\W. . hunt”: Nu...

 

:l.‘..»L?’.$'*~-s*i:i.'i'r‘~€ru *’ ~' '
. . 1 ‘ ,nw

' vsvmljc'jq,‘:glfi’

T." i

I
.

. YA.|_v;

In...

:»- ,;:::"':='rmn. mgziiw
b "‘ ‘-

3- ,..I.1. . ,
. ltti". I
.ufluvlfilrzfld’hwv. n.
Wdf.rwovv....!.. . .
.m. . .

I\

‘ ..m.u‘..:m}u.......wti. Jug... I -
. . . : . . .. . air..- ......mw.7 . .
. ‘ . . L .. . .5_fi..?-r..43.~lt.
..r .. 133.194 u. afinaflbflmmfit

; 243...... . z - t 1

.. ‘ . .u r . .Bru,6....mmflumw.flvru .1.
.. .- . ..n.hvnm..ofl.&.u3fi.r1i..bifiv
.. l n :L

Iaffifivff'g ..
”Q3"! i5 ‘

1?": 1

:

1":lz

_“-'v!:fiyh
.1‘ ‘2‘. :f'yix: :. a
,. ‘Té‘rL-‘s'

v.0. '

J.» '

at”! H

OI 11$...H....ru.hnl. -o! 3%}: I...
... . 0301;33amuww au.u.firnu.m.4n.obfl3 J .
‘JU.-(§. .Mo. oil. Hog“; .9 V v .. .

“Jain. .1323”? mvhfihfinhzfl ...

C u 0

a. A v I
. y
. , .
<79: 4 u 2. a
.1
b: ‘ c A... .’
. . . . . u .i
v
A - ‘0 til I
. a. £211.“?! . (9‘)!th I:
- 1 - 7H” HUI: reiatuli
o vlfi
. . I
.

.
i U I .

NV. «3;! , 3’9». Ivr
r: ~ . v ll
6!“thou ‘31).QLHHHI
A 1 -c .
an. . 1 13.13.. .. . .
{<IIA ,vl» \ ”Vila LN 3.H~.,. u...’ . .

1.19 ()5. II?“ p «343-. 'IPAI’: .nl ..l. A.
ll .0) o I! ‘3.) 5 I. a

n )ll‘v.;{\';y’)fi.lroinxln(l. .
El‘ . 1’. Inlllhl‘cill. Hygilcl. It:

$133.3. 1.3.5.9.?!
,Z‘ I- ‘
\. IV-
). . '8 II
198:)! 4&3qu1
I‘.Q1w,nl’u .

J .
. o
I. ‘1'.

\I
V?
O 3.0!. .1.

~
‘1;

II

15.1.... .r'...
r r. sciatic!» I."
. . t \
lt‘4 - ilnnl
(,Qll'llfflbvunltl 111‘
\‘ll' ‘Ilt! A

1
lb .
fil

 

 

 

I! III! W A...

”4 .1 A, 0344 9 32 . LIBRAR? A,

’ H J 1 . o ‘9“; ',
a 7*” 31‘ 31-":31 amt-3.-
1k ‘ '.

 
 
  

«

a.” ' “My?

7|
. - ’1 o .I
~ .. p . ‘1 :_
1 ..- .. ..-_ 2:.“ :1 (.1333;
‘2'
-' '- -~ ~ ~ mam

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
A Study of the Authority Relationship Between
Principals and Teachers in Schoois

presented by

Suparvadee S. Mitrsomwang

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Miami‘degree in W

    

Ma.ior pro essor

DateW

0-7639

A

STUDY OF THE AUTHORITY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS IN SCHOOLS

BY

Suparvadee S. Mitrsomwang

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1977

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF THE AUTHORITY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS IN SCHOOLS

BY

Suparvadee S. Mitrsomwang

This study examined the relationship between decentral-
ized authority and subordinates' communication, conflict,
peer influence, and compliance. Many scholars have analysed
business and industrial organizations, and fOund positive
relationships; this study examined whether their findings
were also true in a sample of the work group located within
an educational organization.

The setting of this study was 53 public schools in five
large Michigan school districts of approximately equal size.
Schools (grades K-12) were selected on the basis of a strati-
fied random sample of each district. Self-administered
questionnaires were given both to the teachers in the
schools and to school principals.

Four dependent variables--pattern of communication,
organizational conflict, influence from the peer groups, and
organizational compliance-—have been discussed in relation

to the human relations style of decentralized supervision.

Suparvadee S. Mitrsomwang

Other independent variables—-specialization and division of
1abour--were sometimes taken into account in order to
explain some unexpected results. Based upon the data col-
lected from elementary and secondary schools, Spearman Rank
Order Correlation Coefficients were employed to measure the
degree of the relationship between teacher decision index
representing the degree of teachers' participation in
decision-making and social exchange indexes representing the
dependent variables. The correlations of these variables
for the elementary school were calculated separately from
those of the secondary schools.

The results show that the direction of the relation
was frequently as hypothesized, but the strength of the

relationship was much lower than in the previous studies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My appreciation and sincere thanks go to Dr. Philip
Marcus, my thesis advisor, for his criticism, encouragement
and guidance throughout this study, expecially at the data
gathering stages.

To Dr. Duane Gibson and Dr. John T. Gullahorn, who
served on my committee, I wish to express my deep gratitude
for their helpful comments and patience to see me through
this project.

I would also like to express my special appreciation
to my husband, whose encouragement and helping hand con-

tributed to the completion of this thesis.

 

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES...00....0.0...OOOOOOOIOOOOOOCOOOOOCOO.

 

INTRODUCTIONOOOOCOOCOOOO0.00.0.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
THEORY AND LITEMTUREOOOOO0.000000000000000...0......

The Classical or Traditional Theory...............
A. Weber's 'Ideal' Type of Rational Authority..
B. Administrative Management Theory............
The Human Relations Approach......................

AUTHORITY CORRELATES TO ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS......

Authority Correlates to Organizational Communica-

tionOO00.0.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000...0....
Authority Correlates to Organizational Conflict...
Authority Correlates to Organizational Compliance.
Authority Correlates to Influence from Peer Groups

SETTING 0F STUDYOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOCOOOOOO00....
MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES...‘00.......COCOCCOOOOOOCOCC

The Independent Variables.........................
Style of Supervision...........................
Division of Labor and Specialization...........

The Dependent Variables...........................
Pattern of Communication.......................
Organizational Conflict........................
Influence of Peer Groups.......................
Organizational Compliance......................

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. 0 O O O C O O C O I I O O O O O C O O I O O O O O O O O O O 0
Organizational Communication Correlated to Teacher
DeCiSion Index. I O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O

Tension Between Teachers and Principals Correlated
to Teacher Decision Index......................

iii

Page

a. #4

come-.5

13

13
17
23
26

31
36
36
36
37
40
40
41
41

43

43

48

TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued Page

Organizational Compliance Correlated to Teacher
DeCiSion Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Influence From Peer Groups Correlated to Teacher
DeCiSion Index. . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O Q 55
CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................... 63

APPENDIX....................0........................ 67

iv

TABLE

I.

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

LIST OF TABLES

Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
Between Teacher Decision Index and Communication
Index Within the Elementary Schools.............

Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
Between Teacher Decision Index and Communication
Index Within the Secondary Schools..............

Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
Between Teacher Decision Index and Compliance
Index Within the Elementary Schools.............

Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
Between Teacher Decision Index and Compliance
Index Within the Secondary Schools..............

Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
Between Teacher Decision Index and Influence
Index for the Elementary Schools................

Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
Between Teacher Decision Index and Influence
Index for the Secondary Schools.................

Page

44

46

53

54

56

56

INTRODUCTION

All organizations develop a structure and mechanisms
to insure their survival.1 To obtain this goal, the organi-
zation must secure both internal support from its members
and external support from the society filled with competi-
tors. Within an organization, a control system directs
members toward the organizational goals by coordinating
activities that have been organized into subunits so that
they can be performed by groups of employees.

There has been a great amount of interest within the
social sciences concerning the control structure. Many
terms have been used to deal with it: leadership, power,
status, authority, rank, prestige, influence, control,
manipulation, domination, and so forth, and still the con-
cept is not sufficiently defined.

Theoretically speaking, there are two important
theories concerning organizational control, the classical_.
or traditional theory and the human relations theory.

According to the classical theory, the organization is a

 

1Philip Selznick, "Foundation of the Theory of Organiza-
tion," American Sociological Review, Volume 13, 1948, pp.
23-55.

 

great hierarchy of superior-subordinate relations in which
the person at the top, assumed to be omniscient, gives the
general orders that initiate all activities. His immediate
subordinates make the orders more Specific for their sub-
ordinates, the latter do the same for theirs, and so on,
until specific individuals are carrying out specific com-
mands. All authority, one form of control, is cascaded down
in this way by successive delegations. There is complete
discipline enforced from the top down to assure that these
commands are faithfully obeyed. Responsibility is owed from
the bottom up. To assure predictability and accountability,
each position is narrowly defined as to duties and jurisdic-
tion without overlapping or duplication. Problems that fall
outside the narrow limits of the job are referred upward
until they come to a person with sufficient authority to
make a decision. Each person is to receive orders from and
be responsible to only one other person--his superior.

The human relations school, on the contrary, conceives
authority as consisting of emergent factors. Designated
status and predetermined formal organizational structure
appear to be eclipsed by a free-floating variable; namely,
style of leadership. The role of the leader consists of
decentralizing his authority to his subordinates so that
they (subordinates) can participate in the organizational

activities. In this case, the subordinates will have

opportunities to initiate and suggest their ideas to the
leaders. Responsibility is shared by both the subordinates
and superordinates. The leaders is also expected to coordi-
nate and exchange relations among group members. This
implies that the supervisors should be the agents who main-
tain inter-group and intra-group communication rather than
simply being the agents of higher authority. Communication
tends to be two—way rather than one-way.2

Based upon these preceding theories, many studies have
focused upon the study of relationships between patterns of
authority used in the organization and social exchange with-
in organization such as pattern of communication, job
satisfaction, organizational conflict and so on. This study
focuses upon the relationship between patterns of authority
used in the organization; namely, decentralized authority
and centralized authority and social exchange within the
organization, particularly those which deal with communica-
tion, conflict, compliance, and influence from peer group.
The purpose is that of determining whether the findings of
other scholars, who have analyzed business and industrial
organizations; are also true in a sample of public school

personnel.

