""""‘:‘h ‘- A THEORY OF ADM!N!$TRATIVE LEADERSHIP FGR CONTEMPORARY EDUCATION Thesis for tho Dear” af Ed. D. MiCHlGAN STA‘HE UNIVERSITY John Lewis Forbes 1958 3395.6 0-169 llllllllllllllllllllHIHIIlllllllHllllllIlWlllHHlJl111 1293 10380 9822 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Theory of Administrative Leadership for Contemporary Education presented by JOSH LE. IS 3.0.” Cu; has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for .~ EdoD. ' ' 1 . ' - .2. . _____degree in Edllc‘atlofqal \Admmstretlon 1 Date July 18, 1958 mlimited 1 Mich: App Department *PDrOVed A THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LEAMRSHIP FOR CONTEMPORARY EDUCATION By JOHN IEWIS FORBES AN ABSTRACT Suhnitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administrative and Educational Services Approved Q15” 12 442‘9451‘4?_ [,1 f 1958 AK ABSTRACT The purpos verifiable theory educatim which mi.- mpirical research general theories 01 field of inquiry at of empirical testis knowledge. This inquir which held that (a) an emPiricel Phenom W333 *0 bear by drama 8When the defmtim and about the nature of mm“? that theori since theorizing an theozy depends upon mlevancy 01‘ its as Mm“ about t Ultimately, the use; AN ABSTRACT JOHN LEWIS FORBES The purpose of this study was to develop a comprehensive and verifiable theory of administrative leadershipibr contemporary educaticn which might serve as a general frame of reference for empirical research in this special field. It was assumed that general theories of this sort serve to stimulate research in a given field of inquiry and serve also as a base for relating the results of empirical testing into a logical, internally-consistent body of knowledge. This inquiry was premised upon an explicit concept of theory which held that (a) a theory begins with an operational definition of an empirical phenomenon, (b) a theory brings a set of relevant ”muons to bear upon the definition, and (c) a theory is constructed by drawing explicit inferences from the assumptions to each part of the definition and casting these inferences in the form of predictions about the nature of the phenomenon defined. It was assumed in this inquiry that theories are never t_ru_e or £112 , only 111% or not useful, since theorising ends with the creation of predictions. Utility of a theory depends upon the comprehensiveness of its definition, the relevancy of its assumptions , hence the comprehensiveness of its predictions about the nature of the phenomenon with which it deals. Ultimately, the usefulness of a theory depends upon its capacity to in Abstract generate Predic‘ reality. The lite base for constru investigatim. were shout: to be made to serve as theory. Working 1 construct an oper education from pe 3179 in its inclw than any of the 0; W168 reported 2' about human 81‘0ch Fresco“ 13°19, Do; releVant, for the or: education, it was I W m and Combs 33. was substantiated An Abstract 2 Jehn Lewis Forbes generate predictions which.are true when tested in the world of reality. The literature of educational administration was used as a base for constructing an operational definition of leadership in this investigation. Selected literary works from perceptual psychology were shown to be relevant to a theory of leadership; hence these were made to serve as a base for deriving a set of assumptions for the theory. Wbrking from.the assumptions that (a) it is possible to construct an operational definition of administrative leadership in education from pertinent research literature which is more comprehen- sive in its inclusion of relevant aspects of this empirical phenomenon than any of the operational definitions contained in all of the major studies reported in this field to date, (b) that a set of assumptions about human growth and development abstracted from selected work of Prescott Iecky, Donald Snygg and Arthur Combs, and Robert Bills are relevant for theorizing about administrative leadership in contemporary education, it was hypothesized (c) that from a set_9f assumptions about human growth.and development abstracted from selected works ofllgggy, ggygg_and Combs, and Bills,_it is_possible to derive at least one prediction about every aspect of administrative leadership in contemporary education that is included in its operational definition. This hypothesis was substantiated upon investigation. in Abstract The them terms of some of inquiry. Even sc from its usefulne theory can be bui defining leadersh predictions which administrators am assumptions from 1 scope. It seemed adrdnistrative lea (a) defining this ‘ Pemeived by admin W’ and by teg Utilizing a set of An Abstract 3 JOhn Lewis Forbes The theory derived in this study was found to be useful in terms of some of the criteria for utility assumed at the outset of the inquiry. Even so the theory had a number of limitations which detracted from its usefulness. These suggested ways in which a more useful theory can be builtgusing pertinent research literature as a base for defining leadership in education, for example, resulted in theoretical predictions which were too abstract to be of real use to educational administrators and professors of educational administration. The assumptions from perceptual psychology also appeared to be limited in scope. It seemed reasonable to suppose that a.more useful theory of administrative leadership for education could be constructed by (a) defining this phenomenon on the basis of problems of administration perceived by administrators, other people involved in educational systems, and by teachers of educational administration; (b) by utilizing a set of assumptions that were broadly inclusive of knowledge about human behavior integrated from the several social sciences; and (c) by employing the intelligence and energy of all interested researchers in theory construction through a central research organization rather than to build a theory through the efforts of one individual. A THECR‘ A THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE WHIP FOR CONTEMPORARY EDUCATION By Jmmmmsmnass A THESIS . Suhnitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administrative and Educational Services 1958 WWW. . LEOPILLUSTRATII I '13pr 1. 1H OVERVIE‘n‘" The Ram A Chapte m Evalt A Final Homopm The Need Trends 11 Isadel ‘11 Analyz An What IBader I3'0 Bases III. ”MODS 01? ST me Rise Beggar "Odom St Perce Nat ham ‘ Definit Psycho]; 10 Ass:I DGVBIOJ ‘ Phi—1080 TABIEOFCWIENTS Page mmeOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1v mmmnws OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO v Chapter I.ANOVERVIEWOFTHEPROBIEM............. 1 mnatmOmeoryeeeoeeeoecoco. 9 AChflptBrmtljmoeeeeeeeooeeeee 15 mEvaluatingaTheory....o........ 21 AmalwordOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 22 n.33mwormummruaz.............. 2h TheNeedforaGeneralTheory ......... 2h Trends in the Study of Administrative IeadershipinEducation. . . . . . . . . . . 25 AnAnalysisofResearchTrends......... ’46 An marational Definition of Administrative Izadership for Contemporary Education . . . . 52 he Bases for Selecting Relevant Assumptions . . 65 mmmonsors'rum 75 me Rise of Perceptual Theoryin Formal Rawarcheeoeeeooeeeeeeeeoo 76 Modern Studies Premised Upon the Personal, Parcep'tualPointofView 0000000000 82 The Nature of the Personal, Perceptual bamofReference............. 90 A Definition of Terms Enployed by Perceptual PsycnOlogiStsoeeeeoeoeeeeeeeo 92 Basic Assumptions About Human Growth and mmlomntoeeeoeoeeeoeceeoo 9" A Philosophy of Man Growth and Development . . 10h Woeoeeeeeoeeceeeeeoeo 109 1W? N. AWIOFLI MWRY' Structure Content T1! Them 1. WSIONS A! The Study he Theory Strengths, the T115 Ilplicatix" LWBOIO.... W000. Chapter Page IV. A m: OF ADMINISTRATIVE IEAIERSHIP FOR wmm EDUCATION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 11-0 StrHCtmoeeeoeeooeeeceoeooo 111 Content.o............o..... 115 The‘rheoryinSumsry 1143 v.oomwsmuslnnmpucanms............ 1147 O O O O O C O O 0 I“ Study Approach 0 o e e o e e e e e e o e e o 11:8 T110 Tm” in Retrospect. o 0 e o e e o 1139 Strengths, Limitations, and Weaknesses of mrneoryooeeoeoeeeeeooooo 158 Implications for mmr Study 0 o e e e o o e o 162 WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODO. 168 W0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 178 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Comprehensiveness of maor Studies in Administrative leadership for Contemporary Education . . . . . . 50 2. An Analysis of the Relevancy of Selected Assumptions about Human Growth and Development to a Theory of Administrative leadership for Contemporary Education.................... 157 iv figure . 1. ”search For ..... Effective 2. theory of Ax: Contempora: Framework ' LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figm'e Page 1. A Research Ibdel for Building an Inventory of Effective Administrative leader Practices . . . . 135 2. A Theory of Administrative leadership for Contemporary Education--Structura1 Framework..oo......o......o.. 1146 Quay U CHAPTER I AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM The purpose of this study was to develop a comprehensive and verifiable theory of administrative leadership for contemporary education which might help to increase our store of organized knowledge about administration in America's educational enterprise. From the outset of this inquiry a main concern was to construct a general frame of reference-a way of looking at the phenomenon of administrative leadership in education in its broadest, most inclusive detail. A comprehensive and verifiable theory, as the phrase is being used here, is actually a foundation conception or a scheme of ideas which can serve as a base for generalizing about the results of empirical investigations of all kinds in the area of administrative leadership in education. General theories of this sort are designed to impose an order upon a universe of inquiry so that subsequent research within that universe can separate superstition and belief from laws and principles through the process of empirical verification, and so that the laws and principles which are discovered can be unified into a logical, internally-consistent body of knowledge. The need for a comprehensive and verifiable theory of administrative leadership in contemporary education has been apparent for several years U) ’4». 2 and, according to researchers in this field, is important for a better understanding of educational administration. In the past five or six years, a number of national organizations have combined their efforts to press for a better understanding of administrative leadership in education through empirical research. The American Association of School Administrators, the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, and the Kellogg Foundation together have stimulated and financed a great number of research studies of educational leadership in the last half decade. These studies have been conducted through cooperative programs of research in educational administration. The CPEA projects, as the programs are called, are coordinated by eight regional centers across the United States. Research efforts in these centers have involved expenditures of several million dollars. In each CPEA region numerous institutions of higher learning, other interested organizations, and many individuals have contributed time and energy to advance systematic inquiry in this special empirical field. A central objective of CPEA research has been to upgrade the professional performance of practicing educational administrators. Tb achieve this objective CPEA study efforts are presently being extended on three fronts. One line of study is concerned with upgrading present administrative leader practice through in-service training. A second line of study is concerned with improving programs of instruction for students of educational administration. A third line of study, which some investigators believe underlies the success of inquiry on all of these fronts, is the develOpment of a universally applicable theory of Several scholar 51:34 that intelligi figially that an 800 eased which is gm: 2 ‘are, Jr., speakin: raters, emphasizes in: schematic approa ieelopzent of a thec Eriellogg grants ha :zziext is nothing 1: fish cornect actiox «a aininistrators aw : “2 00b, but a S "e a . r PT‘Eyaratlon prc fife : 33*01131 contr: l administrative leadership for contemporary education. Several scholars of administrative leadership in education have stated that intelligent inquiry into the problem of leadership demands initially that an acceptable theory of administrative leadership be devised which is grounded upon empirically validated facts. Hollis Nbore, Jr.,2 speaking for the American Association of School Adminis- trators, emphasizes this point. He claims that the natural next step from schematic approaches to research in school administration is the development of a theory. Current research projects in administration by Kellogg grants have a theory in.mind. The term, theory, in this context is nothing more than a set of rules for doing the job--ru1es which connect action taken with results achieved. Nbore maintains that administrators gradually and instinctively develop their own theories on the job, but a systematic set of principles which can be taught in the preparation programs of administration students would be a valuable professional contribution. Daniel Griffiths,3 speaking for the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, and for many others associated with CPEA l Hollis A. Moore, Jr., Studies in School Administration: A Report on the CPEA (washington, D. 0.: American Association of School Adminis- trators, 1957), pp. 12-23. 2Ibid., p. 29. 3Daniel Griffiths, "Toward A Theory of Administrative Behavior," Administrative Behavior in Education, ed. Roald F. Campbell and Russell T. GreggSKNew‘YOrk: Harper & Bros., 1957), p. 388. s 1‘. n .' (‘1. leadership research projects, reaffirms Mbore's position. Griffiths points out that the great task of science has been to impose an EEQEE upon the universe. Kepler's laws, for instance, impose a set of relationships upon the planets of the solar system. 'Within this frame- work of laws, the motions of the planets make sense. Their positions can be predicted through this frame of reference, and order is apparent to all who care to look for it. He contends that the great task of students of administrative leadership in education is to develop a theory of administrative behavior that will make it possible to relate what appear to be discrete administrative acts to one another in a unified concept. Within a set of principles, yet to be formulated, it will then be possible to recognize interrelationships among apparently discrete administrative acts; and it will be possible to predict the behavior of the administrative leader within the framework of educational organization. Griffiths goes on to say that with a theory of adminis- trative leadership-—a set of principles and laws which are universally acceptable--it will be possible to make decisions that will result in a more efficient and effective educational enterprise. Subsequent research into administrative leadership in education will also have more meaning because it will be directed toward the solution of definite problems, there will be clearer definitions, and research efforts will be coordinated by, and will contribute to, the whole conception of administration. Administrative leadership will be more easily understood when viewed against a standard frame of reference because it will use concepts that have the same meaning to all in the profession. 5 Andrew W. Halpin,’4 another spokesman for the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration and others associated with CPEA leadership research projects, maintains that we do not have a universally acceptable theory of administrative leadership in education now for a number of specific reasons. Halpin says that we have failed to recognize the importance of theory in leadership research and have relied too heavily upon naked empiricism. Not only have we imputed too much significance to facts pgr_§g, we have used the term theory with descriptive glibness, used it naively, and have betrayed a limited knowledge of the technique of theory construction in science. A theory, as Halpin defines it, is more than a conglomerate of facts or of common sense speculations. A theory must possess specified logical properties and must be internally consistent so that we can generate fruitful, testable hypotheses from it which enable us to predict events in the real world with more accuracy. According to Halpin we have directed a disproportionate amount of research energy to ad 222 problems and peripheral studies rather than to central investigations which yield conclusions of broad generalizability. Flights from theory and preoccupa- tion with immediate practical problems have made our research episodic rather than programmatic and have stunted our capacity for research growth. He says that the same difficulty permeates all spheres of science today. A new awakening, particularly in the physical sciences, h Andrew'w. Halpin, "A Paradigm for Research on Administrator Behavior," Administrative Behavior in‘Education, ed. Roald F. Campbell and Russell T. Gregg (New York: Harper & Bros., 1957), pp. 197-98. is directing more and more energy into basic research; and we need a similar long-range program of basic research in educational administra- tion. Halpin also contends that students of administrative leadership in education have been too parochial in their research outlook. Their infatuation with the uniqueness of educational administration has often blinded them to problems that educational administration shares with all other forms of administration. They have also been parochial in not drawing upon the resources of such other disciplines as the social sciences, personnel administration, and political science. Nor have they progressed far in incorporating the insights and techniques of the social sciences into their own research methodologies. Finally, Halpin points out that researchers in administrative leadership in education have failed to define their concepts clearlyb-they lack precision. Nany'have not learned the lessons that general semanticists have tried to teach them; as a result they have persisted in using con- cepts which have no clear referents in administrative leader behavior. Again, Griffiths5 states that we need a special kind of theory for researching administrative leadership in education. He insists that a list of principles is not necessarily a theory of adequate design. A good theory exists when there has been established a set of principles upon whigh action may be predicted. Principles of this kind give form to observations and constitute a logical and consistent whole, particularly is this so when the principles have been organized around a single theme SGriffiths, 92° Cit., pp. 359-60. nl¢.>l| 7 or a small number of themes. Griffiths says that an adequate theory attempts to state in one general form.the results of the observations - of many different researchers. In addition to this, an adequate theory starts with observations in the form of facts which already have been made. Facts are the basis of theory as well as the result. Researchers in the Southern States CPEA,6 however, conclude that a theory of administrative leadership in education, reduced to its simplest terms, is no more than a collection of concepts or principles that define what administrative leadership is. These concepts and principles give direction to an individual attempting to be an educational administrator. Melhy,7 on the other hand, maintains that specialists in educational administration need to work closely with educational administrators and community leaders if their own leadership in improving our concepts and practice of administration are to have reality and dynamism. Armchair research, as Nblby labels it, will not suffice to meet current research needs. Our new concepts of administration will not be hammered out on the campus of the university but in the crucible of community life and education. It is apparent from the views of these scholars that the construction of a comprehensive and verifiable theory of administrative leadership in 6Southern States COOperative Program in Educational Administration, Better Teachinggin School Administration (Nashville, Tenn.: George Peabody College for Teachers, 1955), p. h7. 7Ernest O. Nblby, Administering_Community Education (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1935), p. 309. 