74 The dilemma of proper definition may be avoided by accept- ing the conclusion Of Alexis Wilson that "perception means different things to different psychologists,"75 and accept the simple definition that perception is a process of Observing and evaluation. While differences exist with respect to the defini- tion of perception, there seems to be some agreement on the factors which influence perception. The value system of the perceiver is said to affect perception and that judg- ments of perceivers are often distorted by strong needs in a given situation. Social forces are also suggested as forces affecting perception.76 The researcher had occasion to investigate percep— tion during an earlier work and references taken from that 49 study, together with references above, may provide an understanding of the usage in the current study. There appear to be four factors involved in the perceptive process. There may be more factors. Two of these come before the perception; they make it possible. These are experience and purpose. The other two factors come after perception, almost immediately and automatically. They are value and assumption. "The meaning we relate to any sense impression is derived only through our past experi— ence as we have tried to carry out our purposes."77 "We make these guesses based on our own unique and individual experiences and purposes; and to each of us the reality of the world is a personal and individual reality."78 All ideas of what things are, where they are, what they are good for, and so on, are based on these assumptions built up from past experi— ence because they have proved good bets for action. These assumptions are probabilities only, but if they have proved reliable in past actions, we begin to think of them as certain- ties and we act accordingly until other experi- ences show us that our assumptions are wrong.79 The foregoing discussion of perception would sug- gest that faculty perception of the principal will be rooted in their individual useable reality. If the use- able reality is strongly influenced by experience then a recent change in leadership behavior through involvement of teachers in building level decision—making, in the short run, may not significantly affect their perception of the principal. In this study the perception of the 50 faculty is measured as a group, not as individuals, and the individualistic variables may not unduly influence the perception of collective membership on a given factor that is being measured. It remains a question which may be resolved through examination of the data. FOOTNOTES: CHAPTER II 1J. Roland Pennock and David G. Smith, Political Science, An Introduction (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964), p. 212. 21bid., p. 215. 3Ibid., p. 237. 4Saxe Commins and Robert N. Linscott, eds., Man and The State (New York: Random House, 1947), p. 237. 5Owens, p. 16. 6Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Publishers, Inc., 1964), p. 21. 7Owen, p. 5. 81bid., p. 6. 9Etzioni, p. 52. 10F. J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson, Management and the Worker (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1942). 11Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938). 12Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York: The Macmillan Company,'l945)} l3Erich Fromm, Escape From Freedom (New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1941), p. 295. l4Erich Fromm, Man for Himself (New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1947), p. 248. 15Abraham H. Maslow, Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1954). 16Frederick Herzberg, Work and Nature of Man (Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1966), p. 56. 51 52 17Harold J. Leavitt, Managerial Psychology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958). 18Robert Presthus, The Organizational Society (New York: Random House, 1962). lgIbid., pp. 166-167. 20Douglas M. McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1960), 21F. J. Roethlisberger, Management and Morale (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971). 22McGregor, p. 115. 23Roethlisberger, Management and Morale, pp. 184- 190. 24Douglas C. Basil, Leadership Skills for Executive Action (New York: American Management Association, 1971), p. 63. 25James K. Van Fleet, The 22 Biggest Mistakes Managers Make and How to Correct Them (West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker Publishing Company, 1973). 26Peter F. Drucker, Tasks-Responsibilities- Practices (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1974), p. 17. 27 Ibid., p. 249. 28Norman Hill, "Self—esteem: The Key to Effective Management," Administrative Management, Vol. 37, No. 8 (August 1976), p. 24. 29Ibid., p. 25. 30Carl Rogers, "Toward a Science of the Person, an Alternative to Behaviorism," in Behaviorism and Phenomen- Olo , ed. T. W. Wann (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 39. 31Charles D. Flory and R. Alec MacKenzie, Instruc- tional Leadership (New York: Columbia University, Bureau of Publications, 1954), p. 16. 32Basi1, p. 182. 33Marcus Alexis and Charles Z. Wilson, Organiza- tional Decision-making (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967). 34 Griffiths, p. 246. 351bid., p. 139. 36Bobby M. Mitchell, "An Analysis of the Perceptions of the Role of the Subordinate and Superordinate with Respect to Authority, Responsibility and Delegation in the Community Schools of Flint at the Attendance Center Level," (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973). 37Basi1, p. 14. 38Etzioni, p. 87. 39Henry Dyer, preface to Theory Into Practice, Columbus: Ohio State University, College of Education, Vol. VII, No. 4 (October 1968). 40Paul B. Jacobsen, et al., The Effective School Principal (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954), p. 10. 41Owens, p. 10. 42Edgar Morphet, et al., Educational Administration (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959), p. 150. 43Roald Campbell, et al., Introduction to Educa- tional Administration (Boston: Allyn-Bacon, Inc., 1966), p. 81. 44J. Lloyd Trump, "A Look Ahead at Secondary Education," N.A.S.S.P. Bulletin, Vol. 42, No. 234 (January 1958), PP. 5-15. 45Melvin J. Heller, "Involvement of the Involved," N.A.S.S.P. Bulletin, Vol. 58, No. 386 (December 1974), pp. 44-47. 46 Heald and Moore, p. 121. 47Owens, p. 126. 481bid., p. 127. 49Talcott Parson, The Social Systems (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1951). 54 50Owens, p. 136. 51Robert F. Bales, Small Groups (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), p. 357. 52 Mitchell, p. 11 53Andrew Halpin, "How Leaders Behave," in Organiza- tions and Human Behavior, ed. Fred D. Carver and Thomas J. Sergiovanni (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969), p. 288. 54Ibid., p. 288. 55Elwood L. Prestwood, The High School Principal and Staff Work Together (New York: Columbia University, Bureau of Publications, 1954), p. 14. 56Harold J. Leavitt, "Consequences of Executive Behavior; The Administrative Two-step and Other Seemly Dances for Administrators," N.A.S.S.P. Bulletin, Vol. 48, NO. 29 (April 1964), pp. 167—176. 57Etzioni, pp. 87, 89. 58Presthus, pp. 29-33. 59Gary J. Hoban, "School Without a Principal," in The Power to Change: Issues for the Innovative Educator, ed. Carmen M. Culver and Gary J. Hoban (New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1973), pp. 154-161. 6OIbid., p. 159. 61Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966), pp. 42-46. 62 Basil, p. 63. 63Campbell, et al., The Organization and Control of American Schools, p. 265. 64Samuel G. Christie, "Beyond Teacher Militancy: Implications for Change Within the School," in The Power to Change: Issues for the Innovative Educator, ed. Carmen C. Carver and Gary J. Hoban (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973), p. 142. 65Ralph B. Kimbrough, Political Power and Educa- tional Decision-making (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1964), pp. 253-255. 55 66Gale E. Jensen, Problems and Principles of Human Organizations in Educational Systems (Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Publishers, 1969), pp. 75-80. 67David W. Minar, Educational Decision-Making in Suburban Communities (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1966), p. 133. 68Everett C. Rogers, The Diffusion of Innovation (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962), p. 314. 69Julius R. George and Lloyd K. Bishop, "The Relationship of Organization Structure and Teacher Per- sonality Characteristics to Organizational Climate," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, NO. 4 (December 1971): P: 474. 7OHarrell H. Carpenter, "Formal Organizational Structure Factors and Perceived Job Satisfaction of Class— room Teachers," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4 (December 1971), p. 463. 71David Ewing, The Human Side of Planning (London: The Macmillan Company, 1972), p. 128. 72Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1964), p. 21. 73Anonymous.' 74Laurence Urdang, ed., The Random House Dictionary: College Edition (New York: Random House, 1969), p. 985. 75 Alexis and Wilson, p. 67. 76Ibid., p. 68. 77Hadley Cantril, The "Why" of Man's Experience (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1950), pp. 65-66. 