 

2H. Shepard, "Superiors and Subordinates in Research,"
Journal of Business, Volume 29, 1959, p. 261.

 

THEORY AND LITERATURE

The Classical or Traditional Theory

A. Weber's 'Ideal' Type of Rational
Authority

 

The original concept of "authority" was given by Max
Weber. In his study of "Sociology of Domination," Weber
defined the term domination ("authority"3) as the probabil-
ity that certain commands would be obeyed by a given group
of persons. In his definition of authority, Weber did not
include every mode of exercising "power" or "influence" over
other persons. Domination in his sense was based upon the
most diverse motives of compliance all the way from simple
habit to the most purely rational calculation of advantage.
Hence, every genuine form of domination implies a minimum of
voluntary compliance; that is, an interest based on ulterior

. . . . 4
motives or genuine acceptance in obedience.

 

3Weber put "Autoritat" in quotation marks and parenthe-
ses behind Herrschaft, referring to an alternative collo-
quial term, but the sentence makes it clear that this does
not yet specify the basis of compliance. However, in his
later chapter, he alternatively translated the legitimate
domination to authority.

4Max Weber, Economy and Society. Guenther Roth and
Claus Wittich (eds.). New York: Bedminister Press, 1968.

According to weber, there are three pure types of
authority: legal authority, traditional authority, and
charismatic authority. For weber, the most rational type
of authority is legal authority or as he calls it
"bureaucratic authority" for the public and lawful govern-
ment, and "management" in the setting of private economic
domination.5 Authority in this case is attached to particu-
lar offices within the organization, and not to the indi-
vidual holding the office. It is institutionalized by rigid
specification and articulated through rules, regulations,
codes, norms, and standards.6

In his description of bureaucratic authority, Weber
noted that bureaucratic authority rested upon the principles
of office hierarchy and of levels of graded authority. That
means the lower participants will be supervised and directed
by the higher ones. In this case, the authority is assumed
to be in the hands of the higher positions in the organiza-
tion, and superiors direct and make the decisions on all the
organizational activities. Weber concluded "such a system

offers the governed the possibility of appealing the

 

5Max Weber, "Bureaucracy," in Oscar Grusky and George
A. Miller (eds.), The Sociology of Organization. New York:
The Free Press, 1970, p. 6. ,

6Webber, op. cit., 1968.

decision of a lower office to its higher authority, in a

regulated manner."7

B. Administrative Management Theory

Among the earliest comprehensive attempts to state
principles of management were those of Fayol, whose 14
"principles" consisted of division of work, authority,
discipline, unity of command, unity of direction, subordina-
tion of individual interest to general interest, remunera-
tion of personnel, centralization, secular chain, order,
equity, stability, initiative, and esprit des corps.8 From
the preceding principles we find Fayol emphasize the idea of
centralized administration, in which authority has the right
to give orders and the power to exact obedience.9 For any
action whatsoever, an employee should receive an order from
one supervisor only (unity of command). The head of the
organization is responsible for planning a group of activi-
ties having the same objective (unity of direction), while
subordinates are supposed to conform to orders from the top
positions who employed the authority. Discipline is an

essential part of the organizational principles.

 

7Weber, Op. cit., 1970.

8For more details see Joseph L. Massie, "Management
Theory," in James G. March (ed.), Handbook of Organization.
Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1965.

9

 

Ibid., p. 390.

A second major attempt to provide a conceptual frame-
work of management principles was made by Urwick. Urwick
was influenced by Fayol and by J. D. Mooney and A. C. Reiley,
whose book, Onward Industry, had been published in 1931.
Urwick, representing the administrative management school,
tends to confirm the stereotype of the engineer. People
have their idiosyncracies and deviations and oddities, but
that is really unimportant. If we take them into account,
what emerges is chaos, not organization. As March and Simon
point out about this thought system "the employee (is viewed)
as an inert instrument performing the tasks assigned to him.
So, there is a tendency to view personnel as a given rather
than as a variable in the system."10

Loosely speaking, then, the classical organizational
theory conceives authority as a centralized controlling
system in the hands of the authority agents. Commands,
orders, directions are given to the lower participants by
the higher authority. Unity of command, unity of direction
and hierarchical control structure are basic principles of
this theory. Subordinates are expected to conform to the
superior's directions and commands. In this case, it is
quite difficult for the lower participants to participate

in organizational activities directly. A person is treated

 

10J. G. March and H. A. Simon, Organizations.

New York: Wiley, 1958, p. 225.

 

as a machine rather than as a human being. As Bennis noted:
"For the classical organizational theory ... organizational
activities were or could be rationally planned and designed
by some planner who sits at the drawing board and constructs

the organization as he would design a machine."11

The Human Relations Approach

There has been a distinctive shift in thinking about
organization since the early 1930's. The dominant focus of
organization was transformed from a rational model, free
from the friction of man's emotions into a model which
accepts the human components as essential elements in con-
sidering the actual operation of an organization.12 That
new look in organizational theory took cognizance of the
unanticipated consequences of organizations; workers' feel-
ings, beliefs, perceptions, ideas, and sentiments--exactly
the non-rational elements Weber believed escaped calculation.

March and Simon, in their study, Organizations, call

 

this model the "Human Relations Model". The Human Relations

approach was established as a result of the Hawthorne

 

11Warren G. Bennis, "Leadership Theory and Administra-
tive Behavior: The Problem of Authority," Administrative
Science Quarterly, Volume 4, 1960, p. 265.

12

 

Bennis, ibid.

experiments, which were carried out at the Western Electric
Company's Hawthorne WOrks near Chicago by Roethlisberger and
Dickson. From their famous studies of the Relay Assembly
Test Room, the Mica Splitting Test Room, and the Bank-Wiring
Observation Room, they concluded that social rewards were
more important than material rewards in inducing workers to
behave in line with or, in opposition to, managerial goals.
They noted informal group behavior was fundamental to the
operation of industrial and other organizations.13 It was
noted in the Bank-Wiring Room Study that style of leadership
was directly related to the group behavior. The superior
was under great pressure to conform to the norm of the

14 The

groups of which he was supposed to be in charge.
studies also showed that a foreman or a person in a super-
visory position was more likely to be accepted if he exer-
cised Human Relations style of leadership.

Another view of the Human Relations approach is

"Management by Objective" by Douglas McGregor.15 McGregor

has reformulated a number of principles that outline a new

 

l3Fritz J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson,
"Human Relations," in Oscar Grusky and George A. Miller
(eds.), Sociology of Organization. New York: The Free
Press, 1976: pp. 5§F64.

14Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations. Englewood.
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966, p. 36.

15J. D. Mooney, The Principles of Organization.
New York: Harper, 1947.

 

 

10

approach to organizational leadership or the authority
structure exercised within the organization. First,
McGregor clearly recognized that "the most central principle
of conventional organizational theory is that of author-

ity."l6

He attempted to substitute for personal authority
(that is, the prerogative of power simply through superior
role incumbency) the task or situational or goal demands.
Thus management by objective comes about through "target-
setting", a collaborative process where superior and sub-
ordinate attempt to develop the ground rules for work and
productivity. Second, there is the principle of "interde-
pendence" or collaboration between superior and subordinate.
This principle has to do with "the belief--evidenced in
practice--that subordinates are capable of learning how to

exercise effective self-control."17

According to this
approach, extending autonomy and increasing participation
enable the subordinates to satisfy their needs (physiological
and safety needs, social needs, ego needs and above all self-

targeting, where a subordinate is responsible for setting

his own standards, the employee is encouraged to take a

 

16"Notes on Organizational Theory: The Human Side of
Enterprise," Proceedings of the Fifth Anniversary Convocation
of the School of Industrial Management, M.I.T., April 9:
Management by Objectives (M.I.T. reprint), Role of Staff in
Modern Industry (M.I.T. reprint, undated).

17Ibid.

11

larger responsibility for defining and planning his own
contribution to business and this way the company is able
to exploit his egoistic and self-fulfillment needs."18

Another contribution to the Human Relations approach
is the study done by Kurt Lewin and his associates. In the
study of participation within the organization, Lewin con—
cluded that the leader was not necessarily an explicitly
declared position, but he was conferred during group action,
sometimes without either the group or the individual being
aware of the process by which this was done. Leadership,
according to Lewin, varies with the task of the group and
may move from one individual to another as the group finds
it suitable. This means that authority to control the group
is not centralized in the hands of a single person. On the
contrary, the authority is decentralized in such a way that
everybody can have a chance to get involved either directly
or indirectly with the organizational activities.

To summarize, then, the Human Relations approach is
derived from the philosophy that believes in human dignity.
Under this philosophy, the workers are urged to cooperate as
partners in the organization. They should be treated as
human beings rather than machines or robots. Decentralized

authority is a major concept that the leader should employ

 

. 18Joe Kelly, Organizational Behavior. Homewood, 111.:
R. D. Irwin, Inc., 1974, p. 107.

12

for manipulating the organizational affairs. This means

that the leader should give more opportunities to his
followers to participate in organizational decision-making
processes. The role of the leader consists of coordinating
and encouraging relations among group members rather than of
directing and controlling the group members. Thomas Gordon's
conclusion clearly described the Human Relations style of
leadership: "The primary concern of the leader is in facili-
tating the group development, helping the group clarify and

achieve its goals, aiding the group to activate itself."19

 

19Thomas Gordon, Group-centered Leadership: A Way of
Releasing the Creative Power of Groups. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin,l955.

AUTHORITY CORRELATES TO ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS

Authority Correlates to Organizational
Communication

 

Communication, the exchange of information and trans-
mission of meaning, is the very essence of a social system
or an organization. It is the nervous system of an organi-
zation, which provides the information and facilitates the
understanding necessary to achieve both high productivity
and high morale. It is a powerful determinant of the organ-
ization's overall effectiveness; it may exert effects on the
ability of the organization to grow, perform effectively,
and to survive. Consequently, management gives increasing
recognition to the importance of communication as an instru-
ment of organizational administration.