8 education would help those who are interested in understanding educational administration through the vehicle of empirical research. Mbst of the individuals above are speaking for national organizations that have taken the initiative to stimulate research in educational administration, a fact which adds significance to comments about their need for a general theory. If these scholars appear to be in agreement about the need for a general theory of leadership, however, they surely do not appear to agree on what such a theory is, what it should do, or how it should be con- structed. Some researchers seem to believe that a theory of administra- tion should be a logical formulation of ideas and beliefs from which testable hypotheses may be generated. A somewhat different point of view appears to maintain that a theory is a framework of laws and principles which reduces the confusion of a natural phenomenon to some sort of intelligible order, and that a good theory of this kind incorporates principles upon which administrator action may be predicted. Another notion is that a theory merely serves as a set of rules for doing the job of administering education, providing the rules set forth connect actions taken with results achieved in educational administration. Still another concept claims that a theory in this field is no more than a collection of principles that define what leadership is which, in turn, give direction to practicing administrators. Halpin implies in his comments cited above that the task of theory construction is primarily the responsibility of disciplined scholars and researchers. hbore, Griffiths, and researchers in the Southern States CREA, however, appear prone to employ the intelligence of prac- ticing administrators in formulating a theory of leadership. iblby, meanwhile, seems to advocate enlisting an even broader base of community intelligence in the theory building task. If these differing beliefs about the nature of theory and theory construction are indicative of the thinking of researchers in this field, then it seems reasonable to conclude that the nature and function of theory in empirical research of educational administration are presently undefined. It follows reasonably from this that an attempt to theorize about administrative leadership at this time would probably be more widely understood if it began with a definition of theory and a rather explicit concept of the art of theorizing. Before proceeding with an overview of this study, it is important then to define and explain the term theory as it was employed in this investigation, for within the confines of such a definition lies the key to understanding what is to follow in subsequent chapters of this paper. The Nature of Theory8 People often think of a theory as existing in opposition to facts. A theory, it is commonly held, is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or am formulating a definition and explanation of theory for this study, the investigator is indebted to Calvin S. Hall and Gardiner Lindsey for a penetrating discussion of the subject in their recent book, Theories of Personality (New York: Wiley Press, 1957). He has borrowed generously here from their thinking. ll cl. 0 s . u u u—N A . ‘ e I u u n O p .- 1 n- . lO speculation concerning reality which has not yet been proven so. When a theory is confirmed it becomes a fact. As the term theory is used in this paper, it partially embraces both of these ideas. That is to say theories are not known to be true. On the other hand, theories do not become true or factual when confirmed by appropriate data either. A theory is no more than a set of conventions created by a theorist which embody;predictions about the nature of an empiricalgphenomenon. It was assumed in this study that theories are never true or false, although their implications or derivations may be either. we might easily compare the work of the theorist with that of the poet or novelist. Experiences or observations may lead a literary artist to create any one of a multitude of different art forms, while the data from investigation may be incorporated by the theorist in any number of different theoretical schemes. The theorist, in choosing a particular set of conventions to represent the events in which he is interested, exercises a free creative choice that differs from the artist's only in the kinds of data upon which it focuses and in the grounds upon which its fruitfulness will be judged. It follows from this that we can Specify how a theory should be evaluated or appraised, but we cannot specify how a theory should be constructed. Just as there is no formula in existence for making enduring literary contributions, so there is no formula in existence for fruitful theory'construction. The fact that a theory stems from conventional choice, rather than from something that is inevitable or prescribed by known empirical relations, leads to the assumption that attributes of truth or falsity 11 are inappropriately ascribed to a theory. Theories are never true or false. Theories are only useful or not useful; and these qualities are defined very largely in terms of how efficiently a given theory can generate predictions or prepositions concerning particular events which turn out to be verified in the world of reality. Reduced to its basic elements, a theory consists of a set of empirical definitions regarding a specific phenomenon and a cluster of logically-consistent, interrelated assumptions which are relevant to the phenomenon that has been defined. The latter is used as a base for deriving predictions which pertain to various aspects of the definition, and which thereby give potential new knowledge about the phenomenon in question. By'means of empirical definitions of specific phenomena, theories come into definite contact with reality or observational data at explicit, prescribed places. That is why empirical definitions are sometimes called gperational definitions. They attempt to specify operations by which relevant variables or concepts can be measured. If a theory is eventually to make a contribution in an empirical discipline, it must possess some means for empirical translation-—it must, in short, start from a specifically defined empirical phenomenon. The assumptions, meanwhile, which are brought to bear upon an operational definition within a theory must be relevant to the phenomenon in question. The assumptions in a theory of audition, for example, must have something to do with the process of hearing; and a theory of perception must utilize assumptions which bear upon the perceptual process. It goes almost without 12 saying, that the assumptions within a theory should be stated clearly also. Given a specifically defined empirical phenomenon, then, and a set of clearly-stated, relevant assumptions, it is possible to combine definition and assumptions together through inference to generate predictions so that empirical consequences can be extracted from a theory. This_process of prediction-making through inference is defined here as the artggf theory construction. The notion has been employed as a fundamental guideline at every turn in this investigation. What does a theory do? Generally speaking, it leads to the collection or observation of relevant empirical relations which have not yet been.made about a specific phenomenon. A theory also facilitates the incorporation of known empirical findings about a particular phenomenon within a logically consistent and reasonably simple framework. Thus, it imposes an organization or an order upon a universe of inquiry which in turn functions as a set of blinders; for it tells a researcher in the field with which the theory deals that it is unnecessary for him to worry about all of the aspects of the event he is studying. In this way, a theory permits the observer to go about abstracting from the natural complexity of a phenomenon in a systematic and efficient manner. Abstract and simplify he will, whether he uses a theory or not, but if he is not guided by an explicit frame of reference, it is very likely that the principles determining his view will be hidden in implicit assumptions and attitudes of which he is unaware. 13 Ideally, a theory leads to a systematic expansion of knowledge in a given field of inquiry, and this expansion is stimulated by deriving from a theory discrete predictions which are subject to empirical test. It is assumed here that the core of any growing science, adminis- trative leadership in education not withstanding, lies in the discovery of stable empirical relationships between events or variables within it, and a basic function of any theory is really to further this process in a systematic manner. Think of a theory as a kind of proposition mill, grinding our related empirical statements which can later be con- firmed or rejected in the light of suitably controlled empirical data. But remember, it is only the predictions derived from a theory that are open to empirical test. The theory, itself, is assumed. Acceptance or rejection of a theory must be determined by its utilit , not by its truth or falsity. Broken into its component parts the utility or usefulness of a theory embraces both comprehensiveness and verifiability. A theory will be useful to the extent that it deals comprehensively with a particular empirical phenomenon. In this context, comprehensiveness refers to the scope or completeness of the predictions which are derived from a theory, and this capacity, in actuality, depends upon the complete- ness of the empirical definition from which a theory begins and the relevancy of its assumptions. Relevancy of the assumptions, in turn, refers to the extent that explicit inferences can be drawn from the assumptions to each aspect of the phenomenon that is incorporated in the operational definition. we might have a theory which generated consequences 1h that were often confirmed but which dealt with only a few aspects of a certain phenomenon because both the empirical definition and the relevancy of its assumptions were limited in scape. Such a theory would not, ordinarily, be as useful for extending knowledge in a field of inquiry as a theory that generated accurate predictions,dealt very generally or inclusively with the empirical events it purported to encompass, and achieved thoroughness in drawing inferences from its assumptions to its operational definition. Since theories are attempts to formulate or represent significant aspects of phenomena which appear in the world of reality so that human knowledge may be extended, the usefulness of theories must be judged very largely in terms of how effectively they serve as a spur to research. A theory will be useful to the extent that it generates predictions which are found accurate and true when tested in the world of reality.- Perhaps the supreme test for the usefulness of any theory is its verifiability-—the capacity of a theory to generate predictions which are confirmed when relevant empirical data are collected and evaluated. It is probably safe to say that any theory in any field of inquiry which does not produce verifiable predictions will eventually be rejected and discarded as thinking men pursue the task of extending human knowledge, because theories of this sort are not useful. 15 A Chapter Outline From this brief discussion of the nature of theory, it is possible to extract several important ideas about the art of theory construction as it was applied in this study. Beginning with these ideas as criteria, it is easy to explain the logic behind the presentation in each chapter of this paper which deals with the theory building task, proper. Know- ing beforehand what each of these chapters contains, as well as why each is organized in its own peculiar fashion, will help the reader ultimately in appraising the value of this entire project. Let us begin with the premise that theories are either useful or not useful. With this point of view for a backdrop we can sketch a number of desirable characteristics to be incorporated in any theory: 1. A useful theory starts from a comprehensive operational definition of a specific empirical phenomenon. 2. A useful theory utilizes a set of assumptions which are relevant to the empirical phenomenon in question. 3. A useful theory generates predictions about the nature of this empirical phenomenon which previously were unknown, and it does so by drawing explicit inferences from the assumptions and applying them to particular aspects of the operational definition. h. A useful theory incorporates its predictions into a logically cpnsistent and reasonably simple framework. 5. A useful theory must be evaluated in terms of its capacity to generate a comprehensive set of predictions about an empirical phenomenon, and this capacity is dependent upon the completeness of a particular theory's operational definition and the relevancy of its assumptions-- the extent to which explicit inferences can be drawn from the assumptions to each aspect of the phenomenon that is incorporated in the operational definition. 16 6. A useful theory must be evaluated in terms of its ability to stimulate research in any field of inquiry. 7. A useful theory must be evaluated in terms of its ability to generate predictions about a given empirical phenomenon which are verifiable when tested with appropriate empirical data from the world of reality. Now, let us see how these criteria have been applied in component parts of this paper which are actually devoted to the task of building a theory of administrative leadership for contemporary education. Chapter II, "A Review of the Literature," aims, primarily, to demonstrate the reasonableness of the assumption that it is possible to construct an operational definition of administrative leadership in education which is more comprehensive in its inclusion of relevant aspects of this empirical_phenomenon than any of the operational definitions contained in all of the major studies reported in this field to date. Thus, one specific task of Chapter II is to analyze and evaluate the research literature of educational administration which bears upon administrative leadership in education. On the basis of such a review it is possible to ascertain which aspects of this empirical phenomenon are dealt with in each investigation. Then, by determining the extent to which each study or group of studies deals with a composite of those aspects which are included in all of the studies as a whole, we can determine whether any existing studies cover all aspects of administrative leadership as it is presently known by researchers in educational administration. If not, then it seems logical to assume that a more comprehensive definition of administrative leadership in education can be devised at the present 17 time. As it turns out, this study reveals that none of the investiga- tions in this field to date have incorporated all of the known aspects of administrative leadership in the theories which lie behind them. Consequently, a second task of Chapter II is to devise a new, comprehen- sive, operational definition of administrative leadership for contemporary education. This, according to the concept of theory employed in the investigation, is the starting point of a useful theory. The reader will find that an Operational definition for the theory reported in this paper was devised by integrating all of the aspects of administra— tive leadership which were explicitLy or implicitly employed in previous investigations, then by explaining the fUnction of each of these aspects in the work-a-day world of contemporary education. A third task of Chapter II is to determine the bases upon which a relevant set of assumptions might be selected for theorizing about administrative leadership in education. Again remember, a useful theory must bring a set of relevant assumptions to bear upon its operational definition. A solution to the problem.of what constitutes a set of assumptions relevant to administrative leadership has been approached in this study by seeking to isolate the major forces which appear to have motivated previous research in educational administration. It seems logical that the motivations underlying research in any field of inquiry might give clues as to what assumptions are relevant for theorizing in that field. Pursuing this approach to identify relevant assumptions, it becomes reasonably clear that a desire to understand better the implications for education of the relativity of individual {III . a 3.0.9. . l I ll a...4 “.5 .....D...r a... 18 perceptions is one force motivating research. A desire to modify education so that it functions in accordance with a philosOphy which puts positive value on human growth and development is giving direction to research in administrative leadership as well. These two ferces then--a desire to implement through education a philosophy which puts positive value on human growth and development, and a desire to understand better the implications for education of the relativity of human perceptions-—are taken at the end of Chapter II as the primary bases for selecting a set of assumptions which are relevant to the phenomenon of administrative leadership in contemporary education. Chapter III; "hbthods of Study," is designed primarily to demonstrate that a set of assumption§_about human growth and development abstracted from selected works of Prescott Lecky,_Donald Snygg and Arthur Combg, and Robert Bills are relevant for theorizing about adminis- trative leadership in contemporary education. The reader will find in this chapter a brief history of man's concern with understanding human perception. The historical discussion touches upon the highlights of this topic from classical antiquity to the present time. we discover in this discussion that when psychology broke away from moral philosophy it pursued two general avenues of inquiry. 0n the one hand, some psychologists followed earlier empiricists. Their efforts have led to an experimental psychology which places high value upon empirical testing and normative approaches to understanding particular aspects of human behavior. Rbdern studies of human perception conducted in this vein focus, for the most part, upon the physiological aspects of human sensation. 19 On the other hand, some psychologists retained a philosophical bent in their work. They place reliance upon the assumption that human behavior is best understood when viewed as a whole phenomenon. The study of perception in this approach to psychological inquiry has produced a frame of reference for theoretical explanations and empirical investigations of human behavior known as the personal, perceptual point of view. Individual perception is their unique frame of reference for understanding human behavior. Selected works of Prescott Lecky, Donald Snygg and Arthur Combs, and Robert Bills have been singled out as a base for abstracting a set of assumptions to be used in theory construction here because their works put primary emphasis upon the relativity of human perception. They employ the personal, perceptual point of view. And of all the major studies which have employed this approach to understanding human behavior, only in some of the works of these scholars is there a central ambition to conceptualize broadly upon the nature of human growth and development. An attempt has been.made in Chapter III to state clearly the assumptions which these perceptual theorists use to explain human growth and development. The reader will find that each assumption set forth in this part of the paper has been singled out and italicized. many of them are accompanied by an explanation of their meaning. At the close of the chapter, the assumptions and their corollaries are summarized in a single Philosophy of Human Growth and Deve10pment so that confusion about their meaning can be avoided. Chapter IV contains the actual theory of administrative leadership for contemporary education derived from this investigation. The predictions r.— PP.’ 20 which comprise the theory are organized under three broad headings or dimensions--Research into Theoretical Foundations for Understanding Administrative leadership, Research into Effective Practices of Adminis- trative Leaders, and Research into Effective Instruction of leader Trainees. These three dimensions constitute a reasonably simple frame- work and have been employed because national efforts to improve our understanding of administrative leadership in education through empirical research, as we saw earlier in this chapter, have advanced inquiry in the same three areas of the field--hn theory, in practice, and in instruction. The reader will also find in Chapter IV that each of the aSpects of administrative leadership in education contained in its operational definition, which is presented first in Chapter II, have been placed under one of the three general dimensions in Chapter IV that seems most appropriate for it. Hence, the general dimensions with their accompanying aspects of the definition serve as a structural framework for the entire theory. fit is a rather straight-forward task from there to derive infer- ences from the set of assumptions in Chapter III which apply to component parts of the structure in Chapter IV. EThese inferences have led to the construction of predictions about the nature of administrative leadership in education. The predictions are presented in the form of hypotheses and corollaries and actually comprise the content of the theory. Here and there in Chapter IV some attempt has been made to explain how the task of verifying some of these hypotheses might be approached. This is done deliberately to encourage research on them in the fUture. 