78Seymour Robins, "Transactional Design," Print, Vol. 10, No. 3 (June/July 1956), p. 31. 79Cantril, p. 66. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PRESENTATION OF DATA Introduction Management literature reviewed in Chapter II suggested that a manager should understand himself before he attempts to manage the human resource. One must also be aware of the effect that one's management activities have upon the peOple that one is managing, and how that may affect one's role as manager. The researcher presented in Chapter I the organi- zational climate that existed in the subject high school prior to September of 1975. The faculty had indicated that they desired greater involvement in the decision- making process. The researcher's purpose in this study was to determine at selected times the faculty member's perception of the principal as he implemented a decision- making process that involved faculty participation. The responses to the questions contained in a survey instru- ment were used to ascertain if faculty involvement in building level decision-making can have a significant positive effect over time on the faculty's perception of the principal. 56 57 The author hoped to determine if and if so, to what extent there was a positive relationship between faculty participation in the decision-making process and the faculty perception of the principal. An increment in the mean scores of the stem characteristics that are identified in the survey instrument was expected as a result of faculty involvement in the decision-making process. The Sample The faculty of the subject school served as the pOpulation for this study. ReSponses to the survey instrument were elicited from full-time faculty members in obtaining the base-line data and subsequent data. These faculty members comprised the sample for this study. The faculty is predominantly a veteran group with advanced degrees whose teaching experience, in the main, was acquired in the subject school. The incumbent princi- pal has worked five years with the faculty, although there have been four principals of the subject school during the past ten years. Approximately twenty-five percent of the faculty members have been recruited by the incumbent principal. Data displayed in Table 3.2 indicate graphically the longevity of the faculty members. The majority of faculty members have witnessed four or more administrative 58 TABLE 3.1.-—Degrees Earned to Age Relationship. ‘ Age Groupings Earned Degrees 21-29 31-39 41-49 51+ B.S./B.S. 2 5 0 0 M.A./M.S. l 19 ll 4 TABLE 3.2.——Experience to Experience in the Subject School. Total. Years of Experience in the Subject School Experience . in Years 2 3 , 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+ 3 l 4 4 5 l l l 6 1 l 7 1 l 8 2 9 1 1 10+ 2 1 4 18 styles. In Chapter II the author reviewed literature which suggested that veteran faculty members often were little affected by the change in administrative leader- ship in that they themselves had established their 59 informal leadership, and that it was the informal leader- ship which influenced the progress of the organization. Selection and Use of the Survey Instrument The Administrator Image Questionnaire was con- structed by the Educator Feedback Center of Western Michigan University to measure group perceptions of the administrator along several dimensions using process criteria. Process criteria by which administrative effectiveness may be judged refers to those measurable variables which are Operating during a given leadership attempt or administrative situation. In developing the Administrator Image Questionnaire the Educator Feedback Center selected twenty-three characteristics which they considered to be important measurable process criteria. The Educator Feedback Center has compiled normative data which anaarrayed in Table 3.3 The data represent 7004' individual ratings of 249 administrators over a period Of three years. The reliability coefficients from the scaled questionnaire items ranges from .82 to .93. The normative data will be referred to in Chapter IV but were not used in this study as comparative or as base-line data. The base-line data for this study were obtained from the subject faculty prior to the involvement of the faculty in the decision-making process. 60 TABLE 3.3.—-Mean Item Scores for Administrator Image Questionnaire. Normative Data Established 1968-1970. Shmthd Number Item . Mean Iffiggfifiif brans 1 Verbal Fluency 3.899 0.586 2 Consideration of Others 3.964 0.666 3 Attitude Toward His Job 4.260 0.519 4 Technical Competence 4.027 0.552 5 Achievement Drive 4.022 0.560 6 Supportiveness 3.938 0.650 7 Flexibility 3.768 0.591 8 Performance Under Stress 3.743 0.587 9 Openness 3.678 0.623 10 Encouragement of Staff 3.878 0.639 11 Ability to Delegate Responsibility 3.881 0.510 12 Innovativeness 3.980 0.590 13 Success in Communicating Expectations 3.597 0.580 14 Fairness 3.754 0.629 15 Maintenance of Staff Morale 3.531 0.754 16 Sense of Humor 3.899 0.624 17 Decision Making 3.875 0.577 18 Evaluating Ability 3.683 0.540 19 Managerial Skill 3.640 0.630 20 Awareness 3.554 0.611 21 Self Control 3.888 0.634 22 Leadership Skill 3.795 0.618 23 Appearance 4.312 0.471 24 TOTAL Mean of All Means 3.854 0.512 61 The Administrator Image Questionnaire was com— pleted by the faculty members in September 1975 to obtain the base-line data relative to the subject faculty and the incumbent principal. Subsequent to the completion of the questionnaire in September 1975 the faculty were involved in a variety of decision-making process activi— ties. Primarily these activities were related to pro- viding input to departmental level recommendations during departmental meetings. The recommendations encompassed the instructional program inclusive of assignments, budgetary needs, and logistical factors. Refer to Appendix E for an example of a departmental agenda. Midway in the 1975-76 school year the faculty indicated a desire for greater involvement in the actual decision-making which affected building operations. The format for subsequent decision-making with respect to in— building operations which were not governed by district policies or regulations was ratified in a general faculty meeting on January 5, 1976. The format is provided as Appendix A for the reader's review. Examples of an agenda for decision-making and the subsequent minutes of the meeting are provided as Appendix C and Appendix D respectively. Near the end of the 1975-76 school year a survey was made of faculty perception of the principal using the Administrator Image Questionnaire. 62 The decision-making model was also used during the 1976-77 school year for school-wide issues, and until approximately December 1 for departmental decisions. During the summer of 1976 the principal served as a member of the Board of Education negotiating team. The negotiations were protracted, however, the education association was successful in obtaining the concession from the Board for high school department heads. Prior to the final survey of the faculty perception of the principal the selection of the department heads was com— pleted. The faculty had previously expressed the desire to elect the department heads, however, the negotiations had established the positions in the category of extra- pay for extra-duty. In this category the district pro— cedure provided for the building principal to select the person from among the candidates. Another issue Of con- tention was the process by which the job descriptions were written. The faculty desired a writing team approach, and the writing was done by administrators in the central administration and the principal. The principal held discussion sessions with the faculty and did revise the job descriptions in a minor way following the suggestions. Even though the education association had finally won the concession from the Board of Education, the faculty believed the number of positions too few, the stipend too small, and the job expectancy too large for the stipend. 63 In this climate the final survey was completed in January 1977. The Administrator Image Questionnaire is displayed as Appendix B. The author has selected twenty-one of the twenty—three stem characteristics for this study. The stem characteristics and their respective narrative descriptors are displayed in Table 3.4. The reader will note that the author has not included the stem appearance nor the stem managerial ability in the three categories of factors in this study. The review of literature which related to leadership and management did not disclose to the researcher that appearance was a factor in determining effectiveness. The stem was not included in this study although the data obtained are arrayed for the reader. The stem managerial skill was not included within the categories because the descriptor did not make it appropriate to any of the categories. In the author's Opinion the stem managerial skill encompassed the role of the principal, and that opinion was formed by the litera- ture reviewed by the author. The other stems are characteristics which together measure managerial skill. The descriptor of the stem reads: Does he coordinate the efforts of those responsible to him so that the organiza— tion Operates at peak efficiency. 64 TABLE 3.4.