Generally, in any organization, communication usually
correlates directly to the organizational controlling system.
Chester I. Barnard, in his study on "A Definition of Author-
ity" gave an interesting definition of authority: "Authority
is the character of a communication (order) in a formal
organization by virtue of which it is accepted by a con-
tributor or "member" of the organization as governing the

action he contributes; that is as governing or determining

l3

14

what he does or is not to do as the organization is con-
cerned."20

Based upon this definition, one will see that authority
is viewed as a communication process in the organization--
the process of distributing orders, directions, commands
from the top position to the other members of the organiza-
tion.

Many studies dealing with the relationship between
patterns of authority imposed in the organization and com—
munication processes have been conducted by several social
scientists. W. Richard Scott implied in his study of social
workers that patterns of authority used in the organization
or style of supervision is directly related to communication

21 According to Scott, there

processes in the organization.
are two styles of supervision, one is bureaucratic super-
vision or routine supervision, the other is therapeutic or
professional supervision. The bureaucratic supervision

emphasizes centralized authority (close-supervising,

centralized decision-making, rule-following) while the

 

20Chester I. Barnard, "A Definition of Authority," in
Robert K. Merton (ed.), Reader in Bureaucracy. New York:
The Free Press, 1952, pp. 18-185.

21W. Richard Scott, "Professional Employees in a
Bureaucratic Structure: Social Work," in Amitai Etzioni
(ed.), The Semi-Professions and Their Organization.
New York: The Free Press, I969, pp. 823134.

15

therapeutic supervisor prefers the flexibility of therapeutic
treatment. The therapeutic supervisor does not issue direc-
tives to co-workers, nor does he threaten punitive action
for non-compliance. Rather, he attempts to refrain from
using the sanctions attached to his office as supervisor and
controls instead with his supervisory knowledge and casework
skills to guide and direct the subordinates. Moreover, he
tends to delegate authority to subordinates, give them more
chances to participate in organizational activities. In
this case, the communication processes tend to be two-way
and informal rather than one-way and formal.

Communication between the superior and subordinates
tends to deal with suggestions, recommendations, consulta-
tions, exchange of information and so forth. That is, the
communication tends to flow both upward and downward. Scott
also noted that when the superior introduces decentralized
authority into the organization, the subordinates tend to
communicate with the superior more often than when the
superior imposes centralized authority. On the contrary,
the bureaucratic supervisor prefers to use one-way formal
communication as a means of controlling the subordinates.
Most of the communications are directions, commands, techno-
logical information which support the supervisor in control-
ling the subordinate closely. In this case, the subordi-

nates tend to have formal communication with their superior

16

and they tend to communicate with their colleagues more
often than with their superior.

Amitai Etzioni also studied the relationship between
authority imposed in the organization and the pattern of
communication systems. He suggested that in the organiza-
tion where the supervisor imposed coercive power over the
subordinates the pattern of communication tends to be ver-
tical or, as he calls "instrumental communication", communi-
cation which deal with information, directions and technical
information, while in the normative organization, where the
supervisor does not directly control the subordinates and
the subordinates have more Opportunities to make their own
decisions on organizational activities, the communication
process tends to be "expressive“, which provides some
changes, or enforcement of attitudes, norm and values.22

From these two studies we may hypothesize for the
organizations we are studying that a) decentralized author-
ity imposed in the organization is positively related to
patterns of communication process. That is, the more the
supervisor exercises decentralized authority, the more
informal communication between the supervisor and the sub-

ordinates cn: the more the supervisor imposes centralized

 

22For more details see Amitai Etzioni, A Comparative
Analysis of Complex Organization. New York: The Free Press,
1974.

 

l7

authority, the more formal communication between the super-
visor and the subordinates there will be, and b) decentral-
ized authority is positively related to the frequency of

the communication between the supervisor and the subordi—
nates. That is, the more the supervisor exercises decentral-
ized authority with the subordinates, the more frequent the

subordinates will communicate with the superior.

Authority Correlates to Organizational
Conflict

Conflicts within organizations tend to arise because
of the openness of the organization to the environment and
the different types of relationships or interfaces which
particular parts of the organization or individuals within
it have with their environment. There are at least three
different perspectives dealing with organizational conflicts.
The first one is the conflict between individuals within the
group. This conflict arises from the differences in indi-
vidual values, beliefs, attitudes, roles, and frames of
reference, that have a considerable influence on the indi-
viduals' perceptions and interpretations of their environ-
ment. Since it is inevitable to have different kinds of
people within an organization, the likelihood of conflicts
is considerable.

When these people with varying backgrounds get into the

organization, they tend to group with people who have similar

18

perceptions. Since within the organization there are many
groups, each group with its own major task, values, atti-
tudes, formality of structure, the second type of conflict;
namely, intergroup conflict, tends to arise.

The last category of conflict is intraorganizational.
One of the major intraorganizational conflicts is between
superior and subordinates that arises because of the differ-
ent perceptions of organizational environment, the lack of
legitimacy which subordinates invest in superior's direc-
tions, and the need of joint decision-making. Many studies
have been done by several social scientists who are inter-
ested in this area. The different perception of organiza-
tional environment between the subordinates and superior,
the need of joint decision-making and the lack of legitimacy
which subordinates invest in superior's directions largely
stem from the disagreement between authority structure and
professional skills.

It is true that without a clear ordering of higher and
lower in rank, in which the higher in rank have more power
than the lower ones and hence can control and coordinate
the latter's activities, the basic principle of administra-
tion is violated; the organization ceases to be a coordi-
nated tool. However, knowledge is largely an individual
property; unlike other organizational means, it cannot be

transferred from one person to another by decree.

19

Creativity is basically individual and can only to a very
limited degree be ordered and coordinated by those superiors
in rank. Consequently, the application of knowledge is
basically an individual act, at least in the sense that the
individual professional has the ultimate responsibility for
his own professional decision. They tend to perceive the
organizational environment differently from their superior.
They are less frequently identified as "company men" than
others in the executive group.

Robert Peabody noted that authority conflict within the
organization usually occurred when individuals experience
anxiety because of the presence of two contradictory bases
of authority; namely, the conflict between formal authority
(the authority institutionalized in hierarchical positions
throughout the organization and articulated in rule and pro-
cedure) and functional authority (authority growing out of
technical skills, expertise and experience).23 Victor
Thompson has also suggested that intraorganizational conflict
is a resultant of the interaction between the systems of

authority, status and professional skills.24 This is because

 

23Robert L. Peabody, "Perception of Organizational
Authority: A Comparative Analysis," in Oscar Grusky and
George A. Miller (eds.), The Sociology of Organization:
Basic Studies. New York: The Free Press, 1970, pp. 319-329.

24Victor A. Thompson, "Hierarchy, Specialization, and
Organizational Conflict," Administrative Science Quarterly,
’Volume 5, 1961, pp. 485-521.

 

 

 

20

the hierarchy structures interpersonal relations within
organizations, creates authority relationships between
superiors and subordinates, while the non-hierarchical nature
of the authority vested in specialized professional compe-
tence conflicts with the authority of hierarchical positions.
As a result, dependence upon highly trained specialists may
engender great conflict with administrators, who have expec-
tations of authority, status, and deference.

Among the several social scientists who studied organi-
zational conflicts, one of them, Scott, has observed that
some organizations employ participants who have varying
degrees of expertise. Variations in expertise leads to
problems of structuring. Organizations must cover all con-
tingencies established by at least the expertise of the
participants. In so doing, however, they incur hostility
from the more expert participants who demand greater autonomy
over their work. This sets in motion conflicting relation-
ships between the most valued employees and the administra—
tion.25

Parsons has observed that the articulation between
managerial and technical levels in organizations suffers as

the expertise of technical personnel increases. Parsons

 

25H. A. Simon, "Authority," in C. M. Arenberg et al.
(eds.), Research in Industrial Human Relations. New York:
Harper, 1957: p. 106.

 

21

concluded: The more expert (that is, professional) the
technical personnel become, the more restive they become
about managerial decision-making concerning technical activi-
ties and about competence of the managerial personnel to
supervise technical performance."26
From these studies we find that the conflict between
the bureaucratic authority and professional authority cannot
be avoided. The degree of conflict depends upon the degree
of bureaucratic authority and professional authority. If
administrators employ highly bureaucratic authority and the
organization's members also have high professional orienta-
tion, then the conflict in the organization will be high,
too. On the contrary, if administrators accept the impor-
tant role of professional orientation or reduce bureaucratic
authority then the conflict in the organization will decrease.
McGregor, in his study of "Management by Objective",
suggests that one way to compromise or minimize conflicts
within the organization is to decentralize authority from
the top position to the lower positions. In this way, lower
participants will have a chance to participate in the organ-
izational activities and will feel that their sense of

belonging to the organization has been satisfied. Finally,

 

26Talcott Parsons, in P. M. Blau and W. R. Scott,

Formal Organizations. San Francisco, Calif.: Chandler Pub-
lishing Co., 1962.

22

they will have high morale and dissatisfaction will be de-
creased which implies that conflict tends to decrease as
well.

This statement is confirmed when Tannenbaum and
Massarick and Worthy have suggested that participation in
decision-making about the organizational policies was direct-
ly related to high morale and conflict reduction. This is
because the lower participants have more chances to use
their own judgment and their professional skills for making
decisions.27 Likert summarizes in his principle of supported
relationships: "The leadership and other process of the
organization must be such as to ensure a maximum probability
that in all interactions and all relationships with the
organization each member will, in the light of his back-
ground, values and expectations, view the experience as sup-
portive and one which builds and maintains his sense of
personal worth and importance ... from each the available
motives will be added to that from the others to yield a
maximum of coordinated, enthusiastic effort and minimize

conflicts."28

 

27James C. Worthy, "Organizational Structure and
Employee Morale," American Sociological Review, Volume 15,
1959, pp. 169-199; Robert Tannenbaum and Frea Massarick,
"Participation by Subordinates in the Managerial Decision-
Making Process," The Canadian Journal of Economics and 1
Political Sciences, Volume 16,91950, pp. 408—418.