21 A basic purpose of Chapter IV is to test the working hypothesis that from a set of assumptions about human growth and development abstracted from selected works of Prescott Lecky, Donald Snygg and Arthur Combp, and Robert Bills it isgpossible to derive at least one prediction about every_aspect of administrative leadership in contemporapy education that is included in its comprehensive operational definition. The reader will learn in the conclusions of this paper that the working hypothesis is substantiated. On Evaluating the Theory we said earlier that a theory must be evaluated in terms of its usefulness rather than in terms of its truth or falsity. The theory of administrative leadership for contemporary education presented in Chapter IV'purports to be Eggfgl. It bases its claim of usefulness on the grounds that: (a) it begins with a comprehensive operational definition of administrative leadership in education; (b) it employs a set of relevant assumptions; (c) for every aSpect of administrative leadership defined, it has been possible to generate at least one explicit predic- tion from this set of assumptions; (d) predictions within the theory, therefore, are relevant to all of the component parts of administrative leadership in education as we presently know it through research litera- ture; and (e) the comprehensiveness of these predictions increases the likelihood that the theory will stimulate future research in administrative leadership, particularly is this so since the text of the theory, itself, embodies some discussion of ways to approach testing many of the predictions. 22 The supreme test for the usefulness of a theory--its verifiabilityb— has not been attempted in this study. Admittedly, this imposes a seri- ous limitation on evaluating the usefulness of any theory. But theorizing and testing, as we saw earlier, are two distinct chores. Since the purpose of this project was to design a general theory of administrative leadership for contemporary education, which in itself is an imposing job, the whole domain of testing theoretical predictions has been delimited as hopelessly beyond the realm of possibility here. When the reader has finished with this paper, perhaps he will agree that an enormous amount of time, money, people, energy, and organizational resources will be required if we are to deal in adequate fashion with the problems of instrumenting empirical research to verify a general theory in this field of inquiry. A Final'Wbrd Before concluding these introductory comments, it is wise to make sure that the reader and the investigator are viewing in the same per- spective the phenomenon with which this study deals. Throughout this paper we should think of administrative leaders as those people who are employed in positions of high status and authority in educational systems above the faculty level--those people who are commonly called educational administrators, i.e., superintendents; principals; directors or managers of various aSpects of an educational operation such as curriculum, business, transportation, housing, etc.; college presidents, deans; department heads, counselors; placement officers; and the like. 23 we should think of contemporary education as embracing all of the deliberate learning activities of today that are performed by all of our formal organizations which are established, in whole or in part, for the purpose of performing them. Since this study aimed to construct a general theory of administrative leadership for contemporary education, no attempt is made in these pages to single out schools, or colleges, or institutes, or any other type of educational organization as the only one tO‘WhiCh the theory applies. On the contrary, a general theory of administrative leadership in education, by virtue of its general nature, applies to all species of educational organization within the ‘ggggg of our formal educational enterprise. And now we are ready to embark on a theory building venture. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The Need for a General Theory ‘ We have said in the previous chapter that the first task in building a useful theory of administrative leadership for contemporary education is to construct an operational definition of this total empirical phenomenon, since comprehensiveness in any theory's definition is a significant measure of its ultimate usefulness. Constructing such an operational definition of administrative leadership in education is a control objective of this chapter. However, to construct an operational definition of any empirical phenomenon, and to embark on a theory build- ing venture, presupposes that existing theories which deal with that phenomenon are inadequate in their comprehensiveness. Is this actually the case in the field of administrative leadership in education? Are the theoretical rationales which lie behind existing studies.of educational leadership lacking in comprehensiveness? Are they, therefore, limited in their usefulness? In order to answer these questions accurately, let us begin this chapter with an analysis of the research literature which deals with administrative leadership in education. From such an analysis we can 2h 2S determine the scope and character of this sort of leadership as it is presently understood by researchers, and we can pin-point with clarity those aspects of the total phenomenon which are dealt with in each of the individual studies reported in the field. From there we can ascertain whether more aspects of leadership are actually known than any one of the individual studies embraces. And if we find that this is so, we may assume that a new, more comprehensive theory of adminis- trative leadership in education is desirable at the present time. At that point we can deal in earnest with the problem of constructing an Operational definition of leadership which is more comprehensive in its inclusion of relevant aspects of that subject than are other studies reported in the field. As a matter of fact, we will be armed by then with an understanding of the scope of administrative leadership through an acquaintance with its various aspects or dimensions which are described in the research literature. Such an understanding, as we shall see later on in this chapter, is essential for the construction of a comprehensive operational definition. Trends in the Study of Administrative Leadership in Education The Traits Apppoach.--Early twentieth century studies of adminis- trative leadership in education, like studies of the period in other areas of administrative inquiry, focused attention upon leader traits to explain the effectiveness of administrative leaders. weber and 26 Weber9 point out the general public belief, that leaders were born not made, was of such import due to its long historical presence in western culture as to preclude the study of leadership p25 pg until about the turn of the twentieth century. When the realization gradually dawned that leaders could be made, it was natural to turn to leading personali- ties, and an explanation of how they performed, in order to devise bases for leader training. An analysis of 12 studies10 related to the field of administrative leadership in education which were conducted from 1926 through 1955 revealed that administrative leadership could be explained in at least three ways using the 353333 approach. Traits of intelligence and knowledge were seen as one eXplanation. Traits of physical character— istics provided another. Traits related to sociopsychological factors comprised the third. A main virtue of the early studies of administrative leadership which employed the EEEiEE approach lies in the fact that they did call attention to the possibility that leaders could be made. There are, however, several weaknesses to the Egaipg approach as a satisfactory explanation of administrative leader phenomena. For example, after making an extensive study of the research pertaining to leadership traits, 9C. A. Weber and Nhry E. Weber, Fundamentals of Educatipnal leadership (New York: MbGrawaHill Book Co., 1955), pp. 3H, 37-38, hS,‘HB. 10A specific citation of these sources is included in the Appendix of this paper under the heading, "The Traits Approach." 27 Bird11 concluded that only 5 per cent of the discovered characteristics were actually common to the research he examined. Gouldner12 presents five important criticisms of the pgaipg concept of leadership as follows: (1) lists of personal qualities or traits which have been suggested by writers are not accompanied by any suggestion with respect to the relative importance of any one trait; (2) in lists of personal qualities or traits, some qualities or traits are not mutually exclusive; (3) lists of traits of leadership usually do not present any intimation concerning whether traits are essential to ascend to positions of leader- ship, essential to maintenance of leadership, or essential to maintaining status without furnishing leadership; (h) lists of traits or character- istics are largely descriptive; there is little or no attention given to how such traits were acquired, and it is, therefore, assumed that they are inherent in the particular individual, while actually they may have been acquired; and (5) the traits assigned to leadership have been developed, to a large extent, in terms of particular leaders. The Situational Approach.--limitations of the 333133 approach to understanding leadership led some investigators back to the situation in educational systems for further clues to leader effectiveness. Hence the second wave of administrative leadership research in education is characterized by a situational approach to leader phenomena. An analysis llCharles Bird, Social Psychology (New Ybrk: Appleton—Centuryb Crofts, Inc., 19140). lelvin‘W. Gouldner (ed.), Studies in.1eadership (New Ybrk: Harper & Bros., 1950), pp. 23-h5. 28 of 55 studies13 conducted from l9h2 through 1956 into the situational factors affecting administrative leadership in education revealed that four critical areas of concern existed. The uniqueness of com- munities was a factor affecting administrative leadership, as were differences in boards of education and in school organization. A fourth situational factor was that conflicting expectations are faced by administrative leaders in educational enterprises. 0n the basis of his analysis of literature relating to situational factors in educational administration, Campbell1h is able to derive a number of generalizations. He concludes that there are many complex variables in each school-community situation as follows: 1. Communities, boards, faculties, and the profession often see the administrator in quite different perspective. 2. ‘Within each of these groups there are also complex varieties of perspective. 3. Each school community situation would appear to be in some ways unique. h. In each schools community major decisions are made by a few top policy makers. S. The leadership group tends to reflect community values in their basic decisions. 6. Citizens generally have but little information and tend to be apathetic about school matters. 13A specific citation of these sources is included in the Appendix of this paper under the heading, "The Situational Approach." lhRoald F. Campbell, "Situational Factors in Educational Administration," Administrative Behavior in Educatipp, ed., Roald F. Campbell and Russell T. GreggTINew York: Harper & Bros., 1957), pp. 261-263. 29 7. Administrators are faced with multiple and con- flicting expectations. 8. Morale or job satisfaction in a school organization depends to a large extent upon similar role expecta— tions of teachers and administrators. 9. High morale may or may not be related to productivity or effective teaching. 10. Similarity in role expectations between citizens and administrators, and school board members and adminis- trators is necessary to the success of administrators. 11. For the most part, exact ways by which situational variables affect administrative behavior have yet to be documented. The strength of the situational approach to understanding adminis- trative leadership in education appears to reside in the fact that these studies have called attention to many important factors in addition to leader traits which affect administrator performance. Thus, students of educational administration, through their acquaintance with studies of this kind, have become aware of other ways to view, and perhaps to better understand, administrative leader phenomena. The Organismic Approach.--Discontented with the limitations of the situational and traits approaches to leader inquiry, and influenced by Gestault, field, and perceptual psychology, many scholars have sought to devise an organismic or "holistic" approach to understanding adminis- trative leadership in education.15 Paul Mort16 was one of the first to 15 Cf. Truman M. Pierce and E. C. Merrill, Jr., "The Individual and Administrator Behavior," Administrative Behavior in Education, ed., Roald F. Campbell and Russell T. Gregg (New York: Harper & Bros., 1957), p. 33b. 16 . . . . . Paul Mbrt, PrinClples of School Administration (New York: NbGraw-Hill Book Co., 19H6). 30 use this approach to explain effective administrator performance. He constructed a philosophy of administration-~a value theory--which sought to square effective leader performance with concepts of growth and development enunciated by John Dewey and others. Rbrt's philoSOphy was organized around three fundamental principles. One of these prin- ciples was adaptability-~the ability of the educational administrator to adjust to new and developing needs or to new insights into methods of meeting old needs. A second principle was flexibilitye-the ability to achieve recognized ends with due regard to differences in situations and the individuals involved. The third principle was stability- the ability to look to the good in the old. In this context stability connoted freedom from upsetting change within the educational system; it did not oppose change. Stability counseled evolution as Opposed to revolution. A great many individual studies which were conducted from about l9h0 to 1950 went into the making of the Hort philosophy of school adninistration. These studies are reported elsewhere in this paper.17 The strength of the Nbrt philosophy lies in the fact that it sought to explain educational leadership as arising from administrators with i;~unique personal qualities who perform in unique social situations. This work was clearly an attempt to conceptualize upon the task of educational administration as a "whole" phenomenon. In a way it served to broach the gap between the traits and situational approaches to leader inquiry mentioned above. The Mbrt philosophy also sought to explain the function 17A specific citation of these sources is included in the Appendix of this paper under the heading, "A value Theory." 31 of the administrative leader in terms of his reSponsibilities to his educational system and to society as a whole. Another early use of the organismic approach to the study of administrative leadership in education is to be found in the Denver study which was conducted from l9h9 to 1952 and reported in several 18 studies over the course of these four years. This study, involving members of the Denver, Colorado, public school staff and two consultants from.the Horace Penn-Lincoln Institute of School.Experimentation of Teachers College, Columbia University, was one of the first to develOp a rationale for administrative leader performance which could be tested in action.19 The Denver study employed an inductive approach to the problem of educational leadership, and since time was limited, only preliminary results were achieved. However, the study did show that most administrative behavior can be explained as an attempt on the part of the administrator to achieve or preserve integrity and maintain or enhance self-esteem, particularly as this behavior involves relations with others. The study showed also that administrative performance is determined by the individual administrator's perceptions of the total educational situation and its requirements upon him at any given point in time. At the time of action, the administrator does what seems justified by his view of the situation. In general, people react 18A specific citation of these sources is included in the Appendix of this paper under the heading, "The Denver Study." l9Go'r'don N. Mackenzie, Stephen NL Corey, and Associates, Instruc- tional Leadership (New York: Teachers College, Columbia Univ., 1955;, pp. - lo 32 differently to the same situation because each person's perception of the situation differs from that of the others. However, most people feel satisfaction when they realize that their perceptions and consequent behavior are considered correct by other members of the group or groups to which they want to belong. Finally,this study attempted to show that changed perceptions lead to changed behavior. At the outset, the Denver study focused on leader performance rather than on administrative structure and processes in an effort to determine what makes a good school system function the way it does. This point of view was sustained throughout the study. The approach used in the Denver project may have set a pattern for much of the leadership research that has followed, for there has been an increasing tendency to focus on leader performance rather than on the structural .aspects of administration in this problem area ever since. CfitA unified conception or frame of reference for viewing adminis- trative leadership in education was developed about l95h in the CPEA project conducted by the lfiddle Atlantic region.20 This organismic approach to the problem of leadership sought to encompass all essential elements of educational administration into a three—dimensional concept-- the Job, the Fen and the Social Setting. The Job included tasks and responsibilities, varying in importance and emphasis as time passed, and encompassed all that was relevant to the administration of schools. The 20Resource Nhnual 1, revised, A Develppipg,Concppt of the Super- intendenpy of Education (Albany, N.Y.: Cooperative Development of .Public School Administration, 195h). This source is included in the .Appendix of this paper under the heading, "A Field Theory." I" p} 33 Man brought to the Job his beliefs, value expectations, behavior patterns, energy reserves and skills. These served to shape the job while the job was shaping these things in him. The Social Setting encompassed the pressures and compulsions of society which establish and set limits for the Job. The Social Setting influenced the thinking of the Han and set values by which he adjusted himself and was judged. Criterion Nbasures.--There have been a number of recent efforts to devise ways of measuring leader performance through checklists of agreed upon effective leader practices. One such instrument has been constructed by the Southern States CPEA project and is known as the Competency Pattern.2l This criterion measure Of successful practice is comprised of three basic elements--the Job, the Theory, and the Know-how. It was developed through the use of empirical methods, was tested in group discussions and substantiated by the judgments of numerous competent individuals. 0n the Competency Pattern, the Job is broken into critical task areas. The instrument then deals with the problem of what constitutes effective job performance on the basis of an acceptable Theory of educational administratiai. Know—how consists of the Operational beliefs, skills, and knowledges needed to perform the critical tasks in accordance with directions growing out of the Theory of educational administration. 21Southern States Cooperative Program in Educational Administra- tion, Bette; Teaching in Sgpool Administration (Nashville, Tenn.: George Peabody College for Teachers, 1955), pp. 12h-2h9. 