--Narrative Descriptors for Stem Characteristics. No. Factor Decision-Making Factor: 2 Consideration of Others: (13 he patient, understanding, considerate and’courteous?) 6 Supportiveness: (Does he support those responsible to him?) 9 Openness: (Does he consider divergent views?) 10 Encouragement of Staff Participation: (Does he encourage you to raise questions and express Opinions?) 12 Innovativeness: (Is he willing to try new approaches or methods?) 14 Fairness: (Does he treat staff members in an unbiased and impartial manner?) 20 Awareness: (To what extent is he aware of problems that ex1st at your level?) Managerial Factor: 4 Technical Competence: (Does he have a thorough knowledge and understanding of his field?) 11 Ability to Delegate Responsibility: (Does he assign tasks to personnel capable of carrying them out?) 17 Decision-Making Ability: (Does the evidence indicate that he is able to make constructive decisions?) 18 Evaluating Ability: (To what extent does he objectively evaluate programs and practices?) 13 Success in Communicating Expectations: (Does he clearly define and explain what is expected of staff members?) 22 Leadership skill: (Does his leadership result in the attainment of mutually acceptable goals?) 15 Maintenance of Staff Morale: (Does he create a feeling of unity and enthusiasm among those in contact with him?) Personal Factor: 1 Verbal Fluency: (Does he express his ideas smoothly? Is he articulate?) 16 Sense of Humor: (Does he have a sense of the ridiculous? Does he laugh at his own mistakes?) 21 Self-Control: (Does he maintain control of his emotions when things are not going right?) 8 ,Performance Under Stress: (How does he function under pressure?) 7 ' Flexibility: (Is he able to adjust rapidly to changes in plans or procedures?) 3 Attitude Toward Job: (Does he show interest and enthusiasm toward his work?) 5 Achievement Drive: (Does he have the initiative and per- sistence needed to accomplish meaningful goals? 65 The stems are clustered into three categories: Decision-making Factor; Managerial Factor; and Personal Factor. These three factors are independent variables within the second axes of the factorial design which was used in this study. The mean scores Obtained for each characteristic on each occasion of the survey will serve as cell scores in the research design statistical model. The researcher's primary interest was the variance within and between categories although the variance of character- istics will be referred to in Chapter IV. The Experimental Design A quasi-experimental time-series factorial design was used to examine change in the faculty perception of the principal on three selected occasions with respect to three categories of characteristics. The two independent variables are time and categories of characteristics. The dependent variables are the reSponses of the faculty as measured by computed means for each characteristic. The mean obtained for each characteristic on each occasion of survey represents a cell score within the design. Use of the raw score would have introduced analysis of variance within a characteristic while the researcher was interested in an analysis of variance within the category of characteristics, and between the categories of characteristics. 66 The factorial design provides the Opportunity to examine the joint action of time and category on the dependent variable, and to determine if there were a significant effect. The ANOVA model is robust with respect to assump- tions of independence, normality and homogeneity for clearly the population is not normal, nor are the vari— ances homogeneous, nor can it safely be said the measures are independent. The use of mean scores for cell scores also tended to minimize individual bias and improve internal validity. The vagaries of interpersonal relationships could have produced an affect of sufficient emotional significance to have either positively or negatively affected the response of a given faculty member. The use of the characteristics in categories reduced the effects of individual bias and tended to reduce the influence of an individual intervening vari- able, and to randomize the nature of any similar inter- vening variables. An action or activity on the part of the principal of sufficient general interest to the faculty could have influenced responses in a general manner. The occurrence could be an intervening variable, therefore, timeliness of an action or activity of the principal not pertinent to the study but relevant to 67 general faculty relations was an uncontrollable variable. The external validity of this study was affected by the population limitations imposed and the systematic sampling technique utilized. It was not the intention of the researcher to be concerned with external validity. The study was limited to one school, one faculty and one principal. Generalization of findings beyond the limita- tions of the study would be inappropriate and beyond the validity of the findings. Other chance error may have occurred because one or more reSpondents for indeterminate reasons may not have responded to one or more of the stem characteristics. The design controlled for undue individual bias with a sample of 42 respondents. Error may have occurred in the classic Hawthorne Effect manner, however, the researcher Obtained responses on two separate occasions following the collection of base-line data in an effort to control for the Hawthorne Effect type of error. Nine and eight months respectively separated the collection of survey data. A three by three fixed effects Analysis of Vari- ance was used as the statistical procedure with the data. The three by three time-series factorial model provided the opportunity to examine interaction effects with respect to the independent variables. The Tukey Method 68 was proposed as a post hoc procedure for the comparison of pairs following a finding of significant relationship. Presentation of Data The mean scores obtained on each occasion of survey are arrayed by stem characteristic within the category assigned in Table 3.4. The mean score was com— puted from the responses of the individual faculty member to each stem characteristic. Cursory examination of the arrayed mean scores by characteristic indicates that a parabolic effect occurred in twelve of the characteristic mean scores: considera- tion of others; encouragement of staff participation; fairness; awareness; technical competence; decision- making ability; evaluating ability; success in communi- cating expectations; sense of humor; self-control (inverted); performance under stress; and flexibility. The following characteristic mean scores incremented over time: supportiveness; openness; ability to delegate; leadership skills; and maintenance of morale. The mean scores for four characteristics declined over time: innovativeness; verbal fluency; attitude toward job; and achievement drive. Examination for significance of these trends was made with the one-way fixed effects ANOVA statistical procedure. The presentation and discussion of the findings occurs later in this chapter. 69 TABLE 3.5.--Mean Item Scores for Administrator Image Questionnaire Obtained During this Study. i for Each Administration of the Instrument NO. Item 9-75 5—76 l-77 2 Consideration of Others 2.13 2.51 2.39 6 Supportiveness 2.42 2.57 2.59 9 Openness 1.92 2.12 2.15 10‘ Encouragement of Staff Participation 2.14 2.68 2.46 12 Innovativeness 3.19 3.07 3.02 14 Fairness 2.34 2.69 2.41 20 Awareness 2.20 2.54 2.30 Decision—making Factor 2.33 2.59 2.47 4 Technical Competence 3.46 3.60 3.41 11 Ability to Delegate 2.84 2.90 3.12 17 Decision—making Ability 3.07 3.32 3.00 18 Evaluating Ability 2.68 3.00 2.78 13 Success in Communicating Expectations 2.78 3.00 2.61 22 Leadership Skills 2.15 2.44 2.55 15 Maintenance of Staff Morale 1.42 1.76 1.80 Managerial Factor 2 63 2.86 2.75 l Verbal Fluency 3.33 3.31 3.20 16 Sense of Humor 2.28 2.90 2.50 21 Self-Control 2.63 2.59 2.60 8 Performance under Stress 2.34 2.43 2.34 7 Flexibility 2.20 2.40 2.20 3 Attitude toward Job 3.88 3.64 3.27 5 Achievment Drive 3.68 3.53 3.32 Personal Factor 2.91 2.97 2 78 19 Managerial Skill 2.43 2.83 2.70 23 Appearance 4.02 4.13 4.02 70 The mean scores obtained for each characteristic were used as cell scores in the 3 x 3 ANOVA Model and the cell means, factor effects means, time effects means and grand mean are presented in Table 3.6. TABLE 3.6.-~Ce11 Means, Column Means and Grand Mean for 3 x 3 Design. Time Row Factors Y 9—75 5—76 1-77 Decision-making Factor 2.33 2.59 2.47 2.46 Managerial Factor 2.63 2.86 2.75 2.75 Personal Factor 2.91 2.97 2.78 2.89 Column 2 2.62 2.81 2.67 Grand Y 2.70 The analysis of variance is presented in Table 3.7. TABLE 3.7.--Analysis of Variance of Factors. Source SS df MS F P Factor Effect 1.1634 2 0.5817 1.738 NS* Time Effect 0.9471 2 0.0474 0.141 NS* Interaction 0.6489 4 30.1622 0.424 NS* Error 18.0703 54 0.3346 * The results were not significant at p i .10. 