28Rensis Likert, "The Principle of Supportive Relation-
ships," in D. S. Pugh (ed.), Organizational Theor .
Baltimore: Penguin Books, Inc., 1971, pp. 27 - .

 

 

 

 

.C Essie

23

Based upon the preceding literature, we may hypothesize,
for the subjects of our study, that the degree of decentral-
ized authority is negatively related to the degree of con-
flicts within the organization. That is, the more the
superior employs decentralized authority in the organiza-
tional controlling system, the fewer conflicts the organiza-

tion will have.

Authority Correlates to Organizational
Compliance

 

Compliance is universal, existing in all social units.
It is a major element of the relationship between those who
have power and those over whom they exercise it.29 Charac-
teristics of organizations such as their specificity, size,
complexity and effectiveness each enhances the need for
compliance. In turn, compliance is systematically related
to many central organizational variables.30

According to Etzioni compliance refers both to a rela-

tion in which an actor behaves in accordance with a directive

supported by another actor's power, and to orientation of

 

296. Simmel, "Superiority and Subordination as Subject-
matter of Sociology," The American Journal of Sociology,
Volume 2, 1896, pp. 167-189, 392-415.

30Amitai Etzioni, "Compliance Theory," in Oscar Grusky
and George A. Miller (eds.), The Sociology of Organization:
Basic Studies. New York: The Free Press, 1970, pp. 103-
126.

 

 

24

the subordinated actor to the power applied.31 By supported,
Etzioni means that those who have power manipulate means at
their command in such a manner that certain other actors
find following the directive rewarding, while not following
it incurs deprivations. In this sense compliance relations
are asymmetric. But it is not assumed that the subordinates
have no power, only that they have less.

Regarding the orientation of the subordinated actor,
Etzioni explained that it can be characterized as positive
(commitment) or negative (alienation). It is determined in
part by the degree to which power applied is considered
legitimate by the subordinated actor, and in part by its
congruence with the line of action he would desire.32 In
sum, there are two parties to a compliance relationship: an
actor who exercises power, and an actor, subject to this
power, who responds to this subjection but with less commit-
ment.

From this definition, Etzioni developed a compliance

theory which dealt with the relationship between power33 and

 

31Ibid., p. 103.

321bid.

33There are three categories of power. The first one
is coercive power, which rests on the application of physi-
cal sanction. The second is remunerative power, which is
based on control over material resources and rewards through
allocation of salaries and wages. The last one is normative
power, which rests on allocation and manipulation of esteem,
prestige and ritualistic symbols.

25

pattern of compliance of the lower participants. He hypothe-
sized that the more coercive power the high participants
imposed over the lower participants, the less compliance the
lower participants will give to the higher participants.
On the contrary, if the higher participants exercised or used
normative power over the lower participants, the lower par-
ticipants will have more compliance to the organizational
activities.34

Etzioni's hypotheses were supported by other researchers
who also found that the workers subjected to a close super-
vision style or punitive style of supervision tended to be
aggressive and usually violated the work rules (implied low
commitment). Katz and Kahn also reported finding this rela-
tionship between close supervision and aggressive feeling in
a tractor plant.35

Another contribution to this discussion is the study
done by Marcus and House. In their study, Marcus and House
found that the expressive superiors or the superiors who use

a human relations style of supervision tend to get higher

compliance from the lower participants than those

 

34For Etzioni, power is regarded as legitimate by lower
participants; thus, there is normative, remunerative and
coercive authority.

35Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, "Leadership Practices
in Relation to Productivity and Morale," in Darwin Cartwright
and Alvin Lander (eds.), Group Dynamics. Evanston, 111.:
Row Peterson and Co., 1960.

26

instrumental superiors who employ a close supervision style
or centralized authority.36
From these studies we may hypothesize for the organiza-
tions being examined in this thesis that the degree of
decentralized authority in the organization is directly re-
lated to degree of compliance of the lower participants.
That is, if the superiors employ centralized authority, the
lower participants tend to give less compliance to the
superiors. On the contrary, if the superiors utilize decen-
tralized authority, the lower participants tend to give more
compliance to the superiors. We may put it in this way,
the more centralized authority_the_superiors impose over the
subordinatesj the less compliance they will get from their
subordinates, and the more decentralized authority the

superiors impose over the subordinates, the more compliance

they will have from their subordinates.

Authority Correlates to Influence from
Peer Groups

 

Groups are important components of any society. They
are indigenous to all civilizations. They perform many

functions for individuals, for organizations, and also for

 

36Philip M. Marcus and James 8. House, "Exchange
Between Superiors and Subordinates in Large Organizations,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 12, 1973, pp. 209-
222.

 

27

the society itself. Groups have a great deal of influence
on human performance and attitudes. Many studies show that
the individual is more likely to be positively stimulated
when in the company of others than when alone. Groups also
effect changes in individual attitudes and behavior. Homans
postulated that group change is easier to bring about than

37 Additionally,

similar changes of individuals separately.
groups affect the individuals' perception. The study by
Sherif is a good example of the effects of groups on indi-
vidual perception.38 Accordingly, we find that the influ-
ence of groups on individual performance is an important
phenomenon in society. Every group we enter determines our
behavior in the present and in the future. W. G. Bennis
concludes: "Groups do exist ... group decisions may produce
changes in individual behavior much larger than those cus-
tomarily found to result from attempts to modify the behavior

of the individual as an isolated indiVidual."39

 

37George C. Homans, Social Behavior, Its Elementary
Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1974,

p. 103.
38Reported in M. C. Olmsted, The Small Group.
New York: Random House, 1959, p. 73.

39W. G. Bennis, K. Benne, and R. Chen, The Planning of
Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., Chapters
6-12 0

 

 

 

28

In work organizations, the work group is a major source
of socialization and social support for the organizational
members. Gross, in reviewing this area, suggested that such
informal groups serve four major functions: 1) providing
protection and assistance to members, 2) serving as important
communication lines linking different parts of the organiza-
tion, 3) controlling their member's behavior, and 4) serving
as a context of self expression and providing personal
satisfaction.40 Evan, in a comparative study of new and
experienced engineers and scientists, also suggested that
the formation of peer group bonds was a necessary condition
for successful socialization and integration of organiza-
tional members.41

In their discussion of the role of supervision within
social welfare organizations, Blau and Scott also noted that
informal groups were a fundamental source from which the
organizational members got their social support.42 This

idea is confirmed by the study done by Katz and Kahn. In

their study, Katz and Kahn found that in the high-producing

 

4oN. Gross, "The Sociology of Education," in R. K.
Merton, L. Broom, and L. S. Cottrell, Jr. (eds.), Sociology
Today. New York: Harper & Row, 1959, pp. 128-152.

41William M. Evan, "Peer Group Interaction and Organ-
izational Socialization: A Study of Employee Turnover,"
American Sociological Review, Volume 28, 1963, pp. 436-440.

42Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Orgeniza-
tions. New York: The Free Press, 1957.

 

 

29

groups, employees tended to express a more favorable evalu-
ation of their section (work group) and of their division.43
They also noted that within the high-producing groups where
the supervisors used "employee-orientation" style of super-
vision, the groups tended to have more interaction among the
group members than the lower-producing groups in which the
supervisors employed "production-orientation" style of super-
vision.44
Downs implies that within an organization where the
authority is centralized in the hands of the top position,
the information tends to flow from the top position down to
the lower participants and back up to the top position. In
this case, the relationship within the informal group will
be less than when the top position decentralizes authority
to the lower participants. This is because the lower
participants tend to have opportunities to exchange their
information, consultations, opinions, and so on with both
their superiors and their peer groups. As a result, it is

easy for the group to influence the group members.45

 

43Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, op. cit.

44Katz and Kahn categorized two different kinds of
style of supervision; employee orientation and production-
orientation. These two concepts appear to incorporate the
same basic ideas as human relations style of supervision and
bureaucratic style of supervision.

45Anthony Downs, Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little,
Brown & Co., 1967.

30

From the above, the following hypothesis can be drawn
for the organization in our study: the degree of decentral-
ized authority is positively related to the degree of influ-

ence from the peer groups. That is, the more decentralized

 

the authority the supervisors employ, the more influence

from the peer group over the lower participants will be.

SETTING OF STUDY

The setting of this study was 53 public schools in five
large Michigan school districts of approximately equal size.
These districts were Dearborn, Flint, Grand Rapids, Lansing
and Saginaw. Schools (grades K-12) were selected on the
basis of a stratified, random sample of each district. Self-
administered questionnaires were given both to teachers in
the schools and to school principals. In this study, the
teachers within the various schools were taken as comprising
the various work groups. The principals were considered to
be the formal leaders or supervisors of the work organiza-
tion.

Schools, like any complex organization, have to develop
their own organizational structure and mechanism to attain
their goals; in order to function effectively a well organ-
ized organizational structure is required. That is, the
school should have a set of specific rules, a hierarchical
authority, a division of labor, a control system and so
forth.

Within the school system, organizational control is an
important mechanism for encouraging coordination within the

organization. Consequently, most schools usually have

31

32

administrative groups to be responsible for controlling the
organizational members; namely, the teachers, in order to
coordinate and assure participation in the organizational
activities. This administrative group consists of principal,
superintendents, and Board of Education. In this study,

the key administrative agent is the principal.

The principal is a key person in the administrative
organization since in any given neighborhood the effective-
ness of the local school may be the criterion by which people
judge the effectiveness of the entire school system.
Generally, the principal usually performs administrative
tasks. Instructional leadership, community leadership,
staff personnel decision and business management are all
areas for which the principal is supposedly responsible.

Speaking generally, in any educational system, elemen-
tary school, secondary school or university, most teachers
are expected to be responsible for the teaching-learning
process. Traditionally, teachers have been involved only
marginally and infrequently in administrative activities.
The position of teacher in relation to administration is
defined by the organizational structure and formal duties.

In schools today, however, the roles of teacher have
changed. Teachers are more aware of administrative activi-
ties. They call for more opportunities to become involved

in administrative activities, job autonomy and so forth.