3h The University of Tennessee has develOped a Rating Guide measure effective leader performance in educational administration. Six major characteristics with appropriate sub-questions relating to administrator performance are rated on a 1 through 5 scale on this instrument. The major characteristics are Interpersonal Relations, Intelligent Operation, Condition of Health, Ethical.and Mbral Strength, Adequacy of Communication, and Operation as a Citizen. The University of Georgia has devised a Profile of Administrator Behavior23 which is designed to study the performance of school prin- cipals. The Profile is divided into three major sections with specific leader practices classified under each of these headings. The headings, themselves, are Carrying Out the Role of Democratic Leadership, WOrking Effectively with School Personnel, and WOrking Effectively with the Community and Its Organizations. Rating on the Profile consists first Of indicating whether or not a particular behavior or practice is present in the principal's over-all performance; then, if it is present, its presence is weighted in terms Of quantitative measures on a six- point scale. The Ohio State University School-Community Development Study has also produced a check-list for measuring the effectiveness of administrator 22Mimeographed document by Orin B. Graff and Associates (Knoxville, Tenn.: College of Education, University of Tennessee, 1955). 23Lee Sprowles and Doyne M. Smith, The Principal's Profile (Athens, Ga.: The University of Georgia, 1956) (Mimeographed). 35 performance in education.2h Leaders Of this project, after observing, studying, and thinking about the problem of administrative leadership measurement, hypothesized that areas of administrator performance could be described. Accordingly, nine areas Of practice were delineated as Setting Goals, Lhking Policy, Determining Roles, Communicating, Using Resources of the Community, Involving People, Coordinating Administrative Function and Structure, and Appraising Effectiveness. Two empirical studies have sought validation of the following hypotheses developed from the above description Of administrative practices: 1. One hypothesis was that administrative behavior of selected elementary school principals could be described adequately within the framework of the nine critical areas which had been hypothesized.25 2. Another hypothesis stated that administrative behavior of generally effective elementary school principals and relatively ineffective principals would differ significantly within the framework of critical areas.26 3. A third stated that the given set of categories included all of the administrative practices of high school principals. h. A fourth hypothesized that these categories of behavior were useful in discriminating between effective and 2I‘LJohn A. Ramseyer, et. a1., Factors Affectipngducational ‘Administration, SCDS Series (Columbus, Ohio: College of Education, Ohio State University, 1955). 2SOdean Lott Hess, Administrative Behavior of Elementary Princi als, unpublished doctoral dissertation (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1955). 26Ibid. 27 Dean 0. Clark, Critical Areas in the Administrative Behavior of High School Principals, unpublished doctoral dissertation(Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1956). 36 ineffective high school principals.28 WOrk is still in progress on these studies which are attempting to describe areas of administrative performance. Research connected with the Ohio State University School-Community Development Study has also given rise to the development of another criterion measure of educational administrator effectiveness. This instrument, designed by Andrew Halpin,29 classifies administrator performance according to two dimensions--Initiating Structure and Con- sideration. These two dimensions are the basis for a leader behavior description questionnaire. Halpin has used his questionnaire with 50 Ohio school superintendents and found the fellowing: 1. Effective or desirable leader behavior is charac- terized by high scores on both initiating structure and consideration. Conversely, ineffective or undesirable leader behavior is marked by low scores on both dimensions. 2. The effective leader is one who delineates clearly the relationships between himself and the members of the group, and establishes well-defined patterns of organization, channels of communication, and ways of getting the job done, and whose behavior at the same time reflects friendship, mutual trust, respect and warmth.in the relationships between himself and the members of the groups with which he deals. 28Ibid. 29Andreww. Halpin, The Leader Behavior of School Superintendents, SCDS Series (Columbus, Ohio: College of Education, Ohio State University, 1956). 37 Halpin3O has more recently designed a model for research into Administrator Behavior called the "Paradigm." Within this model are four basic elements: (1) The Organization Task, (2) Administrator Behavior, (3) variables Associated with Administrator Behavior, (h) and Criteria of Administrator Effectiveness. Halpin has premised his Paradigm on these three assumptions: 1. The public school organization is constituted for a "purpose," and this "purpose" can be stated in terms of desired outcomes. Furthermore, these outcomes may be defined either in terms of "desirable" behaviors or of "desirable" products of behavior. These "desired" outcomes constitute the Organizational Task. 2. The individuals who compose the organization are engaged in continuous problem-solving behavior in their effort to accomplish this Task. 3. The Administrator, as the formally designated leader of the Organization, has a key role in this problem-solving behavior; and three areas of his behavior are of special importance: a. His perceptions of the organization's task. b. His behavior as a decision maker. c. His behavior as a group leader, vis-a-vis his own immediate work group. Halpin goes on to describe, define and explain the function of elements within the Paradigm by explaining how the results of interaction between the administrator and people with whom he works can be identified and evaluated. O 3 Andrew'w. Halpin, "A Paradigm for Research.on Administrator Behavior,n Administrative Behavior in Education, ed. Roald F. Campbell and R. T. Gregg (New York: Harper & Bros., 1957), pp. lSS-l9h. 38 Role Theory.--Another approach to understanding administrative leadership in education, which seems to stem from earlier studies of the situational variables that affect administrator performance, is known as rglg theory.,tCampbell31 sets forth in broad outlines the nature of this theory of leadership by tracing a number of implications for administrator performance from studies of situational factors in different educational systems. He maintains that the administrator needs to develop a concept of his job a part of which deals with the place of situational variables. By the very nature of his position, the administrator is required to work with many reference groups. Thus, assessment of situational characteristics and expectations is a first ' requirement of the administrator. Since the administrator needs to maintain contacts with the power structure in a school community, he must also be conversant with the specific nature of this variable. There is need, on the other hand, to clarify the roles of citizens, board members, teachers, and administrators because the role expectations of citizens, board members, and teachers must be understood and dealt with by administrators. Disturbing as it may seem, administrators cannot be satisfied to meet the expectations of one reference group, hence the administrator must learn to face and work with conflict. Campbell goes on to say that the situational variables seem to establish at any one time, an "area of tolerance" within which school community action may take place. The limits implied byfthe "area of tolerance" may suggest the real challenge to the administrator. Campbell concludes that the 3lcampbe11, Op. Cit., pp. 26h-68. 39 educational administrator, despite his involvement, should do his best to remain a student of how situational variables affect his adminis- trative perfbrmance. The administrator must find some way of establishing more unity among the perceptions of the various individuals and groups of individuals involved in each educational situation. Some criterion of effectiveness in administration acceptable to the various reference groups must be derived. Colardarci and Getzels32 have sought to advance rgle theory in a somewhat different manner. Their conclusions, however, are very similar to Campbell's, above. Interpersonal relationships have been taken as a basic unity upon which these scholars have built a theory of adminis- trative performance. They conceive of administration, structurally, as the hierarchy of subordinate-superordinate relationships within an institution, and, functionally, the hierarchy of administration is con- ‘ceived as the locus of allocating and integrating roles and facilities in order to attain institutional goals. Colardarci and Getzels postulate three dimensions for administration--the authority dimension, the scOpe of roles and facilities dimension, and the affectivity dimension. They advance the following hypotheses concerning them: 1. Administrative effectiveness in the educational enterprise is a function of the extent to which the superordinate-subordinate interaction, with respect to the authority dimension, approaches ideal-type rationality. 2. Administrative effectiveness in the educational enterprise is a function of the extent to which 32Arthur P. Colardarci and Jacob W} Getzels, The Use of Theory in Educational Administration (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1953), pp. 19-25. to the superordinate-subordinate interaction with respect to the scope of roles and facilities dimension approaches ideal-type functional specificity. 3. Administrative effectiveness in education is a function of the extent to which the superintendent interaction, with respect to the affectivity dimen- sion approaches ideal-type universalism. The kddwest Administration Center at the University of Chicago, one of the CPEA regional centers, has sought to advance role theory by contributing to a definition of the problem of role conflict as a q 3’ These crucial factor in effective administrative leader performance. people believe that various groups within educational systems--teachers, boards of education, pupils, and community patrons-~may feel that they have a legitimate right to hold certain expectations about how the role of the educational administrator should be played. By focusing research on the expectations of administrative behavior held by teachers, they have found: (1) that teachers rate themselves as more effective and more satisfied when administrator behavior, as they perceive it, approaches the expectations they posit as ideal, and (2) that role conflict exists when the expected administrator behavior as defined by one group is different from the role as perceived by the administrator, himself, or by other groups. Role theorists maintain that educational administrators are caught in a dilemma of leadership and that any effort on their part to meet the divergent expectations of all groups, and still maintain their own integrity, is virtually impossible. They advocate, 33Francis 3. Chase and Egon G. Guba, "Administrative Roles and Behavior," Review of Educational Research, XXXV (October, 1955), 281— 298. hi instead, that administrators exercise leadership with the various interest groups to develop an operational philosophy in each educational system which is sufficiently consistent to permit new, and tenable, working relationships between administrators and the groups and among the various groups themselves. There are a number of studies associated with role theory which are included elsewhere in this paper.3h Personality Theories.--Another approach to understanding adminis- trative leadership in education, which appears to stem from earlier studies of leadership traits, focuses on perggnality theory. Bills and Hopper3S have advanced one personality theory of administrative leadership in education through their work in the Southern States CPEA at the University of Kentucky. These theorists generalize that the successful educational administrator, because of his attitudes toward people and toward himself, is able to maintain adequate and satisfying relationships with people; is a person who makes few value judgments; thinks in cooperative terms; makes few comparisons; and gives sufficient thought to the things he does. Bills and Hopper classify practicing educational administrators according to behavior into three broad per- sonality groups, differentiating in terms of the attitudes which the administrator holds toward himself and toward other people. Some administrators accept their own worth and believe that other people are 34A specific citation of these sources is included in the Appendix of this paper under the heading, "Role Theory." 35Robert L» Hopper and Robert E. Bills, "What's a Good Adminis- tgator made Of?" _The_School Executive, LXXIV’(Bhrch, 1955), pp. 93- 9 . 1:2 equally or more accepting of their worth. Some administrators reject themselves but believe that other people are more accepting of them- selves. Some administrators accept themselves and believe that other people are less accepting of themselves. The first type of personality is said to be the most successful administrator in the judgment of educational authorities, superintendents of sdhools, principals, and of group members. The second type of personality is judged to be less desirable, and the third type is believed to be least desirable of all. Researchers at Kentucky have set forth the following list of factors which partially determine the nature of administrative leader performance in education--physical needs of the leader, values, concepts of self, concepts of others, leadership, and group membership. Importance is given to considering these conceptions in terms of the meaning they hold for the individual; they are personal meanings which represent the individual's own particular opinions and beliefs and serve to energize his behavior. Probably the most fundamental of any concept held by an administrator is the one which he holds about himself and other people, since this determines in large measure his "human relations" behavior. Research at Kentucky has been premised upon the following assumptions regarding educational leadership: (1) behavior grows out of perception; (2) if a knowledge of a person's perceptions is available, it is possible to predict his behavior; (3) when he behaves and we study his behavior, it is possible to infer certain of his perceptions; (h) it is not possible for a person to perform in a manner inconsistent 143 with his perceptions; (5) the individual is what he performs and what he performs is what he is; (6) the starting point in analyzing and describing behavior of an administrator is the determination of his perceptions as related to himself and to his job; (7) and changing perceptions would be expected to change behavior. Another study into leadership personality has been conducted in Florida as a part of the Southern States CPEA project. A group at the University of Florida, under the leadership of Hines,36 has been experimenting for five years to develop more effective leadership training programs. Eatensive research reported in approximately a dozen dissertations has revealed some rather interesting facts. For instance, it has been shown that there is a positive relationship between administrator personality and the frequency of democratic practices; administrator personality and best practices; administrator personality and human relations; administrator personality and program development; and administrator personality and parent feeling toward the school. Thus, the pattern of performance demonstrated by an adminis- trator does appear to make a difference in the effective operations of an educational system. The Florida studies have also shown that such variables as conventionalism, authoritarianism, substitution, power, cynicism, and projectivity are not necessarily related to democratic leadership. No relationships were found between the criterion of democratic leadership behavior and such personal factors as age, training, 36Pierce, Op. Cit., pp. 3h2-h3. mi and experience. women, curiously enough, were found to be more demo- cratic than men. Finally, principals were not consistently democratic or autocratic toward different groups, as researchers at Florida see it. That is to say, a principal might be democratic with one group and autocratic toward another. A study of four principals, however, revealed internal consistency in principals' performance as this con- sistency was indicated by relationships among values, self-concepts, role concepts, background experiences, and ways of working. The Florida studies have not yet resulted in any conceptualization of these findings. An interesting notion is emerging from studies of leader pgrsonality in education. Implicit in this research is the idea that to control the effectiveness of an educational enterprise we need only control the effectiveness of the administrative leader's personality. Or to state the idea another way, if there exists an effective leader personality in an educational enterprise, the resultant interaction of the various groups, individuals and factors will ordinarily evolve to produce an effective educational operation. At the present time this notion is a rather nebulous one, as it is found in the research literature dealing with educational administration. The emphasis upon leader personality in some recent studies, however, appears to mark a significant new 37 development of research in this problem area. General References:--There are two reference works pertaining to administrative leadership in education which are of general value for 37A specific citation of these sources is included in the Appendix of this paper under the heading, "Personality Theories." 245 orientation to the literature and problems of research in this field. One of them, Hollis A. Moore's, Studies in School Administration, gives an authoritative account of the birth, growth, and present magnitude of cooperative research efforts in the area of administrative leadership for education which are presently going on through the joint efforts of the American Association of School Administrators, the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, the Kellogg Foundation, and various researchers in the 8 CPEA regions across the United States. This work also contains an elaborate annotated bibliography of those studies in administrative leadership in education which have been con- ducted under the auspices of the various CPEA regional centers. Another useful reference work is Campbell and Gregg's book, Administrative Behavior in Education. As a resource work, sponsored by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, this text has drawn together the views of many leading researchers concerned with the problem of understanding and improving administrative leadership in education. These people seek to present a thorough picture of the birth, growth, and present status of research in this field. They also seek to evaluate the research efforts to date and discuss various ways in which future studies may improve our understanding of leadership. Although certain portions of the book appear to be slanted toward gplg theory as a most fruitful approach to understanding leadership, the text does represent the most comprehensive treatment of the subject that has been compiled to date.38 38A specific citation of these sources is included in the Appendix of this paper under the heading, "General References." to An Analysis of Research Trends It is obvious from the description of various study approaches to administrative leadership in education that knowledge in this field has been pursued down many, diverse avenues. The reader has probably sensed the episodic and disconnected, rather than programmatic, character of all these investigations. Thus the assertion that none of these individual studies deals comprehensively with the total phenomenon of administrative leadership as it is presently known through the research literature does not come as a startling revelation. For the sake of documenting this point more precisely, however, let us push the analysis of leadership research literature even further. From what we have seen so far, it is possible to identify a composite picture of those aSpects of administrative leadership in education which comprise this phenomenon in its totality as researchers presently know it. And from this composite view, we can evaluate the extent to which each of the study approaches discussed above incorporates component parts of the whole phenomenon in the theoretical rationales which lie behind them. For example, studies of leader traits deal almost exclusively with the identification of attributes of effectire administrative leaders. Studies of situational factors in educational administration, on the other hand, focus upon the identification of sources of humap_conflict in American educational §ystems. These studies' are vitally concerned with the relationship of education to our social order. They also deal explicitly, and at some length with the problem 17" 147 of understanding the specific environment surrounding educational systems. Paul kbrt's philosophy of administration, like studies of leader traits, is concerned with attributes of effective administrative leaders. Beyond this rather secondary aim, the Mbrt studies come to grips with the philosgphy andgpurposes of administrative leadership in American educatidn. The Denver study, meanwhile, reemphasizes the need to identify sources of human conflict in educational systems enunciated in studies of situational factors in education. This study, like leader traits investigations, seeks to identify attributes of effective administrative leaders as well. The Field Theory, advanced by the Ndddle Atlantic CPEA, introduces a different aspect of administrative leadership in education, the need to comprehend an administrative process which goes on within all purposive human organizations. This study also recognizes the importance of the relationship of education to the social order; is concerned with understanding the specific environment of educational systems; and seeks to identify attributes of effective administrative leaders. The Competency Pattern, like other criterion measures of adminis- trative leader effectiveness, focuses upon the measurement of effective- ness in the_practice of educational administration; while the University of Tennessee's Rating Guide exhibits a concern for instructingflprospec- tive administrators and predicting their success on the job. The Univer- sity of Georgia's Profile of Administrator Behavior, the Ohio State University Checklist, and Halpin's Leader Description Questionnaire all 23V .. au- .