71 The tabled "F" statistic at the .10 level of con- fidence with 2 and 60 degrees of freedom is 2.39. The experimental design set up by the researcher established a finding of significance at the .05 level of confidence which with 2 and 60 degrees of freedom tabled the "F" statistic at 3.15. The tabled "F" statistic for 4 and 60 degrees of freedom (interaction) was 2.04 and 2.53, respectively. The data did not provide significant findings and retention of the NULL hypotheses was indicated. Accord- ingly, use of the Tukey Method for post hoc comparison of pairs for significance was inappropriate. The column means displayed in Table 3.6 indicate a parabolic trend to the survey data in total which was not surprising in that twelve of the individual character- istic means had a parabolic tendency. The trend would tend to confirm a finding of the Educator Feedback Center that characteristic mean scores are "stubbornly stable."l One may infer that the classical Hawthorne Effect was a factor of importance in the findings. One may also infer that the effects of the faculty participation in decision- making which influenced incremental mean scores at the time of the second survey were eroded by the over-all negative aspects of the departmental head negotiations which had concluded shortly before the faculty completed the third and final survey. The process by which the 72 department head job description had been prepared and distributed may also have been a negative influence on faculty perception of the principal in one or more of the characteristics. The principal had served on the Board of Education negotiating team and had participated in the writing of the job description. The education asso- ciation had obtained the department head positions for the high school faculty, however, the number of positions established was not satisfactory to the staff nor was the amount Of the stipend, nor the procedure for appointment. In addition, the stipends for various extra-duty for extra-pay positions had been reduced or frozen as a step in the realignment of the stipends for extra—duty. These may have been factors Operating to influence faculty per- ception of the principal over a number of the character— istics. Examination of the means displayed in Table 3.4 and the variances for each characteristic on each occasion of survey as displayed in Table 3.8 did influence the researcher to use the survey data for each individual characteristic in a one-way fixed effects time-series ANOVA Model to test for significant time effects. The one way ANOVA was intended as a post hoc procedure. The "F" statistic was examined at the .05 level of confidence. The data arrayed in Table 3.9 were examined for significance at the .05 level of confidence, however, 73 TABLE 3.8.--Standard of Deviations of Responses for Administrator Image Questionnaire Obtained during this Study. Item Standard of Deviations NO. 9-75 5-76 1-77 Decision-making Factor 2 Consideration of Others 1.2293 1.2067 1.0459 6 Supportiveness 1.3054 1.3093 1.1175 9 Openness 1.7012 1.1519 0.9890 10 Encouragement of Staff Participation 1.0887 1.1713 1.1202 12 Innovativeness 1.1728 1.1560 1.1065 14 Fairness 1.2549 1.2394 1.0718 20 Awareness 0.9876 1.1202 1.1591 Managerial Factor 4 Technical Competence 0.7908 0.8281 1.0482 11 Ability to Delegate 1.1636 1.2259 0.8716 17 Decision-making Ability 1.1378 0.9602 1.0377 18 Evaluating Ability 1.0816 1.0905 1.0739 13 Success in Communicating Expectations 0.9814 1.1894 0.9455 22 Leadership Skills 1.1171 1.0735 0.9044 15 Maintenance of Staff Morale 0.6564 1.0436 0.9115 Personal Factor 1 Verbal Fluency 0.9517 0.9997 0.9803 16 Sense of Humor 0.9641 0.9997 0.9803 21 Self—Control 1.2473 1.0949 1.1277 8 Performance under Stress 1.2852 1.1076 1.1535 7 Flexibility 1.0618 1.0833 1.0300 3 Attitude toward Job 1.0734 1.0780 1.0960 5 Achievement Drive 0.9118 0.9858 1.1054 Other 19 Managerial Skill 1.3638 1.3210 1.1810 23 Appearance 0.5738 0.6071 0.5768 TABLE 3.9.--One-Way Analysis of Variance of Character— istics. Characteristic F P Consideration of Others 1.158 NS Supportiveness 0.231 NS Openness 0.567 NS Encouragement of Staff Participation 2.412 NS* Innovativeness 0.242 NS Fairness 1.011 NS Awareness 1.062 NS Technical Competence 0.505 NS Ability to Delegate 0.743 NS Decision-making Ability 1.049 NS Evaluating Ability 0.904 NS Success in Communicating Expectations 1.454 NS Leadership Skills 1.637 NS Maintenance of Staff Morale 2.315 NS* Verbal Fluency 0.212 NS Sense of Humor 4.030 .05 Self-Control 0.013 NS Performance Under Stress 0.080 NS Flexibility 0.498 NS Attitude Toward Job 3.339 .05 Achievment Drive 1.345 NS Managerial Ability 1.036 NS Appearance 0.474 NS * The tabled "F" for .10 level Of confidence and 2 and 120 degrees of freedom is 2.35. 75 findings within the .10 level of significance were identified and were notated for the reader. The one-way analysis of variance is presented in Table 3.9 for all twenty-three stem characteristics. The characteristic Sense of Humor was found to be of moderate significance. The obtained "F" of 4.030 ranged between a tabled "F" of 3.07 for .05 level of con- fidence and a tabled "F" of 4.72 for .01 level of confi- dence. Examination of Table 3.8 indicates a relatively static standard of deviation for the characteristic over time. One may infer that the parabolic tendency for the mean scores results from the faculty involvement in the decision-making process. The principal was cast in a defensive role when it became necessary to explain the nature of the department head assignments and the duties related to the job description. The rationale of the Board of Education and the administrative position with reSpect to the rationale differed from the concepts that had been developed two years previously by an ad hoc committee of faculty members and the principal. A princi- pal may be perceived to be lacking in sense of humor while participating in faculty meetings and departmental meet- ings as a Spokesman for the administration on such issues. A finding of significance was obtained with the characteristic Attitude Toward Job. The standard of ideviation for this characteristic appears to be relatively 76 static over time. The decremental trend to the mean score infers that faculty perceives the principal as losing enthusiasm and interest in his job. If one is attempting to involve the faculty in building level decision-making, and also must be the advocate on other occasions for decisions which will not be well received by the faculty it is likely that one may be perceived as being less enthusiastic toward his job. In this study there were intervening variables which may have affected the faculty perception of the principal with reSpect to interest in job. It was rumored strongly that the principal wished to re-locate and possible motives ascribed to relocation because of the organizational climate at the time could have influenced the perception of faculty members. Secondly, the principal was dis- satisfied with the reduction in both staff and instruc- tional dollars per student that had been almost an annual occurrence despite moderately rising enrollments in the high school. While the finding of significance is not contested by the researcher, the relationship to faculty involvement in building level decision-making is question- able as the source for a significant finding. One might have expected a highly significant find- ing with respect to the characteristic Encouragement of Staff Participation. The characteristic has a low level of significance at .10. In addition, there is a parabolic 77 tendency to the means over time. The researcher suggests that the post-negotiations climate previously referred to may have influenced such a trend. It is quite possible that the faculty perception scores of the principal with respect to this characteristic may have continued to increment had there not been the intervening variable. A finding of significance with respect to the characteristic Maintenance of Staff Morale would be expected because of the relationship of the faculty desire for participation in decision-making which was an outcome of the inservice activity conducted in April of 1975 that focused on organizational climate and staff morale. One may not infer that the relationship of staff involvement in decision-making is more than associational to faculty morale. The level of the significance is below the critical "F" even at the .10 level of confi- dence. The researcher does not find support in the data for assumptions held at the time of proposing the study. There is a need to have a self-understanding with respect to the perceptions of those one desires to lead. There is a need to understand the effect a certain variable may have on the perception of others. It may be that too many roles are required of the high school principal, and isolating any one variable as a critical influencing factor affecting faculty Opinion is an elusive goal. 78 In this chapter the author has presented the research design, the data obtained during the study, and has analyzed the findings of the study relating faculty involvement in building level decision-making to the faculty perception of the principal. This study was conducted because a faculty and administrator inservice activity indicated that the faculty morale was linked to the decision-making process within the subject school. Faculty morale was allegedly affected by the administrative behavior of the principal. Twenty-one stem characteristics were included in this study and the survey provided for reSponses on a scale from one to five. The data indicated that for eighteen of