33

These changes are affected by several changes; such as,
change in teacher, change in external environment; namely,
changes in educational progress, changes in the exposure to
extra-school organizations; such as, professional associa-
tions, unions, and so on. Because of these changes, control
systems within schools become more problematic.

Becker pointed out in his study of Chicago public school
teachers that authority of administrators in relation to
teachers was limited.46 In the area of student-parent rela-
tions, the teachers accepted the official authority of the
principal as legitimate. These teachers, on the other hand,
did not accept the principal's official authority as legiti—
mate in the area of curriculum and instruction. Here they
viewed the principal as a colleague and expected him to base
his supervision of instruction on professional competence
giving advice rather than orders.

Another contribution to this subject is the study done
by Scott (cited earlier) who outlined several areas of social
conflict associated with the differences between the profes-
sional and bureaucratic models of organization, and the
professional's resistance to bureaucratic supervision.

The increasing specialization and expertise of teachers have

 

46Howard S. Becker, "The Teacher in the Authority Sys-
tem of the Public School," in Amitai Etzioni (ed.), Complex
Or anizations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.,
61, p. 243.

34

given rise to teacher demands for autonomy and professional-
ization. This has conflicted with school administrative
needs for bureaucratic authority and for mechanisms of inte-
gration and coordination. Wildman noted that as a result of
such conflicting forces, teachers have become more active in
teacher professional organizations which are adding collec-
tive negotiations to their responsibilities. These organi-
zations have reinforced the professional image of teachers
by disseminating information about the job and providing
symbols which could be shared by all members.47 Marcus
noted:
The professional organizations, then, become a mechan-
ism for standardizing the relationship between teachers
and administrators. The number of directives and pro-
liferation of rules that administrators can initiate
unilaterally are limited without teacher involvement.
... Administrators are forced to adopt new roles for
themselves and acquire new qualities or staff to de-
vote their energies to teaching and not to vocal and
interfering parents.48
Thus, we can see that professional teacher organiza-
tions have begun to force readjustments between teachers and
administrators. Recent teacher organization militancy in

the state of Michigan has brought out several changes alter-

ing the traditional teacher-principal relationship.

 

47Wesley Wildman, "Implications of Teacher Bargaining

for School Administration," Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 46,
1964, p. 243.

48Philip M. Marcus, "Bureaucratization and Professional-
ization: Converging Forces at the Negotiating Table in
Public Education," in E. Friedson.

 

35

Officials at the annual meeting of the American Association
of School Administrators stated that teacher militancy ex-
pressed in the increasing tendency among teacher organiza-
tions toward collective negotiations and strikes as a viable
mean of affecting changes in their job situation was the
major concern among the administrators in attendance.49
Principals have become unwilling to relinquish some of their
traditional supervisory prerogatives involving curriculum
and assignments.

Because teachers and teacher organizations have become
increasingly concerned about matters; such as, professional-
ization, the relationship between teachers and their bureau-
cratic supervisor, the principal, offered an excellent
opportunity to study the relationship between styles of
supervision and organizational behavior in the work group

located within an educational setting.

 

49"Teacher Militance No. 1 Issue," Lansing State
Journal, February 17, 1969, p. 9.

 

MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES

The Independent Variables

 

Style of Supervision

Since the basic interest of this study is placed upon
the relationship between supervision styles and social rela-
tionships in school organizations, the independent variable
that we will take into account is "_tyles of Supervision".

As mentioned in the Literature Review, there are two
fundamental categories of supervision styles: bureaucratic
style of supervision and human relations style of super-
vision. In this study, the human relations style of super-
vision is the one in which we are interested. The human
relations style of supervision was represented by teachers'
participation in decision-making processes. Teacher deci-
sions were measured by asking the teachers of fifty-three
public schools to respond to the following questions:

- Who actually has the most influence over selecting
required textbooks?

- Who actually has the most influence over selecting
supplementary reading matter?

- Who actually has the most influence over determining
the percentage of students to be passed or failed?

- Who actually has the most influence over determining
concepts and values to be taught in a course?

36

37

- Who actually has the most influence over determining
methods teachers should use?

- Who actually has the most influence over hiring new
teachers?

The ranks of the means of the responses within each school
used to determine the particular school's prevailing degree
of participation in decision-making of the teachers. In the
analysis of the data the term "teacher decision index" will
be used to refer to the degree of decentralization of author-

ity in schools.

Division of Labor and Specialization

Division of labor and specialization are taken into
account because in this study the samples we used are com-
posed of both elementary schools and secondary schools.
Generally Speaking, those two levels of education are dif-
ferent. Campbell pointed out that the nature of organiza-
tional structures differs among elementary schools, junior
high schools and senior high schools. Junior and senior
high schools tended to have more complicated structures than
the elementary schools, especially with respect to division
of labor.50

Speaking in terms of organizational structure, secondary

schools have more division of labor than the elementary

 

50R. F. Campbell, E. M. Bridges et al., Introduction to
Education Administration. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,

 

38

schools. Because of the division of labor, teachers in high
schools tend to have more specialization than those in ele-
mentary schools. It has been shown that specialization of
the work groups has some influence on social relationship
within the organization. Gouldner noted that experts tended
to communicate with those in the same professional group
more often than with their superiors.51 He also noted that
the experts are more likely than others to esteem the good
opinion of professional peers, and they are disposed to

seek recognition and acceptance from their peer group rather
than from the superiors.

Victor Thompson, in his discussion of conflict in the
organizational setting, discussed earlier in this thesis,
gave another perspective on the influence of specialization
on organizational relationships within the organization in
which he pointed out that where participants had high
specialization, the participants tended to have more sense
of autonomy. They preferred to handle their problems by
their own professional knowledge. Within this kind of organ-
ization, the superior, Thompson contended, should employ the
human relations style of supervision rather than the bureau-

cratic supervision style. Thompson noted that if the

 

51Alvin W. Gouldner, "Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward
An Analysis of Latent Social Roles," in Oscar Grusky and

George A. Miller (eds.), The Sociolo of Organizations.
New York: The Free Press, 1970, pp. 477-482.

 

39

supervision style was based upon the bureaucratic type, then
conflict was unavoidable.52
Because of the impact of these two variables; namely,
division of labor and specialization, it is necessary to
take them into account, by analyzing them separately, when

we deal with the relationship of the styles of supervision

and social relationship within school organizations.

The Dependent Variables

 

As noted earlier, the styles of supervision are hypothe-
sized to be directly related to the organizational behavior
of the work groups within the organizational setting. It
was expected that different styles of supervision will have
different effects on the organizational behavior of the work
group within the organization. Specific aspects in which we
are interested in this study are as follows:

- pattern of communication

- organizational conflict

- influence from the peer groups and

- organizational compliance.

 

52Victor Thompson, op. cit.

40

Pattern of Communication

The rank of the means of the teachers' responses within
both elementary schools and secondary school were used to
determine the degree of information exchange between teach-
ers and principals, and between teachers and their profes-
sional groups. The teachers responded to each item on five-
point scales. The items used are as follows:

- To what extent do you exchange information, Opinions,
and ideas about doing your job with other teachers
in your specialty (exchange information or communica-
tion with peer groups)?

- To what extent do you exchange information, opinions,
and ideas about doing your job with principal of
school (exchange information with principal or hier-
archical communication)?

- To what extent do you exchange information, opinions,
ideas about doing your job with other teachers not in
your Specialty (informal communication among informal
group or horizontal communication)?

Organizational Conflict

Since it is quite difficult to measure organizational
conflict directly, the word tension between teachers and
principals replaced the term conflict. The rank of means of
the responses of teachers of both elementary schools and
secondary schools were used to determine the degree of ten-
sion between teachers and principals. Both teachers were

asked to respond to five-point scales. The item used was:

- To what extent do schools have some disagreement or
tension between teachers and principals?

41

Influence of Peer Groupe

Another variable that has been discussed in relation
to the styles of supervision is "influence from peer groups".
In this study the influence from peer groups was measured by
asking the teachers to respond to each item on a five-point
scale. The items used were:

- How much influence do teachers in your school have
over what actually goes on in your school?

- How much influence do you feel you have, personally,
over what actually goes on in your school?

- How much influence does the principal in your school
have over what actually goes on in your school?

Organizational Compliance

 

The last variable that was taken into account is organ-
izational compliance. The teachers were asked to respond to
the questions below on a five-point scale. The questions
were:

- To what extent do you think you can expect coopera-
tion and support from principal of your school?

- To what extent do you think you can expect coopera-
tion and support from teachers in your Specialty?

- To what extent do you think you can expect coopera-
tion and support from teachers in the same building?

Like the other variables, the ranks of means of respon-
ses of both teachers and principals were employed to deter-
mine the degree of organizational compliance and influence

from peer groups.

42

The independent variable (the style of supervision:
decentralized authority type) is correlated to the other
four dependent variables. The rank of means of the respon-
ses of teachers to the degree of participation in decision-
making was correlated to the rank of means of the responses
of teachers and principals to the degree of information
exchange between teachers and principals and between teach-
ers and their peer groups, the degree of organizational
conflict, the degree of organizational compliance and the
influence from peer groups. Spearman correlation coeffi-
cients were used to determine the relationships among these
variables. The correlations of these variables for the ele-
mentary schools were calculated separately from those for

the secondary schools.

D I SCUSS ION OF RESULTS

Organizetional Communication Correlated
to Teacher DeciSion Index

Scott noted in his study that patterns of authority
used in the organization or styles of supervision were
directly related to communication processes in the organiza-
tion. It was then expected that within the school organiza-
tions if the principal employed decentralization of authority
in his supervision style, the teachers would have more
informal communication with the principal. Moreover, it
implied that the more the principal employed decentraliza-
tion of authority in his school, the more often the teachers
will communicate with him, in general, about any topic--
formal or informal.

Based upon the results found in the elementary schools,
it may be seen that when the teachers had more freedom to
make their own decisions, they did tend to have more communi-
cation with their principal (r = 0.07). However, this
result was not high.