‘w >.. m..— 1- - k A. I ‘17“... 1:8 deal in a primary way with the measurement of effective administrative leader practices, performance, or behavior as the administrator's activities are variously called. Role theory appears to embrace the tasks of identifying sources of conflict in educational systems; understanding the relationship of education to the social order; comprehending the administrative process; cm H , and identifying specific factors in the environment surrounding edu- ....- 4... _.i _. cational systems. The Personality Theory of Bills and Hopper focuses on a different combination of aspects of leadership that were previously ‘. mentioned. This rationale concerns itself with the measurement of Av effective leader practices; is concerned with identifying sources of conflict in education; probes for a better understanding of the specific environment of educational systems, and is concerned with identifying the attributes of effective administrative leaders. Hine's Personality studies introduce another aspect of the leader phenomenon, the measurement of administrative leadership as distinct from administrative leader practice, performance, or behavior. Leader- ship in this context is seen as a climate of interpersonal exchange between super- and sub—ordinates in educational systems which stems largely from the kind of behavior super-ordinates demonstrate. The general reference works of Mbore and Campbell emphasize the need for programmatic attacks on the problem of improving the effective- ness of American education through the improvement of administrative leadership. These studies also plead for the construction of a general b9 theory of administrative leadership in education as a specific means of impgoving American education. From this array of aspects of administrative leadership in education, we can now sketch the broad outlines of the total phenomenon. It is comprised of: 1. Philosophy and purposes. 2. Identification of personal attributes of effective administrative leaders. 3. hbasurement of effective administrative leader practices. h. Nbasurement of effective administrative leadership. 5. Programs for improving the effectiveness of American education through administrative leadership. 6. Identification of the sources of human conflizt in educational systems. 7. Development of specific means for improving the effectiveness of American education through administrative leadership. 8. Relationships of educational systems to the social order. 9. An administrative process. 10. A specific environment which surrounds educational systems. ll. Programs of instruction for training new adminis— trative leaders. Now, to what extent do each of the individual studies or groups of studies discussed above endeavor to incorporate all of these aspects of adminis- trative leadership in the theoretical rationales which lie behind them? In Table 1, below, you will notice that an effort has been made to codify the answer to this question. Each of the studies,or approaches ,geas' --4i._.. __.._ ”-51. c" . > 50 TABLE 1 COLE’REHEEISIVEIJESS OF MAJOR STUDIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP FOR CONTEMPORARY EDUCATION a .3 s as E to ,c: a tamer-1 a) g +3 (D U) Q) UlhDUJ- find-P O ~CDCU m m o a a a c.n m <3 a E h o .p m -H m« e-p ,m w 0 $1 0 e-p thmpm'cb'uom.ap:3y 34pm hnm>o>wowfle 0'30) flaw-1 a 'aasmsaaadssa a a as +3 0510 Pg (a ‘H (HOW-Ilia r-V) @4330) mm meal-r430 49 H80 5 “ “Edieiom8a4a'a'fiégé'i” mygfg-piu-p o-p mna o.a:a-H +aoa 0 mpg 1% am! as www'fimmy om'rjq—«ficu a: - +>eop.gpp a c _ ”:8 r4 $43 $1 a. o +> +3UJ+3>30bDOQ cu-P O Hm-fimonmgmfijflrao ~§+DOO a) -HMp-H§-dm-H- 43-7—1 ,w-Icu ~ mafia. c> +>g3:$c:. a H‘C-R a m 5-9.: i3 a'e h m H *3 same-Heaadaeaasaa .3 gm‘qg'Bm'Ba'E'o'c Moog CHAS, 04 Hopada-d: <12Hlir380m+> :30 8 Studies Using the Traits Appgoach I .4 I I I I Studies Using the Situa- tional Approach I I I E E E Paul Pbrt's Philosgphy E E I I I I I its Denver Study E I I E I I ghe Field Theory I E I I I I E E E Eye Competency Pattern E E E I I I E I Tennessee Ratinnguide I E E I E I E E E E Georgia Profile of Administrator Behavior I E <4E» I E I E E E Ohio State Checklist I E E I I I E E E Halpin ' s De scription Questionnaire I E E I E I E E Halpin's Paradigm E I E E I E E I I Role Theory I I I I E I E E E Bills' and Hopper's Personalipy Theory I E E I E I I E Hines' Florida Studies I E E E I I E I I E Mbore's Studies in Administration I I I E E E Campbell's Administrative Behavior E E E I E E E E E E E A ranking of "E" indicates an e4 licit concern of each study. A ranking of "I" indicates an implicit concern of each study. :a aw . . f . '.' .. ‘Vll.\Y'~q.'. 51 to the study, of leadership appear in this table as do all of the known aspects of administrative leadership in education. An estimate is made of those aspects of the total phenomenon in question which are dealt with explicitly in each study. These are indicated in the table by the letter "E". Other aspects of administrative leadership in education with which these studies deal implicitlv are indicated in the table with the letter "I". A special effort has been made in constructing TABLE 1 to assign "I" rankings generously in order to give each study or each approach to the study of leadership its full measure of compre- hensiveness. It is quite clear from this table that not one existing study of administrative leadership in education is based upon a comprehensive and explicit definition of all aspects of this phenomenon known to researchers. Few approach comprehensiveness when their implicit con- cerns are included with their explicit ones. Campbell's, Administrative Behavior in Education, which comes the closest to covering the phenomenon of administrative leadership comprehensively, is really a general refer- ence source in this field. Consequently, it summarizes many of the other studies; and its comprehensiveness is greatly increased because of this. The most obvious omissions in these studies are: (a) a failure to deal with programs for improving the effectiveness of American educa- tion through administrative leadership, and (b) a paucity of concern with programs of instruction for developing new administrative leaders. Several of the studies also show an implicit concern with devising - '. ‘H‘V! a a 52 specific means of improving leadership, but only the general reference works in this field treat this aSpect of leadership explicitly. Para- doxical as it seems, only two study approaches have dealt explicitly with measuring the effectiveness of administrative leadership. Others dwell upon the measurement of effective administrative leader performance, practice, or behavior, implying that effective leadership follows automatically from an effective controlcf what the administrator does. that important to us here is the fact that existing studies of educational administration are not comprehensive in their explicit inclusion of all aspects of administrative leadership. Or, to say this another way, the total phenomenon of administrative leadership for contemporary education as found in the research literature includes more aspects than any of the individual studies in this field embrace. we may assume, therefore, that at the present time there is a need for a new, more comprehensive theory of administrative leadership in education which starts from a new, more comprehensive Operational definition of this empirical phenomenon. An Opprational Definition of Administrative leadership for ContemporarypEducation Administrative leadership in education is a purposive endeavor. That is to say, the administration of our educational enterprise by designated professional practictioners is deliberately designed to serve some function in the day-to-day operation of our social order. Proof of this is to be found in the fact that as a society, we have, over the J 2.. ' I -— .A‘ »4 ev 53 years, formally organized an enterprise of education. We have also constructed a body of laws and extra-legal criteria to control the nature of educational activity in America. Education, therefore, must serve at least one common purpose.39 Administrative leaders in education assume the responsibility for guiding the destiny of our educational enterprise toward the accomplishment of this purpose when they accept 3% the challenge of administrative practice. The purpose of American education, hence of administrative leadership in education, stems from a philosophy or ethical system of beliefs, values, and human expectations which are held in common by our citizenry. One purpose, then, of adminis- :4 trative leadership in education is really to further the attainment of the common purpose which society avows for our educational enterprise. Since administrative leadership in education arises out of purposive human activity on the part of educational administrators, it is possible to evaluate leadership in terms of its effectiveness or ineffectiveness. But to do so we must look, in part, at the person--or personality-—of each administrative leader. By observing, and eventually coming to understand that totality which he is, we can improve upon our ability to select and retain effective leaders who will, in turn, make the educational enterprise move toward the accomplishment of the common purpose 39At this point in the theory building venture no reference is being made to what the common purpose of education should be. It is merely noted here that as a purposive social endeavor legally sanctioned by society education in all its forms has at least one common purpose. In Chapter IV the reader will see that it is essential to begin a theory of this kind by hypothesizing what the common purpose of education is, then ordering all other predictions under this basic one in a subordinate but logically consistent fashion. Prediction making, however, cannot commence until administrative leadership has been defined; and we are defining here. our society has avowed for it. An integral part of success here, however, is the exoertesse we demonstrate in verifying relevant variables which bear upon attributes of effective leader personality. If we are to move American education toward a common goal through the selection and retention of educational administrators who demonstrate specified, desirable characteristics in their professional endeavor, E then we must create and verify at least one Standard lbasure of Effective Administrative Leader Practices. 5 The things that an administrator does, his professional practice, is but a stimulus for administrative leadership. The true locus of ti leadership resides in the total situation of the administrator and those individuals in educational organization with whom he works. Leadership is really a climate of interpersonal exchange generated by the interaction of administrators and other people. Leadership is a EEEElE of adminis- trator practice in any purposive human organization, and it does not reside within administrative leaders, themselves.' Just as horsemanship is the result of human behavior and resides somewhere in the total situa- tion of the man and the horse; just as craftsmanship is a result of the artisan's activity and resides somewhere in the total situation of the man and his creation; or just as sportsmanship is a result of behavior which resides somewhere in the total situation of the athlete and other players on the field-~80 leadership may be observed as a derivation of leader behavior which resides in the total situation of the administrator and the people with whom he works. 55 Think of administrative leadership as the climate surrounding interpersonal exchange in educational systems, the specific nature of which is largely determined by the practices of those in positions of administrative authority. Within this climate other peeple are either encouraged to, or discouraged from, implementing those practices which will help to accomplish the common purpose of education. And since administrative leadership is somewhat distinct from leader practice, we must also learn how to evaluate and control it if we are to accomplish the common objective of education in an intelligent manner. It follows that a fundamental part of the administration of contemporary education is the creation and verification of at least one Standard MEasure of Administrative Leadership. By focusing evaluation and control of education upon effective administrative leader practices and effective administrative leadership-- as effectiveness is defined by the common purpose-~it is possible to utilize administrative officers in educational systems as a vehicle for improving the effectiveness of the total enterprise of education. To say the same thing another way, given a common purpose for American education, given a verified criteria for evaluating leader practice and leadership in the light of this purpose, it is possible and logical to focus upon the pinnacle of authority in educational systems to energize educational improvement in a programmatic and efficient manner. Thus administrative leadership for contemporary education involves at least one Standard Proggam for Improving_the Effectiveness of Adminis- trative Leadership. -n. “ W #- 56 America's educational enterprise has a common purpose, but individual educational systems within it interpret this purpose in various ways. That is why each educational system has, in part, structured a special purpose for itself. When we speak of programs for improving the effectiveness of American education through improved administrative leadership, we subsume the notion that some educational systems in America are presently ineffective as is their administrative leadership. A part of the ineffectiveness stems from the fact that the educational systems have specific purposes which are to a degree out of harmony with the common purpose of the educational enterprise as a whole. They also employ administrative leaders who have assumed the responsibility for attaining goals which are in some ways inconsistent with the common purpose of American education. To accomplish the common goal of education, direct and intelligent action must be taken to insure the alignment of all that educational endeavor in each system which bears upon the attainment of the common educational purpose which our society avows. This involves changing people and the purposes of human organizations. Change never comes easy,hence it goes almost without saying that programs for improving the effectiveness of education will generate ideological conflicts in educational systems. Conflict will engender threat, and threat, left uncontrolled, will tend to compound itself. Eventually ideological conflicts could lead to open hostility and to the eventual dissolution of the educational enterprise, itself. This, of course, would defeat rather than accomplish the common purpose of education. 80 in the administration of education we must new .- f .n. A“.-. .. .4“ W‘Q‘ W‘ 57 learn to identify the sources of human conflict or threat and deal with them intelligently. we must have, in fact, at least one verified instrument which can be used as a Standard Threat Analysis in any American educational system. Programs for improving the effectiveness of education through leadership, however, do not stop with an analysis of the sources of {year human conflict in educational systems. Coupled with this task is the need to specify particular and explicit means of implementing improve- ments in administrative leadership, once the sources of threat have been identified. Administrative leadership for contemporary education a; must be seen as embracing a specific Standard Leadership_lmprovement Criteria. From what has been said above, it is easy to understand that particular educational systems do not operate in a vacuum. In many ways they are related to the broader domain of our social order and are, there— fOre, committed to a common purpose as a part of a total social enterprise. Each educational system affects and is affected by the temper of belief in our society. To get students, to get money, to get buildings, to get staff, to get equipment, to get supplies, to determine purposes, to make policy, to implement practices, and to obtain a charter or enabling legislation, every educational system in America must relate with the outside world of our society. Since administrative leaders are charged with the responsibility of guiding the destiny of their educational systems, it follows that administrative leadership for contemporary educa- tion must encompass the general Considerations that each educational system faces in relating with the society outside its premises. 58 When administrative leaders and subordinates in education set about the performance of their tasks to attain the purposes of their educational systems, they act in discrete and definable ways. There is a process through which administration goes on in any human endeavor where at least two people seek to attain at least one common objective together. Educational systems are not exceptions in this regard. In every educational system the interpersonal exchange between administrators and subordinates goes on through the processes of planning, organizing, staffing and directing. Planning involves those activities of administrators and other people in educational systems which deal with determining aims, goals, and objectives--the purposes of education and ways of accomplishing them. Planning goes on through the medium of decision-making. It involves sensing and defining problems; exploring problems through collecting relevant data, making inferences, and relating problems to people; formulating possible courses of action; predicting outcomes; deciding; and evaluating progress toward agreed upon purposes. Organizing is defined as that administrative Operation which is concerned with designating specific jobs to be performed in educational systems; relating these jobs one to the other in such a way as to provide for a coordinated flow of resources, both material and human, and a coordinated flow of communication throughout the educational system which make it possible to discharge the responsibilities associated with each job. ,:nev "51 3’ S9 Staffigg deals with assigning particular people to specific tasks within educational systems. Staffing involves recruiting; transfer to one or more different jobs within education at the same level of authority; promotion to duties and responsibilities at a higher level of authority; demotion to duties and responsibilities at a lower level of authority; and expulsion from the enterprise. Efireeting means energizing an educational system toward the accomplishment of its purposes. Directing involves the application of controls to human activities within the enterprise; the arbitration of interpersonal disputes in educational systems and among systems; as well as the exercise of authority or command in education and the delega- tion of authority and responsibility to others. we should not think of the administrative process as being comprised of four discrete operations. Each operation is dependent upon the others for its fruition in any educational system. For example, it is not feasible to plan without first organizing, at least in some minimal way, for planning. Getting a staff together and giving some direction to the planning are necessary parts of the planning venture, also. Nor can directing take place meaningfully without a staff who is organized and who has planned beforehand what must be done. we should not think either that these administrative operations go on in educational systems only in a neat sequence as they are described above. For these operations actually comprise an administra- tive milieu which arises at any given point in time out of the give and take of social intercourse within educational systems. Consequently, .. wt 60 planning, organizing, staffing, and directing occur in all kinds of different sequences and in myriads of different ways in the day—to- day operation of our educational enterprise. Be that as it may, the fact remains that formal educational endeavor can be classified under the terms of the administrative process. Hence, administrative leadership for contemporary education encompasses what we may call Standard Administrative Operations. Though formal human endeavor within educational systems goes on through the processes of planning, organizing, staffing, and directing, it does not do so in the abstract. That is to say, administrators and these people who work with them in education do not merely plan, organize, staff, and direct; they activate these operations in relation to specific, discrete and definable things that exist in the general environment which surrounds education. Some of the more obvious things from the educational environment in relation to which super- and subordinates plan, organize, staff and direct are: I. With reference to the Educational Plant-- A. Building B. Equipment C. materials and Supplies D. Facilities II. ‘With reference to the Educational Program-- A. Admissions B. Curriculum C. Instruction D. Evaluation E. Governance F Articulation with Higher and Lower Schools 61 III. ‘With reference to Educatiaual Finance-- VJQHZGQFMUOtdk' IV. With QHIEO’TJEUUOL'D?’ K. V. With Capital Funds Operational Funds Endowment Funds Gifts and Bequests Bond Drives Fund Drives Governmental Aid Purchasing Disbursing Accounting Budgeting reference to Educational Personnel-- Salaries Housing Pensinns Insurance Credit Unions Sick Leaves Leaves of Absence In-Service Training Teaching Assignments Research Assignments Service Assignments reference to Educational Auxiliary Agencies-- Student Activities Student Government Student Counseling Student Housing Student Health Student welfare Student Employment Student Placement Student Loans Student Scholarships maintenance of Buildings and Grounds Storage of Supplies and hhterials Transportation Institutional Study Institutional Promotion Auxiliary Personnel 62 VI. With reference to Educational Governance—- . legal Governing Agencies Extra-legal Governing Agencies Constituencies and Clientele Local Communities Controlling Boards Administrative Officers . Faculty O’HWPOWP Administrative leadership for contemporary education involves at least these many specific items from the educational environment. They are the factors which give form and color to human behavior in all educational systems when super- and subordinates interact in formal educational endeavor. Thus, we may think of these things as Standard Behavior Factors for Education. The American enterprise of education has endured through several generations. It probably shall endure for many, many more. Individual administrative leaders in education, however, appear and disappear incessantly as the educational enterprise continues on in operation. It follows from this that, if our society seeks to accomplish a common purpose for education through the on-going selection and retention of effective educational administrators, then some means must be found for supplying the ever present demand for new, adequately-trained, adminis- trative personnel. In short, a part of administrative leadership for contemporary education involves a Standard Program of Instruction for ———— Developing Administrative Leader Trainees who eventually will become practioners in the enterprise of education. Programs for training leaders, like any other instructional endeavor, must take into account 63 at least five thhigs--the Purposes, Curriculum, Instructional bethodolo- , Evaluation of Instructional Effectiveness, and the Governance of all of these. To sum up, administrative leadership for contemporary education is a purposive endeavor. All educational systems within our total educational enterprise have at least one purpose in common. Educational administrators assume the responsibility of guiding the destiny of American education toward the accomplishment of that purpose when they accept the challenge of administrative practice. The effective adminis- tration of our educational enterprise--as effectiveness is defined by . the common purpose--depends upon at least one Standard LEasure of Administrative Leader Practices and at least one Standard Measure of Administrative Leadersh;p. The common purpose of all educational systems in the enterprise of American education can best be attained through at least one Standard Program for Improving the Effectiveness of Adminis- trative Leadership. Such a program aims to improve education through the improvement of leader practices which, in turn, will improve adminis- trative leadership. Any programmatic improvement of the effectiveness of American education is likely to generate conflict which stems from threat and will need to apply specific means for implementing improvements. Hence administrative leadership for contemporary education must encompass at least one Standard Threat Analysis and must include at least one Standard Leadership Improvement Criteria. r I" is" 6h The phenomenon of administrative leadership in any contemporary educational system must be seen as embracing relationships with the general social order. Each system must, first of all, act in accordance with regulatory criteria set forth by legal and extra-legal organizations. And each must succumb to the influences of other parts of society in a variety of ways. we view administrative leadership, then, as including some General Considerations which pertain to the relationships of education with the outside world of our social order. Administrative leadership also subsumes an administrative process comprised of four Standard Administrative Coerations—-planning, organizing, staffing, and directing. It embodies, as well, a host of specific factors in the educational environment--with reference to Plant, Program, Finance, Personnel, Auxiliary Agencies, and Governance--in relation to which administrators and other people in educational systems activate the administrative process. These things in the educational environment we can call Standard Behavior Factors for Education. Finally, in order to ensure the accomplishment of the common pur- pose of education, it is necessary to replenish our supply of competent administrative leaders. Thus, administrative leadership for contemporary education also involves at least one Standard Program of Instruction for Developing Administrative Leader Trainees. Such a program must take into account the Purpose, Curriculum, Instruction, and Evaluation, and its own internal Governance. 65 vo Bases for Selecting Relevant Assumptions The second task in building a useful theory, after the phenomenon with which it deals has been defined, is to select a set of relevant assumptions which can be brought to bear upon the definition in order to generate predictions about it. The selection of such a set of assumptions for the theory with which this study deals is the special job of the next chapter. Before we leave a review of the literature, however, we need to analyze it once more in an effort to uncover some bases upon which relevant assumptions for a new theory may be selected. Acknowledging that there are probably many bases for selecting a relevant set of assumptions in a theory dealing with such an expansive phenomenon as administrative leadership in education, let us look once more at the literature in this field to determine what force or forces appear to be motivating empirical inquiry here. It is logical to assume that the forces motivating research in educational administration will give us some clues as to what constitutes a relevant set of assump- tions for theorizing about administrative leadership. This is not to imply, of course, that such an approach will uncover the only bases for selecting relevant assumptions, nor does it mean necessarily that the best bases for determining relevance will come to light. we are inter— ested here merely in uncovering some bases for selecting a relevant set of assumptions for a theory. The degree of relevancy of the assumptions is not directly in question. From our acquaintance with the literature of administrative leader- ship so far, one factor stands out at once as a force motivating inquiry. This is the desire among leadership researchers to understand the implications for education of the relativity of human perceptions. we found in studies of situational factors in educational administration, for example, that researchers were aware of and concerned with the fact that communities, boards, faculties, and the profession often see the administrator in quite different perspective. Even within these groups there were found complex varieties of perspective. Administrators are faced with multiple and conflicting expectations which they must become sensitive to through their own perceptions. Paul Fbrt, in his philosophy of administration, aluded to the principle of leader flexibility which he defined as the ability to achieve recognized ends with regard to differences in situations and the individuals involved. This definition appears to acknowledge that perceptions, hence beliefs, hence concepts of truth differ significantly among individuals and administrators must adapt themselves to the unique perceptions of others. The Denver Study sought to establish the fact that administrative performance is determined by an individual administrator's perception of the total educational situation and its requirements upon him at any given point in time. At the time of action, the Denver group main- tained, the administrator does what seems justified by his view of the situation. In general, they said, people react differently to the same situation because each person's perception of the situation differs from that of others. The Denver group went on to say that most people feel 67 satisfaction when they realize that their perceptions and consequent behavior are considered correct by other members of the group or groups to which they want to belong. This study also pointed out that changed perceptions lead to changed behavior. The Field Theory, advanced by the Middle Atlantic CPEA, deals implicitly with the relativity of individual perceptions when it sets forth a three-dimensional concept of administration, comprised of the Job, the Lhn, and the Social Setting as basic elements. The fact that within this rationale the element, Social Setting, is seen as influencing the thinking of the hhn.(administrator) and sets values by which he adjusts himself and is judged appears to acknowledge the fact that people perceive things differently and that administrative people must not only sense differences in perception among people with respect to each educational situation; they must adjust themselves and their work routines in accordance with the perceptions of others with whom they work. All of the Criterion hEasures which seek to identify characteristics of effective administrative leaders stem from an implicit assumption that administrators are both effective and ineffective in kind. Each measure also is premised upon a unique ethical base. Both of these factors comprise an admission of the fact that there are many different ways for administrators to perceive, to believe, and to behave in their professional endeavor. Role Theorists use the uniqueness of individual perception as a fundamental concept in their rationales about leadership. Fbr example, they maintain (1) that teachers rate themselves as more effective and more satisfied when administrator behavior, as they perceive it, approaches the expectations they posit as ideal, and (2) that role conflict exists when the expected administrator behavior as defined by one group is different from the role as perceived by the administrator, himself, or by other groups. Personality Theories, as well, are grounded upon psychological principles governing human perception. Bills and Hopper have structured three types of leader personalities on the basis of various attitudes that people hold about themselves and others. These attitudes stem from their unique perceptions. As a matter—of—fact, Bills and Hopper have premised their work on these seven basic assumptions from perceptual psychology: 1. Behavior grows out of perception. 2. If a knowledge of a person's perceptions is available, it is possible to predict his behavior. 3. When he behaves and we study his behavior, it is possible to infer certain of his perceptions. h. It is not possible for a person to perform in a manner inconsistent with his perceptions. S. The individual is what he performs, and what he performs is what he is. 6. The starting point in analyzing and describing behavior of an administrator is the determination of his perceptions as related to himself and to his job. 7. Changing perceptions would be expected to change behavior. # - in.5.3:...1;.3.§v. a ¢ . .. Ln. . 72.41. 5434:}. Sauna}......€.....$...,............;17......3.v.1.as.,,...x.~...,a....,..,.F.s. is...“ :..r.....,ii... ,1: in. .. a azure. 69 In the light of these research concerns, it seems reasonable and fair to assume that one of the important forces energizing studies of administrative leadership in education is a desire to understand the implications for education of the uniqueness of individual perceptions. Thus we may take the relativity and uniqueness of individual perception as one basis for selecting a set of assumptions which are relevant to a theory of administrative leadership in education. Another force which appears to be motivating research in adminis- trative leadership stems from a desire to improve education by upgrading educational administration so that our educational enterprise will be more effective in preparing people to live in accordance with a philosophy which puts_positive value on human growth and development. we caught a glimse of this force in action at various points in the review of the literature of educational administration. It emerged again in the definition of administrative leadership. One reason why the tools of systematic inquiry are being applied to the phenomenon of educational leadership is so that the educational enterprise can be changed in a programmatic fashion to impart more effectively a kind of training that will better prepare our citizenry for life in a growing, changing, adapting society. A more explicit documentation of this point is to be found in a published philosophy which scholars in the field of educational adminis- tration are presumably seeking to endorse through their research. he The National Council of Professors of Educational Administration has OOrin B. Graff and Calvin M. Street, "Developing a Value Frame- work for Educational Administration," Administrative Behavior in Education, ed. Roald F. Campbell and Russell T. Gregg (new York: Harper & Bros., 1957), pp. 131-13h. 7O gone on record as postulating the following fundamental beliefs upon which the study of educational administration in America should be based. These beliefs constitute a rather convincing body of evidence to show that research in administrative leadership in education is motivated by a desire to improve the effectiveness of American education in growing and developing our citizenry to the outer limits of its capacity. Declarations of FUndamental Beliefs The dedication of ourselves to public education and to the preparation of school administrators in particular requires, in proper concern for the ordering of our efforts, the acceptance, in full understanding, of a comprehensive structure of fundamental beliefs. Out of these beliefs, should our efforts be well-directed,may be expected to be developed principles and postulates guiding the further efforts toward the preparation of school administrators. Lacking such grounding, our efforts must be ill-directed and become productive of good only by happenstance and not intention. Application of intelligence to life problems. 923, we assert man's ability to improve his status through the application of intelligence to his life problems of what- ever kind. As a corrolary, we affirm that all men share in this ability. This faith is basic to our support of univer- sal education and to universal public education in particular. Necessity of social group action. Two, we affirm, supported by research and experimentation, that the improvement of living is best to be secured through peeple working together, that individual thinking and action while necessary to be done and necessarily precursive of group thinking and action is, in that it is partial, to that degree untrustworthy in itself. 71 This affirmation is basic to our holding that (within the limits of a democratic society) group discipline over individual is desirable and proper, and that the governing are respon- sible to the governed. we recognize, likewise, that determination of ends in the interest of social good is to be secured most likely in particular and always in general through group communication and action. Respect for the individual. Three, we declare that essential to one and two above is the coming into full being of each individual according to his nature and potentialities. This is the basis of respect for the individual human personality and the dedication of the educa- tor, whether teacher or administrator, to the individual concerns of each person whom the school touches in its programs. It is the basis for the provision in schools of Special services of many kinds, for cooperative supervision, for example, and for democratic relationships through the school organization and activity. Functional social organization. Four, we recognize that fundamental to the life of man as a social being is organization for collective achievement. we recognize further that organization in itself has no reality but is to be understood only in terms of the ends, immediate and remote, for which the organization was created. This means that as the ends of education change so educational organization must change and that educational leadership must promote the continu- ous study of organization and the maintenance of fluidity in each organizational structure. Administrator a group instrument. Five, we assert a corollary to number four above, that school administration stimulated by the group needs, interest, and desires is a process for which particular organization was created and that the individual administrator is an agent of the group or group which are to be served. This is the basis for holding that the adminis- trator is a facilitating and serving agent to 72 the learning situation in being when pupil and teacher come together in common educational purpose. Freedom of communication. .