the characteristics the standard of deviation exceeded 1.0 as measured in May of 1977. In addition, the standard of deviation for an additional three characteristics was greater than .96. In January 1977 the standard of devia- tion for twenty of the twenty-one characteristics was greater than .90 and seventeen exceeded 1.0. In brief, approximately 70 percent of the faculty varied over three of the five points on the response scale. A more favor- able Opportunity for significant findings might have occurred if the characteristics had been scored on a scale from one to ten. 79 The above emphasizes that differences in Opinion concerning one administrator which may be found among the individual members of a faculty. The reviewed litera- ture suggested that the individual's perceptions will vary according to their need patterns and their experience. The data suggest increased faculty participation in the decision—making process may not improve the faculty perception of the principal. It is suggested that perhaps the effectiveness of the principal's admin- istrative behavior may positively influence the perception of the faculty and that the principal ought to ascertain what the faculty believes to be the criteria of effective- ness. FOOTNOTES : CHAPTER III l"Interpreting and Using Your Administrator Image Profile," Educator Feedback Center, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan. 80 CHAPTER IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In this study the researcher used process criteria related to administrative effectiveness as a means to establish a relationship between faculty participation in building level decision-making and the faculty perception of the principal. The author expected to find that the mean scores of twenty-one variables clustered into three categories would be incremental over time as the faculty increasingly participated in the decision-making process. A three by three ANOVA fixed effects time-series factorial design was used to test for significance the increments or decrements in the mean scores. Examination of the data obtained did not support non-retention of the NULL hypotheses when p i .05. Further analysis indicated that the data obtained did not support non—retention of the NULL hypotheses when p i .10. Accordingly, retention of the research hypotheses as expressed in the NULL form is indicated by the data. 1. There will be no significant difference in the mean scores obtained over time in the Decision-Making Factor category. 81 82 2. There will be no significant difference in the mean scores obtained over time in the Managerial Factor category. 3. There will be no significant difference in the mean scores obtained over time in the Personality Factor category. 4. There will be no significant interaction between the Factor categories when considered over time. An analysis of the data by the prOposed Tukey Method for pair comparison was not performed because significance was not indicated by the obtained "F" of the analysis of variance procedure. Analysis of the individual characteristics using a one-way fixed effects time-serial ANOVA procedure indicated significance for the characteristics Sense of Humor and Attitude Toward Job. The trend of the mean score for Sense of Humor was inconsistent. The mean scores tended to be parabolic although the mean for the third survey was greater than the mean for the base-line survey. The standard of deviations were relatively stable. However, one may infer that the act of sharing decision- making with a faculty may reduce the number of occasions when a principal must be in an explanatory, perhaps defensive posture, with the faculty and therefore, be perceived to see more humor in situations. The trend of the mean scores for Attitude Toward Job was a continuous decline from 3.88 (base-line data) to 3.64 to 3.37. The standard of deviations were 83 relatively static (see Table 3.8). One may infer that the principal who is initially perceived by the faculty as a change-agent who makes unilateral decisions and who subsequently engages in working with the faculty to develop a shared decision-making process may be perceived by the faculty as losing his interest and enthusiasm for his job. The author has suggested that intervening variables may have influenced the data obtained. The exogenous factors were unanticipated and were not intro- duced through conscious actions of the principal involved in this study. Two characteristics approached moderate signifi- cance at the .10 level: Encouragement of Staff Participa—- tion and Maintenance of Staff Morale. The author suggests that intervening variables of a management nature which were the result of negotiations may have negatively influenced faculty opinion and thereby affected the faculty perception of the principal on the occasion of the third survey. The consistent increment in the mean scores of the characteristic Maintenance of Staff Morale may suggest a relationship between faculty involvement in decision-making and the faculty perception of the princi- pal, however, the author suggests that this may be asso- ciational. 84 Conclusions Generally, the involvement of the faculty in the decision-making process did not positively influence the faculty perception of the principal. The data support this conclusion. One might have expected significant outcomes within the category Decision-making Factor, particularly the characteristic Encouragement of Staff Participation. The failure to Obtain significant findings in the overall analysis may be related to two other dimensions of administrative performance: administrator attitude and administrator behavior. While the instrument used in this study examined individual faculty member's perception of administrator attitude and administrator behavior there could be a discrepancy between what a person perceived and the administrator's own attitude and intended behavior. This would suggest the possibility of there being a credibility gap. An administrator may have or, believe there to be a healthy attitude regarding the factors and variables included in this study and yet be observed by others to behave in a manner which does not support the perception of others of the administrator's real self. For those with whom one is working what is perceived by them is their working reality. 85 Teachers' opinions as indicated by their responses on the image questionnaire are indications of how they are reacting to an administrator. Their responses reflect their understanding, misunderstanding, insight, fear, likes and dislikes as well as satisfactions. The faculty is composed of individuals who differ in vary— ing ways. However, analysis of the means and variances of the image questionnaire will provide the administrator with information about the effects of his administrative actions. Comparison of the reported variances displayed in Table 3.8 with the normative variances displayed in Table 3.3 suggest that the variances obtained from data in this study were atypical. One may infer that the atypical variances support the reported lack of cohesive- ness of the subject faculty with respect to issues, philoSOphies of education as well as their perception of the principal. Or, one may infer that the reported lack of cohesiveness with respect to issues and philosophies of education is additionally manifested in the faculty perceptions of the principal. The author stated in Chapter I that the study is important to administrators of the school district for it could supply information important to the future Operation of the high school. The data suggest that diversity of opinion may be a characteristic of the faculty of the high 86 school and to seek consensus on any issue may be an elusive goal, and an inappropriate decision-making process. This study did not support a positive relation- ship between faculty involvement in building level decision—making and the faculty perception of the princi- pal. There did seem to be associational relationships between staff morale and faculty involvement in decision- making. Carpenter, in his study of organizational struc- ture and job satisfaction of classroom teachers, found that the flatter the organization the greater the job satisfaction.1 There is additional support for the theory in the 2 collection of essays edited by Culver and Hoban. The characteristics Sense of Humor and Attitude Toward Job were found to have a significant relationship over time, however, the author suggests that the findings were biased by exogenous events which were reflected in the responses as intervening variables. The author believes that the labor-management relationship that has develOped in Michigan education since the passage of the Public Employees Relation Act of 1965 is a bar to the team-management relationship. The process of collective bargaining is comparably new to the public sector when one compares the public sector to the private sector. The relationship of those who 87 consider themselves to belong to the professional reference group to those who are the "managers" of the educational enterprise is distinct from the private sector labor-management relationship in that they still consider themselves colleagues. The teachers do not seem to realize that colleagiality is not a part of the labor-management