On the contrary, communication among peer groups tended
to be more important, since the rank order correlation be-

tween teacher decision index and exchange information with

43

II

E).
in

Ex

Ex
in

Sch

44

teacher in non-specialty was 0.22. This means the more the
teachers have their freedom to make their own decisions,
the more communication among peer groups there will be.
Concerning the correlation between teacher decision
index and exchange information with teachers in their
specialty, it was found that there was a low positive rela-
tion between these two variables (r = 0.07). This finding
implied that teachers tended to have more communication with
teachers in specialty when they had more opportunities to
make their own decision. However, this correlation was
lower than the one between teacher decision index and ex-
change information with teacher in non-specialty (see Table
I).
Table I. Spearman Rank Order Correlations Coefficients

Between Teacher Decision Index and Communication
Index Within the Elementary Schools

 

 

Communication Index Teacher Decision Index

 

Exchange Information with Teacher
in Specialty 0.07

Exchange Information with Principal 0.07

Exchange Information with Teacher
in Non-specialty 0.22

 

From Table II it may be seen that, in secondary

schools, there was a negative relationship between teacher

45

decision index and exchange information between teacher and
principal index (r = -0.05). This finding was different
from the one of the elementary schools. That is, within the
secondary schools when the teachers had more freedom to
make their own decisions they tended to communicate with the
principal less than those teachers within the elementary
schools (the correlation of the elementary schools was 0.07
while the correlation of the secondary schools was -0.05).
Like the correlation between teacher decision index and
exchange information between teacher and principal, teacher
decision index also negatively correlated to exchange infor-
mation with teacher in non-Specialty (r = -0.23). This
correlation implied that teachers in the secondary schools
tended to have less communication with their non-specialty
peers (teachers in non-specialty) when they had more autonomy.
The correlation between teacher decision index and
exchange information with teacher in specialty, on the other
hand, showed a positive relationship (r = 0.07). Although
correlation between teacher decision index and exchange
information with teacher in specialty was not significant,
the finding still implied that when the teachers had more
opportunities to make their own decisions they tended to
have more information exchange with their friends in the
same specialty than with the principal and non-Specialty

peers.

46

Table II. Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
Between Teacher Decision Index and Communication
Index Within the Secondary Schools

 

 

Communication Index Teacher Decision Index

 

Exchange Information with Teacher
in Specialty 0.07

Exchange Information With Principal -0.05

Exchange Information with Teacher
in Non-specialty -0.23

 

From these findings, one obvious thing we found is the
difference of communication pattern in two different set-
tings. Within the secondary schools, communication between
teachers and their friends in the same specialty tended to
be the most important. Teachers had more information ex-
change with their friends in the same specialty than they
have with the other teachers. On the contrary, teachers in
the elementary school tended to have more communication with
their peer groups (teachers in non-specialty) than teachers
in specialty. Moreover, we also found that within the
secondary schools teachers had less communication with their
principals than those teachers in the elementary schools.
This can be explained by referring to the effect of division
of labour within the organization on communication processes.

As we noted within the organization where there was an

extensive division of labour, the participants tended to

47

have more expertise and specialization than those within the
organization where there was a small amount of division of
labour. These specialists preferred to share their knowledge
with the ones in the same specialty to the superordinates.
In addition, they tended to have more communication with
their own groups than other members of the organization.

The principal, according to these teachers, was an outsider
in term of sharing common interests and knowledge. Most
teachers viewed the principal as an opponent who had differ-
ent ideas and interests. As a result, most teachers tended
to avoid having too much communication with the principal.

Within the elementary schools the division of labour is
simpler and has relatively less specialization, most teachers
usually exchanged information and consulted with their imme-
diate superior; namely, the principal, when they had to deal
with academic problems. Consequently, even though the
teachers had more opportunities to make their own decisions,
they still depended upon the principal rather than the
other teachers.

From this preceding discussion, it was found that com-
munication process within any organization was affected not
only by the styles of supervision of the superior but also
by the degree of Specialization within the organization.
Without regarding the degree of specialization, the teachers

tended to have more communication with the principal when

48

they had more freedom to make their own decisions on their
jobs. Moreover, they tended to develop more informal com—
munication with their peer groups. In this sense the
hypothesis was slightly confirmed.

However, the hypothesis would be rejected if speciali-
zation of the participants was taken into account. That is,
within the organization where participants possessed more
specialization, communication with their superordinates or
peer groups will decrease when they have more opportunities
to make their own decision on their jobs (teachers in

specialty). Finally, the conclusion is that with regard to

 

the degree of specializationtgthe more specialization the
teachers have, the less communication they will have with
their superordinates and their peer grgups when they have

more chances to make their own decisions.

 

Tension Between Teachers and Pripgipals
Correlated to Teacher Decision Index
As mentioned in the preceding section, a teacher
decision index was used to represent the degree of decentral-
ization of authority of the principals. The following re-
sults will represent the correlation between the degree of
decentralization of authority to the teachers and the degree

of conflict between teachers and principals.

49

It was expected that within any organizational setting
if the superior decentralized his authority to his subordi-
nates, the conflict among them will decrease. William E.
Turcotte noted that high dissatisfaction was found on vari-
ous individual measurements when formal control was empha-
sized.53 Marcus also noted in his study that conflict be-
between subordinates and superiors was negatively related
to the style of supervision. He found that when the superior
employed expressive style of supervision, the conflict

-o.47).54

between superior and subordinates declined (r
Based upon the data collected from the elementary
schools, it was found that there was a negative relationship
between the index of tension between teachers and principals

and the teacher decision index (degree of decentralization
of authority--r = -0.32). That means the more the teachers
have opportunities to make their own decisions, the less
the conflicts between teachers and principals will be.
However, this relationship is not very strong since the
correlation we found was quite low. In this case it can not
be said that the above hypothesis is sufficiently confirmed.
Analysis of the secondary schools also showed a nega-

tive correlation between these two variables (r = -0.24).

 

53William E. Turcotte, "Control System, Performance,
and Satisfaction in Two State Agencies," Administrative
Science Quarterly, Volume 19, 1974, pp. 60-74.

54

 

Marcus and House, op. cit.

50

Similarly, this correlation found was not to be significant
either.

It should be noted that there was a difference between
the index of tension between teachers and principals in the
secondary schools and that for the elementary schools--the
mean of the index of tension between teachers and principals
in the elementary schools was less than that found in the
secondary schools (xé = 2.4, is = 2.6). Thus, among the
secondary schools, the tension between teachers and princi-
pals was higher than among the elementary schools. Also,
although in neither instance was the correlation Significant,
it was considerably higher for the secondary than for the
elementary schools.

Victor Thompson noted in his study that specialization
was one of the important factors which caused organizational
conflict. He suggested that within an organization where
the lower participants had high specialization, the organiza-

tional conflict was usually high.55

His observation prob-
ably helps to explain the difference found between primary
and secondary schools in this study, since secondary school
teachers are expected to have a higher degree of specializa-

tion than those in elementary schools.56 In secondary

 

55Thompson, op. cit.

56James G. Anderson, Bureaucracy in Education.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968.

 

51

schools specific subjects are required. So, there is an
extensive division of labour in most secondary schools,
with the accompanying necessity to select specific teachers
for specific subjects.

Like the other professional groups, most of the teach-
ers within more complex schools usually have their own
reference groups; such as, professional associations, unions
and so forth, and these extra-school organizations have
altered the behavior of teachers--they have shifted from
relative docility to aggressive militancy. This militant
behavior seems to derive from a) personal desire to protect
their autonomy or specialists, b) the intense competition
between professional associations and unions for membership
and for the recognition as bargaining agents and lastly
c) from a growing feeling of a need to band together to
foster their special interests.57 These extra-school
organizations are influential in persuading teachers to
change their roles within schools and in encouraging teach-
ers to ask for more participation in administrative activi-
ties. This cumulative effect of the extra-organizational
factor has stimulated a great deal of tension between

teachers and principals.58

 

57Ronald F. Campbell et al., op. cit.

58Anderson, op. cit.

52

In summary, this second hypothesis was only slightly
confirmed, in the sense that, though the direction of the
finding was that which was hypothesized, the correlation
was too low to be significant. The direction was that which
was eXpected since the more the teachers had opportunities
to make their own decisions, the less conflict between

teachers and principals was found. That is, the degree of

 

decentralization of authority is negatively related to the

degree of tension between superiors and subordinates.

 

Organizational Compliance Correlated to
Teacher Decision Index

 

 

Based upon the Human Relations approach, it was hypothe-
sized that if the superior employed decentralized authority
over his subordinates he would get more conformity from them
than when he centralized his authority. Marcus and House
found that subordinates of expressive superiors tended to
accept organizational rules or superiors' directions better

59 The

than the subordinates of instrumental superiors.
correlation between expressive index and compliance index
was 0.29. This means, the more the superiors employed

expressive supervision, the more compliance the subordinates

would give to the superordinates.

 

59Marcus and House, op. cit.

53

Table III. Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
Between Teacher Decision Index and Compliance
Index Within the Elementary Schools

 

 

Compliance Index* Teacher Decision Index

 

Co-operation from Teacher in
Specialty -0.15

Co-operation from Principal -0.03

Co-operation from Teacher in
the Same Building 0.37

 

*See page 41 for the specific wordings of the questions on
which these indexes were based.

According to Table III, co-operation from teacher in
specialty, co-operation from principal, co-operation from
teacher in the same building were used to represent com-
pliance within schools. Teacher decision index Showed that
in the elementary schools teachers in the same building
tended to give more compliance to the organization when they
had opportunities to make their own decisions than the
teacher in specialty. The teacher in specialty tended to
give less co-operation to the organization when they have
more freedom to make their own decisions on their jobs
(r = -0.15). Similarly, the correlation between teacher
decision index and co-operation from principal index was
also negative (r = -0.03).

The results of the secondary schools, however, showed

that teachers tended to give more compliance to the

54

organization when they had more freedom to make their own
decisions. The correlation between teacher decision index
and the other three variables; namely, co-operation from
teacher in specialty, co-operation from principal, and co-
operation from teacher in the same building, were positive
(see Table IV).