§i§’ we believe that adminis- tration has always as its immediate task the maintenance of constant, multiple-way communication through the organiza- tional structure, that in public education this means the ready flow of ideas among all persons in the school—community, understood as groups within a single school, a system of schools, and the community apart from the school. This is the basis for our contention for multiple-way obligations and privileges in school public relations in an idealized community school. Administrator as leader. Seven, we believe that as administration is the stimulating force to the process for which a social organization is created and that as the administrator is the agent of the group or groups in the administering of schools, the administrator shares importantly in the group-given charge to administration to work toward the ends for which the organization was setup. This is the basis for our holding that school administration is educational leadership and that the administrator needs to have a "super- vision" of the distant ends being sought. It is likewise the basis for our declaration that educational leadership is group-assigned and not seized from the group. It supports also the contention that leadership does not remove the leader from the group and that, for example, the school administrator as a leader of teachers is a teacher among teachers. nginistrator as educator. Eight, in keeping with number seven above, and in keeping with the belief that the ends of education are the significant objects of administration, we hold that the primary task of the educational administrator is leadership toward curricular accomplishment. This is the basis for our contention that the education of the prospective administrator should 73 be strongly purposed toward his gaining under- standing of education generally together with competence as a fine teacher, and secondarily toward the "kitchen" details of administration. Dedication of_public education to community;betterment. Nine, we hold further that the school administrator snares largely in the responsibility of public education to serve importantly in the bettering of democratic society. This is the basis for our thinking of educational leadership as of greater scope than that afforded by the physical limits of the school plant or the limits of usual school attendance. It is the basis for our contention that schools should make a dif- ference in the community. School-community'int_gration in education. Ten, as a corollary to number nine above, we believe that public education, formally organized, is part only of the educa- tional processes of social living and that the public school in the interest of greater accomplishment through common effort, desirably should share its activity with other social institutions and should encourage other institutions to join in a common educational undertaking. This is the basis for our school-and—community interest and the development of such aspects of the extended use of resources of both school and community, and the community-identified curriculum. Twofold evaluation of administration. Eleven, we believe that appraisal of administration, as of the whole educational activity, must lie in the terms of process and of outcomes. means and ends cannot be evaluated separately. How we do what we do conditions the ends which will be secured and, since the ends of the educa- tional effort are often far removed and subtle in character, appraisal of administration through study of outcome alone is not practicable. Professional intggrity and responsibility. Twelve, we believe that the school administrator desirably should be agent in the shaping of administration as a professional activity and personally and collectively responsible for the discipline of administrators in the larger social interest. This founded upon our conviction that the tasks of school administration are to be developed cooperatively by lay and professional people and by both preparing institutions and practicing administrators whose concern is the greater serving of society through professional activity dedicated to the public interest. Necessity for professional_growth. Thirteen, we believe that, as the tasns of public education multiply in a more and more complex world, the administrator must develop, in preservice and in-service experience, as a master educator. This is the basis for our program of preparation and development of school administrators and for our feeling that in working in the field of public school administration we havehin occupation of enormous social significance. hast important to us here is the fact that a concept of human growth and development can be taken as a second basis for selecting a set of assumptions relevant to the phenomenon of administrative leadership for contemporary education, since it is a major force motivating research in this field. Now, we have selected the unigueness of individualgperceptions and ggconcept of human ggowth and development as the bases for determining the relevancy of assumptions in a theory of leadership. The next step in building is to find some assumptions which conform to these bases. Ebmewhere in organized knowledge we must find some works which deal in a major way with the uniqueness of individual human perceptions and the phenomenon of human growth and development. This is the job of Chapter III. tharlan L. Hagman and Alfred Schwartz, Administration in Profile for School Executives (hew York: Harper Brothers, 19557, pp. 301-305:— CHAPTER III IE‘I'HODS OF STUDY (he day a science teacher in a junior high school presented his class with an interesting problem. He first held up a pencil for all of the youngsters to see, then he asked them whether the pencil was straight or bent. They agreed imediately that the pencil was straight. ll'he teacher then emersed the pencil halfway into a beaker of water. "Now,” he said, "Is the pencil bent or straight?n The class agreed that the pencil looked bent. ”Well what is the pencil 33$," asked tb teacher, "Is it straight or is it bent?" After a series of ms and giggles and In exchange of ideas, the class announced that the pencil was Leg straight, that it merely appeared bent when it was half enersed in water. '01," said the teacher, "but isn't it possible that the pencil may only appear straight when we look at it through tin atmosphere that exists near the fact of the earth?” 5 was pressing for an answer now. Reluctsntly, the class acknowledged that this night be true 3 but they argued energetically that host people would call the pencil straight. Well, what is this pencil, then, is it £25131 straight or is it ELI-ll bent, or what?" the teacher insisted. The youngsters decided that they couldn't really tell. 75 76 what is reality? The three-pronged dileltna, “hat is? How do we know what is? that should we do about what is? is probably as old as nan himself and has always been complicated by the differing ways in which people perceive the world in which they live and, consequently, by their differences of belief and of behavior. There is no record in archaeology, tradition, or history of when man may have first turned his attention and thought to the topic of human perception. Scetchy records of his attenpts to understand this phenomenon date back to Classic a1 antiquity. For a problem of its magnitude with profound implications for comunication and human understanding, it is surprising to find that contemporary scholars have not done very much to reconstruct our history of perceptual thought. let us begin this chapter, nevertheless, with a discussion of the history of perceptual theory. For even a fragmentary discussion of this topic, which we lust necessarily confine ourselves to here, will prove to be important to us in selecting a relevant set of assumptions in a theory of achinistrative leadership for contemporary education. The Rise of Perceptual Theog in Formal Research Edwin G. Boringhznotes that it was Heraclitos (in the Fifth Century B. 0.) who said knowledge comes to nan through the door of the senses. Protagoras (1:85-1:11 3.0.) maintained that the psychic life of people consists only of sensations. It was the Stoics who first used he Edwin G. Boring, Sensation and Force tion in the Histo of %rinental Eglog (New York: Appleton, Etna-y, Crofts, Inc. , 9 , Pp. " e 77 the figure of the tabula rasa, the blank wax-tablet of the mind upon which experience writes. Espadocles (100-1435 B. C.) supposed that objects give off from their surfaces or pores, effluvia, which act upon the senses to furnish knowledge of the outer world to people. numeritee (too-37o e. c.) and Epicuroe (3h1-27o B. c.) described these projections as faint images, simulacra or eidola of the objects which, being cmducted to the mind, give it acquaintance with the objects which they represent.h3 Such ideas as these, however, appear to have been of minor importance in the history of organized knowledge in Western culture until after the Renaissance. Boring believes that the concept of smsation became imortant in human thought by way of philosophical empiricists. He says, "knowledge comes to the mind through the avenues of the senses. For this reason empiricism has always been allied to sensaticnism. . . .111: Boring goes on to point out that problems of lumen perception were clearly '. part of intellectual endeavor in Western Culture from the middle of the Sixteenth Century on. It was home Hobbes (1651) who said that there is no conception in man's mind which hath not at first, totally or by parts, been begotten upon the organs of sense. John Locke (1690) depicted ttm mind as a piece of paper upon which experience writes. 'me mental element in this context was the idea which came from experience by sensation or reflection-"reflections being the mind 's knowledge of its owncperations. Bishop brheley (1709, 1710) held that hBIbid. “‘Ibid. , p. 3. 78 the human mind is the ultimate reality and that ideas are primary in the detenination of reality. Ideas were classified by Berkeley accord- ing to Aristotle's five sensor-sight, touch, taste, sound, and well-- and becam associated in the mind through experience. David Hume (1739- mm) called the sensory and perceptual data of the human mind impres- sions, using the word idea for the "faint copies” of impressions thich occur in muory and imagination. Hume believed that complex ideas were synthesised in the mind by association. Hartley (1719) picked up the notion from Newton that pheical action in the nervous system must be vibratory. He tbn paralleled vibrations in the nervous system with sensations and ideas in the mind. Hartley maintained that sensations depend upon gross vibrations in peripheral nerves and ideas, their copies, upon diminutive vibrations in the brain. Both diminutive vibrations and ideas cabined according to laws of association which Hartley had worked out.”5 An intellectual concern with understanding lumen smsation and perception was not limited to early British empiricists, however. Other schools of thought in several hropean nations were actively building a fund of knowledge regarding how people becune aware of the world in which they live. is early as 1662 in hence, Descartes referred to the lumen body as a machine which can be encited by the external objects which strike upon its organs of sense to move it in a thousand different ways. Condillac (1751;) used the analogy of a statue to explain sensation, perception, and behavior. With his status , Gondillac unlocked, one by hSIbid. , pp. 3-16. 79 one, the senses-efirst well, then touch, and so onnsknwing how its mind would be generated through this constant addition of more and more sense-experience. Ia )bttrie (171:8) and Bonnet (1760) wrote in a similar vei.n.h6 It was Thomas Reid (1765, 178m in Scotland who founded the school of faculty psychology and thereby helped to establish the primacy of sensation in psychology. is a matter of fact, Reid was the first to insist upon a distinction between unsation and perception. mgal Stewart (1792, 1827) reinforced Reid with less to say about perception and more to say about the intellectual powers of the mind. Thomas Brown (1820) brought Scottish psychology into relation with British associa- tionislua school of thought generated by early empiricism.h7 James Hill (1829) began an English school of psychology which is often regarded as the culmination of associationism. m1 pictured simple ideas as compounded by association into complex, and couplex into more cmplex, up to "the idea called everything," that might somehow be an associative compound of every idea of a thing. For a time, from about the last quarter of the Eighteenth through the first quarter of tin lineteenth Centuries, philosoplw with its infant field of psychology and its theories of summation and perception appears to lave grown apart from the thinking in the field of physiology. Charles Bell's discovery in 1811 and Ihgendies confirmation in 1822 of a I'muscular sense ," however, tended to bring ptqsiology closer to philosophy, hélbid. ”Lug. 80 psychology, and perceptual thought. These men found that name are of two kinds, salsory and motor. This dichotomy of nervous action into sensory and motor types reminded physiologists that the minds sensations were as much their business as the muscle '3 movements. Johannes Miller (1826) divided the sensory field into five--sight, touch, taste, sound, smell-~by his doctrine of mecific energies of nerves. He gave physiological meaning to tie difference by asserting that each sense has its own specific energy and can respond only with its own peculiar quality. By the middle of the Nineteenth Century the sense piv'siology of physiologists and sensationists psycholog of the philosophers were ready for synthesis."8 Lotse (1852) wrote the first physiological psychology. Wundt (1858) first conceived the notion of a physiological psychology as a new and experimental psychology that should apply the methods of science to the problems of the mind. For systematic structure in his work Uundt drew upon associationists. His book takes up in order the nervous system, the psychic elements (sensations and feelings), formation of smsory perceptions of space, time md intensity, movement and will, and finally tlm connection of mental processes through association, apperception, and consciousness. Vundt's psychology is an associa- tionistic sensationism. Fechner's experiments in psychophysies (1860), , Helmholts's researches in physiological acoustics (1863) and physiological optics (1856, 1866) reinforced Hundt's theory as did all the other sensory researches before 1870. Kulpe (1893) and Titchener (1896) “32.12. 81 continued research in this vein. They were concerned with counting tin variety of sensations within a given sense, such as discriminately different visual brightnesses, range of has, tones, kinds of touches, etc.” For some psychologists who followed Hundt and Titchener's traditial, experimental psychology emerged with a strong physiological bent. It disintegrated, in part, into researches on attributes of sensation, their nmnber and the nature of an attribute. Today,however, tbre is still considerable concern with the physiological aspects of lumen perception. For other psychologists, early oonceptials of human sensation in apiricism and associationism were taken up--particularly those which dealt with the static, observable qualities of reality-- and were employed in a new way through experimental psychology in what has hen called behaviorin. Since the turn of the twentieth Century herican smlars have emphasized the behavioral approach to psycholotical inquiry. 1': was Job B. Watson (1913) who invented behaviorism. hhav- iori. became accepted as psychology in the 1930's and has been subsumed by modern positivism. The similarity between positivismnthe view that an entity derives its meaning from an understanding of the operations by which it is observed and any term its meaning by an analysis of the language which gives it significance-wand stinks-response psychology as well as normative approaches to understanding human behavior is apparent. In this view sensation and perception are considered as physiological characteristics of living things, for the most part, and “9.1m- 82 emphasis is upon the observation of the externalities of behavior demonstrated by people and otl'ar animals.” The view that human perception should be the focal point for understanding human behavior appears to have been a minority conception down through tl'n ages. This notion was implicit in the thoughts about sensation and perception handed dove: in Western culture from Classical antiquity. It may have received a faint and rudimentary expression early in the empirical novement. Not until Gestalt psychology appeared, however, did the uniqueness of individual perceptions as a trans of reference for explaining human behavior receive a place of prominence in tin field of psychology. With the advent of newer conceptions of relativity in ptwsical science, the relativity of human perceptions rose in importance in psychological inquiry as a discrete orientation for explaining human behavior. Within this orientation, attention is focused on what goes on inside the individua1--upon the internal dimensions of lumen behavior—-and explanations of what people are, how we know what they are, and whtt we should do about it, are derived on this basins]. Modern Studies Premised Eon the Personal, Perceptual Point of View ' Eventually the personal, perceptual frame of reference for under- standing lei-an behavior was taken over and applied in any fields of inquiry. Evidence of the rising popularity in America of the personal, 50% 51 Ibid. 83 perceptual point of view as a research approach to explain how people behave is to be found in the following scholarly works which have appeared on the academic scene during the last quarter of a century. such men as Angel,” )hslcw,53 Hori and nuokhorn,“ Iecky,55 7 thesel'nan,56 mm,5 and Rogers58 have all approached the problem of explaining hunan personality from this general point of view. Krechevslqr,S9 leeper,60 and Snygg61 have used this approach to an understanding of the 6 psychology oflearning, as has Kilgard 2 in a recent analysis of the S 21.. legal, Foundatims for a Science of Personalit (New York: Commonwealth mind, I955. , 53A. H. lhslcw, “Dynamics of Persmality Organisatim," m01_0_3____1¢81 Ram"! : I- (19143), Elk-558. 5%. B. warer and C. Kluckhom, “Dynamic Theory of Personality," ed. J. EV. mnt, Personality and the Behavior Disorders (New York: Ronald, 1911);). SSPrescott lecky, Self Consisten : A Theo of Personalit (New York: Island Press, T9555. 56.1. H. mssernan, Princgles of Mo nghiatgy (Philadelphia: Saunders, 19156). 57 0. mm, Personalit : A Biosodal A reach to (1' ins and Structure (New York: Rarper a 55s., 1957,. 58C}. R. Rogers “The Organisation of Personality,“ American mast... II (1957). 358-368. "“"""" 591. Krechevsky, "Ibpothesis' versus 'ohence' in tin Pre- eolution Poriod in Sensory Discrimintion learning,” Universit of California Publications in Ps cholo , VI (1932) , 27-51:. 609.. A. Ieeper, "A Stuck of a Neglected Portion of the Field of Iearning--the Develop-ent of weary urgmiaation," Journal of Genetical Echelon, UNI (1935), hl-7S. 61”. avgg, ”The Need for a Phenomenological System of Psychology," wholggical Review, EVIII (191d), hdt-hZh. 62!. R. Hilgard, Theories of Ie;_arn_i_ng (New York: Appleton-Century- Crcfts, 191:8). 8h 63 subject. Bartlett's classic on remembering and a less-known but important research on the ans topic by Uses and Linea‘ both employ the personal, perceptual point of view. Iewin and his colleagues65 as 66 well as Sher-u and Cantril have demonstrated the ueoiulneee of this approach to social psychology. Clinical psychologists like Combs ,67 Rainfa Rogers,69 Rosenweig,” and many others base their theory and _ 71 practice upon the client 's personal field. Gordon Allport with his 72 personalistic psychology and L. K. hank with his "private worlds” 63?. C. Bartlett, Remembering (New York: )hcmillan, 1932). 6"“. Uses and H. Line, "The Influence of the Form .of Presentation Upon Reproduction: The Principle of Determination ," British Journal of w, mm (1937), 167-189. 65K. Iewin, et a1., "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experi- mentally Created 'Soc Climates, "' Journal of_Social thology, I (1939): 2717299. 6614. Sherif and H. Cantril, The thologz of Ego Involvementg (New York: Inlay, 191:7). 6 7A. U. Combs, ”Phenomenological Concepts in lat-Directive Therapy," Journal of Consulting gzchology, III (191:8), 197-208. 68V. C. Rainy, ”The Self-Concept as a Factor in Counseling and Nrsonality anisation' (unpublished Doctoral thesis, Ohio State University, 19 3). 69R0gers, m. Ci . 7 0 S. Rosenzweig, ”An Outline of Frustration Theory," ed. J. KW. Hunt, Personalit and the Behavior Disorders (New York: Ronald, 19%), 379-3 . 71 G. W. Allport, ”The Psycholo st's Pram of Reference," muloglcal Billetin, mm (191:0 , 1-28. 721.. R. Frank, 'Projective Methods for the Study of Personality," Journal of P hol , VIII (1939), 389-h13. 85 have been using the same frame of reference for quite some time. In the field of industrial psychology Elton Mayo73 and F. J. Roethlisbergern‘ have discovered the principle that the most potent factor in the produc- tion rate of a worker is not the physical conditions in his environment 75 have but the meanings which he ascribes to them. Snygg and Combs utilised the personal frame of reference. in constructing a general theory of hunan behavior. And the field analysis of automobile driving by Gibson and Crooks,“ an outstanding classic in the field of driver psychology, also is premised on the personal, perceptual point of view. In the area of teaching psychology, Robert Bills77 has employed the same approach for understanding the teaching process. All of these studies appear potentially useful to us in selecting a set of relevant asmmptions for a theory of administrative leadership in education. Each assumes the uniqueness of individual perceptions as a basic frame of reference from which other phenomena are observed. And 73Elton Eye, The Imman Problems of an Industrial Civilization (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 19 . 7%. J. Roethlisberger and W. J. Dickson, hnaggment and the worker (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1939). 75Donald mg and Arthur H. Combs, Individual Behavior: A New Frame of Reference for PsEholoa (New York: Mr & Bros., 191:9). 76 J. J. Gibson and L. E. A. Crooks, “A Theoretical Field-Anal is if Automobile Driving,“ American Journal of Psychology, LI (1938), 53- 71. . 