relationship. Indeed, it may be that administrators as well, inclusive of professors of educa- tional administration, do not yet realize that a labor- management mentality actually exists in Michigan educa- tion, and that an adversary relationship between teachers and administrators really exists. This is not to state that teachers and administrators as persons are adver- saries, but that when they are acting in their respective institutional roles they are adversaries. The author has found the teachers of the subject school to be congenial peOple on a one-to-one basis, how- ever, collectively they are generally intractable, self- centered and protective of what they consider to be teachers' "rights." The institutional person gives lip- service to educational Opportunities for children, but that is not the fact of their institutional behavior. Teaching methodology, courses, content and conference hours are considered to be Subjects for exclusive teacher determination, and the author's experience in this school with this faculty indicates that maximum 88 personal convenience is the basic motivational factor of too many teachers. The author agrees with Maslow that needs tend to direct the organizational behavior of peOple and he also supports Herzberg's Opinion that psychological needs as well as physiological needs are Operational. The opinion offered by Leavitt that an individual's behavior may be caused by the working environment may be supported by the current research.3 The author reported in Chapter One that the teachers of the subject school had operated quite autonomously prior to 1972. Perhaps the pre-l972 organizational processes conditioned the teachers of the subject school to a need for autonomy. In Chapter Two the author reviewed recent litera- ture which suggested that team-management and decision- making involving the employees were elements of effective management. A commitment to the goals of the organiza- tion was a condition which McGregor4 and others included as an essential element of team management. The author suggests that commitment to organizational goals in the subject school is of lesser importance to teachers than their personal goals and that organizational inertia is the probable result of attempting a team-management approach. In fact, the faculty rated the principal lower in innovativeness after the principal had involved the faculty in the decision-making process. Perhaps the 89 faculty perception of the administrator as an Opinion influencer and leader of the organization diminishes as the faculty assumes a role in the decision-making of the school. Perhaps the reason American education is accused by the public of organizational inertia with respect to progress in improving schools is directly related to the practice of the theories of administration as provided by McGregor, Basil, Hill and Drucker.5 The author does not suggest that the theories may necessarily be in error for the private sector, nor even for the public sector. However, given the recent increase in public sector unionism and its early stage of develOpment together with the existing set of conditions in American education the application of the administrative theories is pre- sented is an unreasonable expectation. The author sug- gests that the work of Etzioni, Maslow and Herzberg be carefully examined by school administrators before they consider team-management involving the faculty. Recommendations The author recommends that the Administrator Image Questionnaire be used in a matched repeated measures design after faculty members and the administrator have completed a need patterns survey. The responses on selected characteristics ought to be correlated along several dimensions of needs which prove to be dominant for high school teachers. 90 A replication of this study should limit the characteristics to be considered although the faculty should respond to all items on the questionnaire. To arbitrarily, even with rationale, limit the Opportunity to respond may bias the responses in a negative manner. The items included in the questionnaire are useful for measuring administrative effectiveness, however, it is possible that some of the items may be internally incon- sistent. For example, an administrator may delegate responsibilities, receiving high scores, and may be per- ceived as doing very little personally, thereby receiving low scores for attitude toward the job. Therefore, the author suggests that only characteristics directly relating to faculty perception of administrator effective— ness be included. The faculty ranking of the character- istics most important, in their Opinion, to administrator effectiveness could provide the researcher with the most appropriate characteristics for that faculty to respond to over time. While the review of the collective bargaining history in Michigan education is not included in this study the author has reviewed these develOpments. It is not encouraging to those concerned with the educational welfare of children. The focus of the collective bar- gaining is almost exclusively on the welfare of the teacher and the security of the union. 91 In the subject school district the author suggests that the administrators be concerned about the quality of the decisions which affect the educational welfare of the children, and leave discussions of the decision-making process to the collective bargaining negotiations. It is the Opinion of the author that, in the subject district and perhaps others, organizational climate and teacher morale issues are raised to enlist the sympathy of the patrons, and to gain concessions during the normal Opera- tional period that may have been unobtainable during the collective bargaining sessions. FOOTNOTES : CHAPTER IV lCarpenter, p. 463. 2Carmen M. Culver and Gary J. Hoban, eds., The Power to Change: Issues for the Innovative Educator (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973). 3Infra, Chapter II. 41bid. 5Ibid. 92 BIBLIOGRAPHY 93 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Alexis, Marcus and Wilson, Charles Z. Organizational Decision-making. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1976. Aram, John D. Dilemmas of Administrative Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1976. Bales, Robert F. Small Groups. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965. Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938. Basil, Douglas C. Leadership Skills for Executive Action. New York: American Management Association, 1971. Bassett, Glen A. The New Face of Communication. New York: The American Management Association, 1968. Benton, John Breen. Managing the Organizational Decision Process. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1973. Bither, Steward W. Personality as a Factor in Management Team Decision—making. University Park: Penn- sylvania State University, Center for Research of the College of Business Administration, 1971. Brown, B. Frank. New Directions for the Comprehensive High School. West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker Publishing Company, 1972. Campbell, Roald, F. et al. The Organization and Control of American Schools. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1970. . Introduction to Educational Administration. Boston: Allyn-Bacon, Inc., 1966. Cantril, Hadley. The "Why" of Man's Experience. New York: Macmillan and Company, 1950. 94 95 Carver, Fred and Sergiovanni, Thomas J., eds. Organiza- tions and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969. Christie, Samuel G. "Beyond Teacher Militancy: Implica- tions for Change Within the School." In The Power to Change: Issues for the Innovative— Educator, pp. 142-153. Edited by Carmen C. Carver and Gary J. Hoban. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973. Collier, Abram T. Management, Men and Values. New York: Harper—Row Publishers, 1962. Commins, Saxe and Linscott, Robert N., eds. Man and The State. New York: Random House, 1947. Gribbin, James J. Effective Managerial Leadership. New York: American Management Association, 1972. Culver, Carmen M. and Hoban, Gary J., eds. The Power to Change: Issues for the Innovative Educator. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973. Drucker, Peter F. The Effective Executive. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1967. . Management: Tasks-Responsibilities-Practices. New York: Harper Row Publishers, 1974. Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Ewing, David W. The Human Side of Planning. London: The Macmillan Company, 1969. Flory, Charles D. and MacKenzie, R. Alec. The Credibility Gap in Management. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1971. . Friedman, Maurice. To Deny Our Nothingness: Contemporary Images of Man. New York: Dela Corte Press, 1967. Fromm, Erich. Escape From Freedom. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1941. . Man for Himself. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1947. 96 Greenwood, William T. Decision Theory & Information Systems: An Introduction to Management Decision- making. Cincinnati, Ohio: Southwestern Publishing Company, 1969. Griffiths, Daniel E. "Administration as Decision-Making." In Organizations and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools, pp. 138—148. Edited by Fred D. Carver and Thomas J. Sergovanni. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969. . "Administrative Theory and Change in Organiza- tions." In Organizations and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools, pp. 368-373. Edited by Fred D. Carver and Thomas J. Sergiovanni. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969. Halpin, Andrew W. "How Leaders Behave." In Organizations and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools, pp. 287- 313. Edited by Fred D. Carver and Thomas J. Sergiovanni. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969. . Administrative Theory in Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. Heald, James E. and Moore, Samuel A., II. The Teacher and Administrative Relationships in School Systems. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968. Hemphill, John K. Educational Development: A New Discipline for Self—renewal. Eugene, Oregon: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research, 1973. Herzberg, Frederick, et al. The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc, 1959. Herzberg, Frederick. Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1966. Hoban, Gary J. "School Without a Principal." In Th3 Power to Change: Issues for the Innovative Educator, pp. 154-161. Edited by Carmen M. Culver and Gary J. Hoban. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1973. Hostrop, Richard W. Managing Education for Results. Homewood, Illinois: E.T.C. Publications, 1973. 97 Jacobsen, Paul B., et al. The Effective School Principal. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954. Jensen, Gale E. Problems and Principles of Human Organiza- tion in Educational Systems. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Publishers, 1969. Kutz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Kimbrough, Ralph B. Political Power and Educational Decision-making. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1964. Kurtz, Paul W. Decision & The Condition of Man. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1965. Leavitt, Harold J. Managerial Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. Lippitt, Ronald. The Dynamics of Planned Change. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1958. Lippitt, Ronald and White, Ralph K. Autocracy and Democracy: An Experimental Inquiry. New York: Harper-Row Publishers, 1960. MacKenzie, Gordon N. and Carey, Stephen M. et a1. Instructional Leadership. New York: Columbia University, Bureau of Publications, 1954. McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1960. Maslow, A. H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1954. Minar, David W. Educational Decision-making in Suburban Communities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department Of Health, Education and Welfare, 1966. Morphet, Edgar L. Educational Administration. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959. Owens, Robert G. Organizational Behavior in Schools. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. 98 Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1951. Pennock, J. Roland and Smith, David G. Political Science: An Introduction. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964. Presthus, Robert. The Organizational Society. New York: Random House, 1962. Prestwood, Elwood L. The High School Principal and Staff Work Together. New York: Columbia University, Bureau of Publications, 1954. Roethlisberger, F. J. Management and Morale. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965. Rogers, Carl. "Toward a Science of the Person; An Alternative to Behaviorism." In Behaviorism and Phenomenology. Edited by T. W. Wann. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1945. Stodgill, Ralph M. Leadership and Role Expectation. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1956. Thompson, James D. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1957. Urdang, Lawrence, ed. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language: College Edition. New York: Random House, 1969. Van Fleet, James K. The 22 Biggest Mistakes Managers Make and How to Correct Them. West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker Publishing Company, 1973. Periodicals Carpenter, Harrel H. "Formal Organizational Structure Factors and Perceived Job Satisfaction for Class— room Teachers." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4 (December 1971), pp. 460—466. 99 Conway, James A. "Test of Linearity Between Teachers Participation in Decision-making and Their Perceptions of Their Schools as Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, NO. 1 (March 1976), pp. 130—139. Dobkin, Robert A. "Tea 'n' Treats Won't Satisfy Militant Teachers." The Lansing State Journal, 26 December 1976, sec. A, p. 1. Dyer, Henry. Preface to Theory Into Practice. Columbus: Ohio State University, College of Education, V010 VII, NO. 4 (1968)] p. i0 Galfo, Armond J. "Measurement of Group Versus Educa- tional Leaders Perception of Leadership Style and Administrative Theory Orientation." Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 68, No. 8 (April 1975), pp. 75-83. George, Julius and Bishop, Lloyd K. "The Relationship of Organization Structure and Teacher Personality Characteristics to Organizational Climate." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4 (December 1971), PP. 467-473. Halpin, Andrew W. and Thompson, James D. "Theory and Research in Administration." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 4 (March 1967), pp. 691-693. Heller, Melvin S. "Involvement of the Involved." N.A.S.S.P. Bulletin, Vol. 58, No. 386 (December Hill, Norman. "Self-esteem: The Key to Effective Manage- ment." Administrative Management, Vol. 37, No. 8 (August 1976), pp. 24-25. Leavitt, Harold J. "Consequences of Executive Behavior: The Administrative Two-step and Other Seemly Dances for Administrators." N.A.S.S.P. Bulletin, Vol. 48, No. 29 (April 1964), PP. 1674173. Luecke, David. "The Professional as Organizational Leader." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 18, NO. 1 (March 1973), pp. 86-94. Murray, Michael A. "Comparing Public and Private Manage- ment." Public Administration Review, Vol. 35, No. 4 (July/August 1975), pp. 364-371. 100 Robins, Seymour. "Transactional Design." Print, Vol. 10, No. 3 (June/July 1956)n pp. 30-31 Trump. J. Lloyd. "A Look Ahead at Secondary Education." N.A.S.S.P. Bulletin, Vol. 42, No. 235 (January 1958), PP. 5-15. Unpublished Dissertations Goldman, Harvey. "A Study of the Teacher-Administrator Relationship and the Influence of Need Patterns." Michigan State University, 1966. Mitchell, Bobby Mack. "Analysis of the Perception of the Role of Subordinate and Superordinate with Respect to Authority in Community Schools." Michigan State University, 1973. Zaccarine, Paul R. "A Study of Teachers' Participation in Decision-making and Their Consequent Perception of Administrator Control." State University of New York at Buffalo, 1970. APPENDICES lOl APPENDIX A FACULTY MEETING PROCEDURES 102 I. II. APPENDIX A FACULTY MEETING PROCEDURES Adopted January 5, 1976 Principal's Agenda A. B. In writing and distributed at the meeting, or ahead of time if possible. Each item should be labeled in one of the following ways: ‘ 1. Information only 2. Input from faculty members desired 3. Decision to be made a. By Administrators b. By consensus of faculty members present o. By X% of vote of faculty members present d. By otherdecision-making process (specify) 4. Other (written description to be given). Open Agenda A. B. All members may submit items Items submitted to Principal with recommendation for method of handling the item (discussion, request for input, decision and if decision, how to be made). The Principal will review and include them on the agenda, labeled by him in one of the following ways: 1. Request for discussion 2. Request for input or advice 3. Decision required a. By Administrators b. By faculty members present 103 104 By consensus By X% vote By some other process (specify) Other (written description to be given). thH D. Discussion with person submitting item will precede agenda publication if a change will occur, or item will not be included. E. "Other" items may be introduced from the floor. III. Meeting hours will be 2:30-3:30 and extended to 4:00 by 3/4 vote of members present. APPENDIX B ADMINISTRATOR IMAGE QUESTIONNAIRE 105 106 ADMINISTRATOR IMAGE QUESTIONNAIRE Please respond to the following questions honestly and frankly. Do not give your name: All responses are anonymous. Neither the administrator about whom these questions are asked nor anyone else will ever be able to associate your responses with you. Immediately after completion, your responses, along with responses of others from your group, will be sent to Western Michigan University for analysis. Image profiles representing how your administrator is perceived along several dimensions by your group will then be sent to him. The profile is sent to no one else unless so requested by your administrator. Fill in the blank which represents your reaction to each question. lo sure to fill In only one blank for each question. If you change an answer be sure to erase thoroughly the incorrect mark. PLEASE USE LEAD PENCIL. . 