Table IV. Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients

Between Teacher Decision Index and Compliance
Index Within the Secondary Schools

 

 

Compliance Index* Teacher Decision Index

Co-operation from Teacher in
Specialty 0.10

Co-operation from Principal 0.07

Co-operation from Teacher in
the Same Building 0.02

 

*See page 41 for the specific wordings of the question in
which the indexes were used.

It is suggested that teachers within the elementary
schools tend to give less compliance when they have more
chances to make their own decisions because they have sup-
port from their own groups. As mentioned before, when
teachers had autonomy on their jobs, they tended to have
more informal communication with their own peer groups.
According to Scott, supports from groups play a very

important role in creating confidence in a person. He noted

55

that if the teachers had a lot of support from their peer
groups, they tended to give less compliance to their super-
iors. They might violate instructions when their groups

supported them.60

Influence From Peer Groups Correlated to
Teacher DeciSion Index

 

 

It was expected that within the organization where the
lower participants had more freedom to make their own deci-
sion on their jobs or had more chances to give their super-
ordinates some advice or suggestions, the lower participants
would tend to have more communication with their peer groups.
The lower participants tend to have more discussion with
their peer groups in order to be able to make their judgment
on their own jobs without violating the group norms. AS a
result, it was obvious that when the lower participants had
more opportunities to make their own decision, the peer
group usually had great influence on determining or guiding
these decisions (see Table V, on the following page).

Analysis of both elementary schools and secondary
schools showed that the index of teacher decision was posi-
tively related to the index of teacher influence over what

goes on in their schools (r = 0.23 and r = 0.17).

 

60Scott, op. cit.

56

Table V. Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients
Between Teacher Decision Index and Influence Index
for the Elementary Schools

 

 

 

Influence Index* Teacher Decision Index
Teacher Influence 0.23
Influence of Principal 0.08
Personal Influence 0.25

 

*See page 41 for the exact wording of the questions to which
the teachers responded regarding who has influence over
what happens in these schools.

These findings implied that the more teachers had opportuni-

ties to make their own decisions on their jobs, the greater

the influence of teacher in organizaton will be (see Tables

V and VI).

Table VI. Spearman Rank Order Correlations Coefficients

Between Teacher Decision Index and Influence
Index for the Secondary Schools

 

 

 

Influence Index* Teacher Decision Index
Teacher Influence 0.17
Influence of Principal -0.20
Personal Influence -0.03

 

*See page 41 for the exact wording of the questions to which
the teachers responded regarding who has influence over
what happens in these schools.

57

This finding did support the direction of the relation
which was hypothesized. Moreover, the results were also
confirmed by the preceding findings (the correlation between
teacher decision index and communication indexes). It was
found that when the superordinates decentralized their
authority to their subordinates, the subordinates tended to
have more communication with both teachers in their specialty
and teachers in non-specialty. By having more communication
with each other, teachers tended to develop some influence
over what happened in their schools since most teachers used
group norms as guidelines to deal with the activities within
schools.

Another interesting finding that should be noted was
the relationship between teacher decision index and the
index of principal influence over what actually goes on in
his schools. Based upon the data of the elementary schools,
it was found that there was a positive relationship between
these two indexes. That meant, the more the teacher had
opportunities to make their own decisions, the more influ-
ence of the principal over school's activities will be
(r = 0.08). However, this result was different from that of
the secondary schools. Within the secondary schools, prin-
cipal tended to have less influence over school's activities
when teachers had more freedom to make their own decisions

on their jobs Since, the correlation between teacher decision

58

index and the index of principal's influence over what
actually goes on in school was negative (r = -0.20). This
difference of these results may be also explained by refer-
ring to the impact of degree of specialization and an amount
of division of labour in schools.

In the secondary schools, where there was an extensive
division of labour, not only the degree of communication
between the principal and his subordinates was very low when
these teachers tended to have great expertise and specializa-
tion, but also the degree of the principal's influence corre-
lated to teacher decision index was shown to be very nega-
tive. It can be explained that, first, specialized teachers,
while having a chance to make decisions, were inclined to
count on their autonomy and prefer the influence from peer
groups to the principal's influence; second, secondary
school principals who usually have high expertise in admin-
istration preferred not to influence the lower participants'
decisions, but they had more concerns in school general
policies and the task of coordination. In addition, some
principals belonged to certain groups of teachers who had
the same Specialty. So, they tended to avoid influencing
the teachers in other specialties.

Specialization and division of labour can also explain
why the correlation of this relationship was shown to be

positive for the elementary schools. With less expertise

59

and Specialization, elementary school teachers tended to
receive the principal's influence on their decisions even
though the influence from peer groups was high. In addition,
a simpler division of labour allowed the principals to keep
more closely in touch with their subordinates and have more
influence over every school activity.

Also from Tables V and VI, it was remarkable that the
third correlations that showed the relationship between
teacher decision index and personal influence index were
quite different (re = 0.25, r8 = -0.03). The cause of this
difference was nothing but the division of labour. Personal
influence in the elementary schools had the highest correla-
tion when decentralized authority was employed. That is
because with less extended division of labour, the teachers
were close to each other and felt that they could have a
great deal of personal influence on each other. On the
contrary, this correlation was shown to be negative for the
secondary schools where there were a lot of specialties.

The teachers tended to be so individualized that, when
asked, their responses were mostly negative.

To conclude, the teacher decision index was positively
related to influence of teacher index in both secondary
schools and elementary schools, but this could hardly be
confirmed since the correlation was quite low. However, it
was still very true that decentralized authority is positive-

ly related to the influence of peer groups index.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary purpose of this study was that of examining
the relationship between styles of supervision, particularly
the human relations style of supervision, and social exchange
within school settings. It was believed that the human rela-
tions style of supervision was the most important factor to
create a better relationship within the organization and
improve the organizational participants' morale. Moreover,
the human relations school also noted that when the super-
ordinate employed this style of supervision over his sub-
ordinates, the latter tended to be more productive than when
the superordinate used "task oriented style" of super-
vision.61

Based upon the human relations approach, several hy-
potheses were proposed in order to testify the relationship
between decentralized authority, one form of human relations
style of supervision, and social exchange within 53 public
schools (secondary and elementary schools). The hypotheses

were as follows:

 

61Robert Dubin, "Supervision and Productivity," in
Robert Dubin et al., Leadership_and Productivity.
San Francisco, Calif.: Chandler Publishing Co., 1965.

 

60

61

1. Decentralized authority is positively related to the
patterns of communication process. That is, the more the
supervisor employs decentralized authority, the more com-
munication between the supervisor (principal) and his sub-
ordinates (teachers) there will be.

2. Decentralized authority is negatively related to
conflicts within the organization. The more the supervisor
employs decentralized authority, the less conflict between
teachers and principal there will be.

3. Decentralized authority is positively related to the
degree of compliance. The more decentralized authority the
supervisor exercises with the subordinates, the more com-
pliance he will have from his subordinates.

4. Decentralized authority is positively related to the
degree of influence from peer groups. This implies that the
more the supervisor performs decentralized authority, the
more influence from the peer groups there will be.

By using Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients,
it should be observed that the degree of the relationship
found in the elementary schools was different from that
which was found in the secondary schools. The first happened
to be higher than the latter in the study of the first,
second and fourth hypotheses, but lower in the study of the
third hypothesis concerning the degree of compliance.

The degree of the relationship found in the secondary schools

62

seemed to be lower because of the fact that the secondary
school teachers had great expertise and specialization and
were widely divided into various groups of specialty.
Though the findings of this study frequently supported
the direction of the relation that was hypothesized, the
degree of the relationship was still too low to be signifi-
cant. Most results showed such low correlation that the
above hypotheses could not be strongly confirmed. These
results seemed to be different from the findings of other
scholars who have analyzed business and industrial organiza-
tions. There are some possible explanations for this dif—
ference: perhaps school teachers frequently have higher
education and better professional orientation, principals
cannot observe their work; perhaps teachers are already
decentralized; perhaps school personnel has a high propor-
tion of women. Finally, it can be assumed that neither the
human relations theory nor the classical theory explained

clearly the attitude of the teachers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, James G. Bureaucracy in Education. Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968.

 

Barnard, Chester I. "A Definition of Authority," in Robert
K. Merton (ed.), Reader in Bureaucracy. New York:
The Free Press, 1952.

Becker, Howard. "The Teacher in the Authority System of the
Public School," in Amitai Etzioni (ed.), ComplexlOrgan-
izations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.,

 

Bennis, Warren G. "Leadership Theory and Administrative
Behavior: The Problem of Authority," Administrative
Science Quarterly, Volume 4, 1960.

 

 

Bennis, W. G., Benne, K., and Chen, R. The Planning_of
Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.,
1962.

 

Blau, Peter M. and Scott, W. R. Formal Organizations.
New York: The Free Press, 1957.

 

Campbell, R. F. et al. Introduction to Education Adminis-
tration. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971.

Downs, Anthony. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown
and Co., 1967.

 

Dubin, Robert. "Supervision and Productivity," in Robert
Dubin et al. (eds.), Leadership and Productiyity.
San Francisco, Calif.: Chandler Publishing Co., 1965.

 

Etzioni, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organ-
ization. New York: The Free Press, 1974.

. "Compliance Theory," in Oscar Grusky and George

A. Miller (eds.), The Sogiology of Orgapization: Basic

Studies. New York: The Free Press, 1970.

. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966.

 

63

64

Evan, William M. "Peer Groups Interaction and Organiza-
tional Socialization: A Study of Employee Turnover,"
American Sociological Review, Volume 28, 1963.

 

Gordon, Thomas. Group-centered Leadership: A Wey of Releas-

ing the Creative Power of Groups. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1955.

Gouldner, Alvin W. "Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an
Analysis of Latent Social Roles," in Oscar Grusky and
George A. Miller (eds.), The Sociolqu of Organizations.
New York: The Free Press, 1970.

Gross, N. "The Sociology of Education," in R. K. Merton,
L. Broom and L. S. Cottrell Jr. (eds.), Sociology Today.
New York: Harper and Row, 1959.

 

Homans, George C. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms.
New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, Inc., 1974.

Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L. "Leadership Practices in
Relation to Productivity and Morale," in Darwin Cart-
wright and Alvin Lander (eds.), Group Dynamics.
Evanston, 111.: Row Peterson and Co., 1960.

Kelly, Joe. Organizational Behavior. Homewood, 111.:

A1

Richard D.—Irwin, Inc., 1974.

Likert, Rensis. "The Principle of Supportive Relationships,"
in D. S. Pugh (ed.). Organizational Theory. Baltimore:
Penguin Books, Inc., 1971.

March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. Organizations. New York:
Wiley, 1958.

 

Marcus, Philip M. "Bureaucratization and Professionaliza-
tion: Converging Forces at the Negotiating Table in
Public Education,“ in E. Friedson.

Marcus, Philip M. and House, James 8. "Exchange Between
Superiors and Subordinates in Large Organizations,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 12, 1973.

Massie, Joseph L. "Management Theory," in James G. March
(ed.), Handbook of Organization. Chicago: Rand McNally
and Co., 1965.

Mooney, J. D. The Principles of Organization. New York:
Harper, 1947.

65

Olmsted, M. C. The Small Group. New York: Random House,
1959.

 

Parsons, Talcott. Formal Organizations, in P. M. Blau and
W. R. Scott (edsT). San Francisco, Calif.: Chandler
Publishing Co., 1962.

 

Peabody, Robert L. "Perception of Organizational Authority:
A Comparative Analysis," in Oscar Grusky and George A.
Miller (eds.), The Sociology of Organization: Basic
Studies. New York: The Free Press, 1970.

 

Roethlisberger, Fritz J., and Dickson, William J. "Human
Relations," in Oscar Grusky and George A. Miller (eds.),
Sociology of Organization. New York: The Free Press,
1970.

 

Scott, W. R. "Professional Employees in a Bureaucratic
Structure: Social Work," in Amital Etzioni (ed.),
The Semi-Professions and Their Organization.
New York: THEFFree Press, 1969.

 

Selznick, Phillip. "Foundation of the Theory of Organiza-
tion," American Sociological Review, Volume 13, 1948.

 

Shepard, H. "Superiors and Subordinates in Research,"
Journal of Business, Volume 29, 1959.

 

Simmel, G. "Superiority and Subordination as Subject-matter
of Sociology," The American Journal of Sociology,
Volume 2, 1896.

 

Simon, H. A. " Authority" in C. M. Asemberg et al (eds.),
Research in Industrial Human Relations. New York:
Harper, 1957.

 

Tannenbaum, Robert and Massarick, Fred. "Participation by
Subordinates in the Managerial Decision-making Process,"
The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Sciences,
VOlume 16, 1950.

 

"Teacher Militance No. 1 Issue," Lansing State Journal,
February 17, 1969.

 

Thompson, Victor A. “Hierarchy, Specialization. and Organ-

izational Conflict," Administrative Science Quarterly,
Volume 5, 1961.

66

Turcotte, William E. "Control System, Performance, and
Satisfaction in Two State Agencies," Administrative
Science Quarterly, Volume 19, 1974.

 

Weber, Max. "Bureaucracy," in Oscar Grusky and George A.
Miller (eds.), The Sociology of Organization. New York:
The Free Press, 1979. ‘—

 

. Economy and Society, in Guenther Roth and Claus
Wittich (eds.). New York: Bedminister Press, 1968.

 

 

Wildman, Wesley. "Implication of Teacher Bargaining for
School Administration," Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 46,
1964.

WOrthy, James C. "Organizational Structure and Employee
Morale," American Sociological Review, Volume 15,
1959.

 

APPENDIX

67

.mmma

.amz .szuuoz .9

saw smxomm .m so mmmauemma .mosum mums possumeo cassava: "mousom

 

 

he oo~.m e.e~ emo.s >
mm ooo.m m.o~ ome.a >H
Ne ooo.m H.4N coo.s HHH
em ooo.m m.m~ omo.m HH
Hm oom.m m.- emm.s H
possumaa as muses mmmauemma osumm mmmsosesm possumso
m>eumupmflcflfio< How mmasomnom Honomoa omflmfluuoo no
mo Hwnfisz Hmuoa whoamm ESEHCHS Iaflmsm Hmnfidz Hmuoa

 

 

BUHmBmHQ Nm mUHBmHmmBU¢M¢mU QMEUMAmm m0

ZOHBDmHMBmHQ mmB

68

THE RESPONSE RATES FOR THE FIVE DISTRICTS

 

 

 

District Percent of Returns
I 86.9
II 89.4
III 87.0
IV .82.4
V 86.4

 

Note: All five districts averaged 86.8 percent.

69

5H

OH.

OH

Om.

ON.

mH

mO.I

mv.l

mm.l

vH

NH.I OH. OH. MO.I Hm.

mN.I ON.I ON. mm. MN.

MO.I mN. MN. OH. mv.
NN. MH.I OO.! hH.I HH.!

hm. vH. HO. ON.

MO.I OO.I MH.

Om. ON.

ON.

MH NH .HH OH m

50. ON.
OO. MO.
OO. vv.
HN.I no.
bH.I Om.
mm.l mm.
hN. HN.
Om. m0.
m0. Nm.
NO.

m h

HO.I OH.
Mb.l VN.
HH.! ON.
mm. Hm.l
NN. MH.I
VO. OH.
NH.I ON.
mm.l OH.
NN.I Hm.
Hm.l OO.
OO. HH.:
mv.l
O m

v0.

HO.

mO.

5H.

mo.

HN.I

OO.

OO.!

mO.I

vH.

NN.

ON.

Nm.l

v

mm.

mm.

vH.

H©.I

OH.I

OO.

5N.

mN.

me.

Hm.

HO.

mh.l

NO.
vN.I

m

ON.

Nb.

5N.

mm.l

OH.I

NO.

NN.

mv.

Om.

MN.

hO.I

Hb.l

mv.

vH.I
vh.

N

.wuHMHoommISOS SH nonomoaue
.NuHMHoomm SH Honomoa«

no.1 .SOOB
Sosa SOHumuomOOO

hm. Ocflum
Bonn SOHumnomOOO

mH.I m9
SOHO SOHumuomOOO

mo.| .SHHm
SOHO mucoumuuouSH

HH. cemfiz
uo>o OOSOSHMSH

v0. «m8
Ho>o OOSOSHMSH

vo. .SOOH
Hm>o OOSOSHmSH

VH. .SHHm
Ho>o OOSOSHMSH

mm. «maz SOH3 SOHO
IMSHOMSH omcmcoxm

no. .SHSm SuHs SOHO
ISEHOMSH omSmcoxm

So. «we SOH3 SOHu
IMEHOMSH wmsmnoxm

Nm.l .SHHm OSM .SOOB

coosuom SOHmSoe
mm. OOSwusSH HMSOmHom
mo. .SHHm mo OOSOSHHSH
MN. .Sooa mo OOSOSHMSH
ov. coauommmaumm .aoma
SOHmHOOO .nooa

H

mHOOmUm MMdHZMZMAM ZHMBH3 mwz¢zuxm HGHUOw hC ZOHB¢HNMMOOIMHHZH

.NH
.OH
.mH
.vH
.MH
.NH
.HH
.OH
.0
.m
.5
.O
.m
.¢
.m

.N
.H.

70

NH

Om.

OH

Om.

MO.

mH

HO.I

OM.I

HO. vo.l mH. Nm.
VO.I mN. NO. ON. OO.
ON. ON. mm. Mh.
vN. OO. OO.I vw.l
Hm. OM.
Nb. ON.
em.

VH

MH NH HH OH

Oh.

Nv.

Ov.

mH.

mM.

mO.

NO.I

ON.

O

mm.

vs.

MO.

OM.I

5v.

MO.I

mN.

NO.

me.

O

mO.

Ov.

OO.

NM.I

Mm.

um.

um.

NV.

vN.

MH.

5

Nv.l

OO.I

Nm.l

mh.

MN.I

mO.I

mO.I

Mm.l

mN.I

Om.l

OM.I

O

Oh.
NO..
OO.
HM.I
OO.
MH.I
ON.
Nb.
OO.
50.
HN.

hm.l

O

OH.

mm.

NM.

mm.l

OO.

OH.I

MO.I

NO.

ON.

vv.

OM.

Mv.l

OM.

w

Ov.

HO.

Mm.

ON.

Ov.

ON.

ON.

Ow.

5v.

Nm.

mv.

H5.

Hh.
OH.

M

HH.

OO.

Om.

NO.I

OO.I

OH.

HN.

mm.

MO.I

Hm.

Om.

55.!

Om.

OO.
mm.

N

.mOHMHOOmmnSOS SH umnommaac

NO.
50.
OH.
hN.I
OO.I
OH.
mH.
OH.
MN.I
mO.I
ho.
ON.I
v0.1
ON.I
NH.
mH.

H

mHOOmUm NM‘QZOUMO ZHmBHS mwz<mUNm H‘HUOO m0 ZOHB¢HNMMOUIMHBZH

.SOOB

SOHO SOHOOOOOOOO
.SHHm

SOHO SOHOOOOOOOO
we

SOHO SOHOMOOOOOU
.SHum

SOHO OOSOOOOHOOSH
maz

nm>o OOSOSHOSH

we

OO>O OOSOSHOSH
.SOOB

um>o OOSOSHOSH
.SHum

MO>O OOSOSHOSH
«amaz SOH3 SOHO
IMEHOOSH OOSmnoxm
.SHHm SOH3 SOHO
IOEHOMSH OOSmnoxm
«we SOH3 SOHO
IMEOOMSH OOSMSOxm
.SHum OSO .SOOB
SOOSOOO SOHmSOa
OOSOSHOSH Hmcomumm
.SHHS mo OOSOSHOSH
.SOOB mo OOSOSHOSH
SOHOosmmHOmm .SOOH
SOHmHOOn .SOOB

.NOHOHOOmm SH umnommea

.NH
.OH
.mH
.vH
.MH
.NH
.HH
.OH
.O
.O
.5
.O
.m
.O
.M

.N
.H

nICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
1111111111111111|H111H1"1111111111111111111W
31293103449132