2 3 WHAT IS YOUR OPINION CONCERNING THIS ADMINISTRATOR'S: g ‘3' 5’ S s 5 8 ‘6 = . . e 1 a 8 a 1;, I. VERBAL FLUENCY: (Does he express hts Ideas smoothly? Is he articulate?) rook FAIR Ed. 500° :éic. i ~ 2. CONSIDERATION OF OTHERS: (Is he patient, understanding, considerate and 8 courteous .22: : ~ 3:3; : POOR FAIR AVG. coon exc. E D 3; 3. ATTITUDE TOWARD HIS JOB: (Does he show interest and enthusiasm toward , ______________ g E his work?) POOR EAT! ch’. Goon E'it'c. 3 4. TECHNICAL COMPETENCE: (Does he have a thorough knowledge and under- , 1 _ , 2.3: g standing of his field?) POOR FAIR Av’o. 6600 ext 5 3 5 ACHIEVEMENT DRIVE: (Does he have the initiative and persistence needed :::.: :3. 3:“, g to accomplish meaningful goals?) POOR FAIR AVG. 0000 Ext. E 6. SUPPORTIVENESS: (Does he support those responsible to him?) P56}: FAIR Ave. 6600 hit. 5 u 'I u I n .. _ 5 7. FLEXIBILITY: (Is he able to adlust rapidly to changes In plans or procedures?) p00,: “ER “6 5360 'Ex'c E .5 8. PERFORMANCE UNDER STRESS: (How does he function under pressure?) :. , 7.: :1 _.._:.3 3 POOR FAIR AVG. GOOD exc. :3 3f 9. OPENNESS: (Does he consider divergent views?) ._ . ..... I .. '3 icon FAIR 'A'vG. GOOD EXC i . O a: IO. ENCOURAGEMENT OF STAFF PARTICIPATION: (Does he encourage you to .. _____ raise questions and express opinions ) noon in: AVG. Ceca 'E'ic II ABILITY TO DELEGATE RESPONSIBILITY. (Does he assign tasks to personnel 3,: :2 _ . :7 .. capable of carrying themo otu ?) noon FAIR AVG coop Exc. I2. INNOVATIVENESS: (Is he willing to try new approaches or methods?) : ;:r:- :.. :2: POOR um Ave, 0000 sxc. 13. succrss IN COMMUNICATING EXPECTATIONS: (Does he clearly define and ., _. _ explain what is expected of stafT members #0032 'FAih Ave. 6000 91c I4. FAIRNESS: (Does he treat stafl members In an unbiased and impartial manner?) #00: 'F'AIR AVG. 606:: Ex’c. (Fol!!! fr 968) OVER (reviled _ own I7. I8. I9. 20. 2i. 22. 23. 24. 25. IF YOU WISH, PLEASE LIST ONE OR MORE STRENGTHS OF THIS ADMINISTRATOR: 107 . MAINTENANCE OF STAFF MORALE: (Does he create a feeling of unity and enthusiasm among those in contact with him?) SENSE OF HUMOR: (Does he have a sense of the ridiculous? Does he laugh at his own mistakes?) DECISION-MAKING ABILITY: (Does the evidence indicate that he is able to make constructive decisions?) EVALUATING ABILITY: (To what extent does he obiectively evaluate pro- grams and practices?) MANAGERIAL SKILL: (Does he coordinate the eflorts of those responsible to him so that the organization operates at peak efficiency?) AWARENESS: (To what extent is he conscious of the problems that exist on your level?) SELF-CONTROL: (Does he maintain control of his emotions when things are not going right?) LEADERSHIP SKILL: (Does his leadership result in the attainment of mutually acceptable goals?) APPEARANCE: (Are his grooming and attire in good taste?) IF YOU WISH, PLEASE LIST ONE OF MORE WEAKNESSES OF THIS ADMINISTRATOR: éééh P8012 éebh ébos AVERAGE iv 6. AVE, its. :95. A06. Ave. 6000 6:060 EXCELLENT Ex'c. Exc. EXC tic E x'é APPENDIX C AGENDA FOR FACULTY MEETING 108 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Item 1 — Item 2 - APPENDIX C AGENDA FOR FACULTY MEETING October 18, 1976 Faculty Members The Principal October 15, 1976 Faculty Meeting - Monday (10—18—76) Faculty input prior to Administrative decision - Students may request to drop from two, three, or four term courses without fulfilling the two, three or four term commitment. A student may be failing or not failing after 9 weeks. Proposed decision: Failing student - permit drop with teacher and counselor agreement. Notify parent. Non-failing student - permit drop with teacher and counselor recommendation, and parental and Principal approval. Topics which are subject to negotiation are not appropriate as faculty meeting agenda items. For example, we cannot, at this time, discuss the calendar dates beyond those currently identified. Determination of term ending dates for Terms 1, 2, 3. Faculty decision: 3/4 majority required for affirmation. Nov. 5 was identified (by administrative decision) in July as the ending date for Term I. The reason for selecting that ending date was to move the Term II date to Jan. 21 and Term III date to Mar. 26. If Term III ends on March 26, then Term IV begins on March 29 which is one week prior to Spring Holiday. Hopefully, this would 109 110 help to resolve the absentee problem during the Exam and Record Week of Term III. Resolved: We follow the term calendar listed below: September 8 to Nov. 5 - 43 days November 8 to Jan. 21 - 46 days January 24 to March 25 - 45 days March 28 to June ? * - 46 days *Seniors leave 1 week earlier. Item 3 - Parent—Teacher Conferences — 3/4 majority vote for affirmative action. It has been suggested that the high school follow the district-wide conference schedule instead of the one night per term schedule currently in use. Parents surveyed at the recent Parent/Teacher conferences indicated by a 120 to 53 margin they preferred the high school plan to the middle school plan. However, very strong comments were made with respect to: Long lines and waiting - Being able to talk with too few teachers. Resolved: The High School continue the current Parent/ Teacher conference plan, but establish an Ad Hoc Committee to study the waiting problem and present a recommendation. Item 4 — Pep Assembly — the cheerleaders would like a Pep Assembly Period 1. Resolved: 3/4 vote of faculty. Item 5 - Other Business Item 6 - Information 1. Term II Registration material will be distributed through 6th period classes on Thursday, October 21 - Registration Tuesday and Wednesday, October 26 and 27. 111 2. Carr— Taylor Debate - Friday, October 22 - 12: 15 to 2: 15. Aud. Juniors and Seniors only. 3. American Education Week — November 15-16-17- 18-19. K—8 Conference Dates 16th (1/2 day), 17th (1/2 day), 18th (whole day). 4. Inservice date — Nov. 2 - 1/2 day — National Elections Day. 5. Fourth Friday Enrollment - 1142 - (O-American Indian, lZ—Black, lZ—Asian, 7—Latino, 1111 white) 6. See attached Parent Survey Tabulation. 7. Attendance Communications: We regret the lack of complete information on your class lists has caused an incon- venience. Until we are able to provide the necessary information to each teacher (e.g., the parent's name and address of each student in your class) we will complete address info in the office. 8. Faculty Work— Room (500 Building) equipment addition. The transparency and spirit master. RESULTS OF HIGH SCHOOL PARENT SURVEY ON OCTOBER 12, 1976 Do you prefer conferences once per term (like tonight's conference) or would you prefer conferences twice per year (Nov. & April) using the method of the Middle School? Responses -- 120 "120 53 53 High School Middle School Do you receive the Home Edition of the newspaper by mail? Responses -- 158 19 I Yes No Is the Home Edition of the newspaper informative? Responses -- 83 84 3 Highly Somewhat Not Do you feel well informed about the high school academic program? ResponSes -- 107 58 Yes No Did the publication last May of the full year program for 1976-77 help you and your son/daughter in planning and scheduling? Responses to planning -— 141 16 Yes No Responses to scheduling —- 126 26 Yes No Do you understand the high school attendance regulations? Responses -- 166 9 Yes No 112 VII I I|II |I APPENDIX D MINUTES OF FACULTY MEETING 113 APPENDIX D MINUTES OF FACULTY MEETING OF October 18, 1976 Faculty Meeting was called to order at 2:35 p.m. Item 1 - Faculty input prior to Administrative decision - Item 2 - Item 3 - Students may request to drop from two, three, or four term courses without fulfilling the two, three or four term commitment. A student may be failing or not failing after 9 weeks - faculty discussed. Determination of term ending dates for Terms 1, 2, 3 Faculty voted and passed the term calendar as presented in the Agenda: September 8 to Nov. 5 - 43 days November 8 to Jan. 21 — 46 days January 24 to March 25 — 45 days March 28 to June ?* - 46 days *Seniors leave 1 week earlier. Parent-Teacher Conferences. Mr. moved that the High School have two conferences Term I, one Term II, one Term III and none Term IV. Defeated. Mr. moved for the question: The High School contIHEe the current Parent/Teacher conference plan, but establish an Ad Hoc Committee to study the waiting problem and present a rec- commendation. Defeated. Mr. moved that an Ad Hoc Committee be estaEIIshed to study the waiting problem and present a recommendation, chaired by Mr. . Passed. __—' 114 Item 4 - Item 5 - Item 6 - 115 Pep Assembly. The cheerleaders requested a Pep Assembly after 3rd hour and lengthening the Assembly 10 minutes. This would mean going to the activity schedule and shortening hours 1, 2_and 3. Faculty voted on and passed. Other Business. November 2 is an inservice day - 1/2 day. Faculty will be looking at graduation require- ments. The Principal would appreciate any help that day from faculty with the planning. Lunch will be left at 4th hour. The Principal referred to information items. Mr. added an information item - chairs, desk tablE§_are missing from some rooms. If any faculty have additional chairs and desk tables they are not using, please let Mr. ___ know so he can distribute these items to faculty who need them. Pre-registration information will be provided Thursday IF the material is received from the Data Center. IIIIIHIHIIIHIIHIIHWIHH||HIHlllHIIIIHIHIIIHIIIIII