77 Robert Bills, About Peo 1e and Teachin (College of Education, hrean of School Service mletin,a Vol. ffifié, No. 2: Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky Pmss, 1955). 86 the uniqueness of taxman perceptions was found in Chapter II to be one of the bases upon which relevant assumptions should be selected. However, upon closer analysis, it become apparent that many of these studies are not relevant to administrative leadership in education after all, even though they deal in a primary way with the relativity of lunar: perception. At the close of Chapter II we set out in search of a set of assumptions which not only dealt with the uniqueness of individual perception, but mich also dealt with the phenomenon of kmman growth and development in a major way. hat of these wa‘ks are not useful in this theory building venture because they do not deal in general with structuring principles which govern human developsent. For example, Xrechevsky's, “Hypothesis. versus 'chance' in the Presolution Period of Sensory Discrimination learning," and Ieeper's, “A Study of A Neglected Portion of the Field of learningnthe Development of Sensory Organization," are extremely limited in those facets of human grwth with which they deal. The (aim of these studies is specific not general understanding. Angyal's, andations for a Scimce of Personality, Maslow's, ”Dynamics of Personality Organization,” Mowrer and Kluckhorn's, "Dynamic Timery of Persmality,' Roger's "I'he Organization of Personality,” Sugg's, ”The Need for a Phenomenological System of Psychology," illport's, ”he Psychologist's Prue of Reference," and Frank's, 'Projective )bthods for the Study of Personality," are all concerned in «no way or another with legitimising the personal, perceptual point of view as a useful frame of reference for psychological inquiry. While 87 these studies deal thoroughly with the uniqueness of human perception, their main concern is not to conceptualize broadly upon what is involved in the process of human growth.78 Several of the studies focus upon the techniques of psychiatry and the identification of forms of mental illness. Their primary con- cern is to improve upon the ways in which mental illness can be cured or obviated. These studies include thserman's, ”Principles of Dynamic Psychiatry,” Combs, ”Phenomenological Concepts in Non-mrective Therapy,” Rain's, "The Self-Concept as a Factor in Counseling and Personality Organisatial," and Rosenweig's, "An Outline of Frustration Theory.” Bartlett's, Remenbering, Woes and Line's, "The Influence of the Form of Presentation Upon Reproduction,” and Crook's, "A Theoretical Field Analysis of Automobile Driving ," all dwell upon special cameras which are far afield fmm the task of explaining the general principles which lie behind human growth and development. Mayc’s, The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, and Roethlisberger and Dicksbn's, Manage? ment and the Worker, are examples of a psycho-therapeutic approach to solving the problems of industrial administration. mrphy's, Personality: A Riosocial Approach to Origins and Structure is an ecclectic theory of personality which employs, but fails to emphasize either the uniqueness of human perceptions or concepts of human growth. And Lewis's, "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior 78For a more thorough analysis of some of these studies the reader may wish to refer to Calvin S. Hall and Gardner Lindsey, Theories of Personalit (kw York: Wiley Press, 1957). Note particularly the table of wary-sis on page 51:8 in this text. 88 in Experimentally Created 'Social Clixmtes, "' as well as Sherif and Cantril's, ”The Psychology of Ego Involvements," are, as their titles imply, aimed at solving specific problems within the broader domain of the growth phenomenon.” Hilgard's, Theories of Iearni_ng, meanwhile, takes at its special task the analysis of several existing theories of learning. It is not the primary purpose of this work to conceptualize a new explanation of how people grow and develop. m the basis of this analysis, it is clear that many of the studies which employ the personal, perceptual point of view as a frame of refer- ence for research observation do not concern themselves in a primary way with formulating principles of human growth and development. There are , however, three modern studies among those mentioned above which do conform to the bases of relevancy cited in Chapter II for a set of assumptions in a theory of administrative leadership for contemporary education. These are Prescott Iecky's, Self—Consistergy; A Thegry of Personality; Donald alygg and Arthur Conb's, Individual Behavior:_ A New Frame of Reference_for Ps hole 3 and Robert Bill's, About People and Teaching. Each of these extansive explanations of lumen behavior assumes that the uniqueness of human perceptions is the appropriate starting place for understanding tin complexity of man in action. And each of those studies is devoted, almost entirely, to formulating the details of how people grow. Iecky's work, for example, is premised upon the following definition of personality: 791b1d., pp. 532-36, She. 89 The individual must define for himself the nature of that totality which he is. He must throughout life assimilate new experiences in such fashion as both to be and to appear a living unit. The practical consequence is that new habits are made, and old ones lost, not in terms of smer conditioning or habit formation, not in terms of isolated neurfl bonds ,but in terms of assimi- latim, as the individual conceives the forwagd step to be a continuation and fulfillment of himself. 0 with this cmcept as a starting point Lecky goes on to weave the details of how we grow. filygg and Combs start from a similar reference point. They call self-consistency by another name, self-organization. Like Lecky they are calcerned with how the human organism operates as a growing, adapting, experience-ass imilating creature . But they extend their conceptualizing into the realm of socialization and attempt to formulate an explanation of how membership in purposive organizations can facilitate or deter human development. Bills work aims to integrate many of the principles of human behauor which have emerged in perceptual psychology. he fashions an explanation of how people grow and develop on tint basis. Bills also deals with the special problem of identifying general types of human personality and explaining how each hinders or enhances growth and development in social situations. we may say, than, that tlnre are at least three existing studies in the expanse of organized knowledge which appear to be relevant to a theory of administrative leadership for contemporary education. These are: BoIsulry, m. Cit., p. 1. 9O l. Prescott Incky, Self-Consistenc : A Theorr of Personality (New York: island Press, 1915). 2. Donald Syngg and Arthur W. Combs, Individual h vior: A New Frame of‘_Ref_e£ence for Psycholoq {New YorE: Harper 5. Bros. ,T9h97. 3. Robert Bills, Lbout PGOQIB and Teaching ("College of Education, Bureau of School Service Billetin," Vol. mm, No. 2; lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky Press, 1955). mr next task in theory building is to abstract from these works a single set of assumptions. In order to avoid misunderstanding here, .let us break this job into four parts. First, we need a more detailed explanation of the nature of the personal, perceptual point of view as a frame of reference for understanding human behavior. Then we should define the unique terms and constructs which perceptual psychologists employ. Next, we need to extract and explain the basis assumptions about growth and development which are contained in these three studies. Finally, we ought to summarize these assumptions in outline form in a single Philosophy of Ellen Growth and Development. Then when we begin theorising about leadership in Chapter IV inferences drawn from the assumptions and applied to the operational definition of leadership set fat}: in Chapter II can be traced in a systematic and efficient The Nature of the Persmal, Perceptual Frame of Reference The studies of tacky, mygg and Combs, and Bills all start from the premise that hum perceptions are relative to the perceiver. This 91 means that each of us views the world somewhat differently, and, accordingly, we are motivated to act in different ways. If I belie ve that it is bad luck to break a mirror, I will be very careml when handling that. hit if I dismiss as superstition the notion that break- ing mirrors brings bad luck, I may handle them indifferently. I may even deliberately break a mirror or two Just to prove that the super- stition is unfounded. Or, if I believe that it is pleasant and relaxing to drink a Martini before dinner, I will look forward to an evening cocktdl with pleasure when I return home from the office. fit if I believe that drinking is ilaoral and degrading, I will avoid drinking Hurtinis and will seek other ways of deriving personal pleasure at the end of the day. If I believe in ghosts, I will probably be afraid to go out alone in the dark. And if I believe in phrenology, chances are I will lave the lumps on my head examined. how we view the world, how we evaluate what we perceive, deter- mines how we will act in any situation. It is true that at any point in time our personal perceptions may be cmditioned by our “imediate needs, values, physiological condition, our beliefs about ourselves and others, by perceptions of threat, and by the opportunity to perceive which is afforded to each of us. Nevertheless, basic to an understanding of hum behavior fra the personal perceptual point of view, is the notion that what we perceive determines what we believe 5 and what we believe deter-in” how we will behave. If perceptims are relative to the perceiver, what then is reality? Fran the perceptual point of view reality is rightly understood as an 92 overlappim or commonality of perceptions among peOple. Realities exist when people agree to ascribe certain meanings to things in the outside sorld. This is a book. This is a house. This is a cow. This is‘ a dog. This is a cat. languages, mathematical systems, ideas all becase realities by agreement. Perceptual theorists argue that people are able to think and to communicate with each other only to the extent that some coucnality in perception exists. This concept of reality is a difficult one to fathom, for most of us learn early in life to habituate ourselves to the realities of the human groups in which we live. Tin process of habituation is so gradual, and at the same time so pervasive, that we are usually unaindful that it is taking place. A person has only to visit a kindergarten class in any of our public schools, however, to sit for a while and observe how much there is for children to absorb of our realities-~customs, beliefs, behaviors, and traditials , as well as tools of cmumunication--to realize the plausi- bility of the perceptual notion of reality. A Definition of Terms Whrceptual Pszghologists In addition to the assumptions that perceptions are relative to the perceived; tint beliefs stem from perception; that behavior is motivaud by beliefs 3 and that lmman reality is calstructed by agreement in social situatims; perceptual psycholong employ a number of unique terms and constructs in workixg through tin personal, perceptual frame of reference. 93 Perceptions they define as any and all of the awarenesses people ease in a world going on inside and outside of thenselves. Beliefs are convictions or items of faith that people hold in regard to any and all aspects of the things that they perceive. Beliefs are derived from perceptions by evaluation and selection. Once held, beliefs tend to condition subsequent perceptions. Self-Concepts are the perceptions people have about themselves as thy believe they actually are. then a person thinks or says, "I am this," or, 'I am that," he is verbalizing upon his cmcepte of all. Ideal glf-Concepts are the perceptions people have about them- selves as tiny believe they would like ideally to be. men a person thinks or says, ”I wish I was this,“ or, 'I wish I was that,“ he is verbalising upon his concepts of ideal; §_e_1_f_. Phenomena is a word used to describe any and all of the things which can be perceived. Selfflaniaation is defined as the sum total of perceptions that people have about tbmselves and the world in which they live. gy; Organization includes peOple's concepts of themselves as they believe they actually are 3 people 's concepts of themselves as they believe they would like ideally to be; people's concepts of other living and non- living things as they believe they actually are; and people's concepts of other things as they believe they would like ideally for'them to be. Prgansit: to M9 is the discrepancy a person perceives betwen his self-concept and his ideal self-concept. 9h m is an essence that is perceived by people in those situations where they fear consequence to their self-concepts and in situations where they fear the destruction of their physical selves. m exists in those situations where people believe that unless they accept anotlnr person's values and beliefs as their own they will be hlmiliated and degraded. . Challenge is an essence of those situations which are perceived by people as problematical, but in which the problems appear solvable by t1: application of additional effort. Now, with these basic premises, definitions, and constructs clearly in mind let us turn to an explanation of the assumptions about human growth and development contained in the three studios we have selected for analysis. Mo mums About Ihman Grggth and Eve log-gut Ptee are motivated to flow themselves and their environment.” It are all self-interested creatures. We may believe in the dignity and worth of otlmrs and often we will act in their behalf, but whenever we do it is for the personal satisfaction that we derive through our own self-denial and self-sacrifice. “letter it is the acquisition of a new car, a better loin cloth, a more accurate how, a new fur coat, a more productive piece of land, a faster camel, or a more efficient set of storm windows, we are all concerned with placing ourselves in 81 8 %e Cit. pp. 10-20 28-29 132' and Iacky Q: Cit. pp. 3, 30’ 7: . o a 2 a s a 95 an ilprovedua lore hammious, more advantageous, more comfortable, and lore satisfyingurelationship with the world in which we live. Milding and naintaining such a relationship is of first order of inortance to us. Teachers who have bargained with school boards for improved salary schedules can attest to this motivation, as can school administrators who have led bond drives for new schoolbuildings and college dams who have coordinated institutional self-evaluation studies. he fact that we have a formal system of education and are concerned with advancing our control over environment through an endless extension of our knowledge appears to stem from a deep-set conviction that people can and do i-pmve upon their lot and upon the world in which they live. The activation of people to improve is aiaed at mm or 82 enhancing self-organization. In situations where people perceive threat, they act cmsistently to preserve or aaintain their self-concepts.83 If the schoolhouse suddenly catches on fire, we are eager to run outside to safety. We are content to preserve our self-organization and will settle for getting cut of the buming building alive. In situations mich appear ncnthreatening , however, people will strive to enhance self-crganisation.8h People also act to maintain thenselves at scee level of biological efficiency.85 And they will act to relieve their propensity to change in those situations which are repetitive.86 A BZDj-de, We 28-29, 793 “d 18w, g. Cite, PD. SS, 581'!" 80" 83, 93, I56? 83 1‘03! Cit pp. 30 83ff.3 and aaygg . Cit. pp, 52.77 101;, 107-8, 15.1, . ’ ’ L— ’ ’ ”new, g, Cit., pp. 833.; and sang, g, c11-.,, pp. 107-8, 111, 130. 851nm, Q. Cit., p. 1113 and Mg, Q: Git“ pp. 100-101. 861.”, me Cite, We 7’ 70-710 e . I e o a O a e o a c o s Q o . e e a Q 0 a a a a C e O O O C Q . . n u D v Q 0 96 In situations where people perceive that their actions taken to maintain or enhang self-organization are successful. the: cease to act in these 353.87 After a hearty meal, we find it more pleasant to relax in a cafertable chair than to contemplate food, and we are likely to seek satisfaction by reading a good book or by watching a program on television. The pleasant arenas of cooking that came from the kitchen are no longer vivid in our nonory after dinner. is Join Dewey has said, ends are means; and as we achieve each goal in life we are driven to love on to other ones. 1b notivation of o is to ove leads. then to cm their beliefs about self-egganization in a narmer they perceive to be good for th, and in this way the: grow and develop.88 The graduate student is likely to luvs different beliefs about the wc'ld in which he lives before graduation than he has once the diploma is in his hands. Similarly, the professor is inclined to view and to evaluate the world differently , when he is made departnsnt head, and department heads alter their per- spective when elevated to a dean's chair. In each case these people change tbir self- and ideal self-concepts as they IOVI into different social positions. Regardless of the social position in which they find themselves, beaver, they will seek to attain their ideal self-concepts, striving onward toward new and sore satisfactory personal goals. 3711314., p. 72. 112 11:81am, pp. 13, 83ff., 1103 and mygg, m. Cit., pp. 91-96, 97 Individual Eowth and development take jg; place in an environment and is whey affectedflbfl.” For ample, people seek to identify tbuelves with certain purposive social organizations, and these groups influence their growth and development in many ways.90 We seek to identify ourselves with lumen groups which satisfy our needs to maintain or enhance self-organization and tend to withdraw from groups whose approval we are unable to win, whose approval we do not care to win, or from groups which no longer satisfy our needs to maintain and enhance self-organisation.9l For example, if I an a sincere and devoted teacher, I will probably do n best to find employment in the educational profes- sion. It will not occur to no that I should rob banks or work in filling stations for a living. But if aw love of teaching is outweigbd by a desire to provide for my family at a higher economic level than the profession offers, I may go into business for myself, or find a Job in a shop or factory. Similarly, if I an unable to qualify awself for slploylent 1n the educational profession after rcpeated attempts, I 1:111 sooner or later look around for another line of work. The identification of a person with a group leads him to adopt and defend the standards and behavior of the group.92 Those standards are used to evaluate the behavior and importance of others.93 liabers of a group are inclined to accept and approve those people into seen to 89 I‘m, 2e Gite, PP- 1&1, 55, Bufv; and W88: w.) pp. 13’ 28-29, 78, 113. 90mg, 92. Cit., pp. 181, 186-9. 91Ibid., pp. 186-9. 92Ibid. 931818. 98 themtobeimportant; thepersonwhois able tobehave inways admired by members of a group will be sought as an associate, providing his acceptance will enhance the self-concepts of the members.”4 By the same token, people who behave in ways condemned by a group are avoided and rejected.95 For these reasons, social syptems are cgprised of EB! inter-deepdent lumen groups with members in each holgg discrete beliefs which are, in general, common to their own groups but which are to some extent unccmmon to otlnr gogs in the social gstem as a whole. Therefore, when human gpoups relate with each other to accomplish mtual goals, conflicts arise in decision m due to differences in beliefs about reality.96 Such conflict tends to engender threatL and threat tends to intensify conflict, Humanigowth and development does not result from social relations in this kind of situation, for in situations where apple pgrceive tku‘eat the: are motivated to act in mg deemed to maintain rather than enhance self-organiz..ation.97 The problem of social cmflict is a cannon one in the United States. (hr nation has sprung up in a relatively short span of time and is cm- prised of people from many cultural backgrounds with extremely diverse beliefs. Added to this is tin fact that Americans are rapidly becoming exceptionally mobile people. be frequently move about on this Job or that, and we think nothing of travelling several hundred miles overnight to new employment in a strange comunity. )bbility tends to faster _.‘ 9"].bid. 9518M. 961nm. , pp. 190-203. ”ma. 99 social conflict, since it serves incessantly to throw together within our population people who have different beliefs about reality. Appeals to the new, the novel, and the changing set forth by American advertisers and our enterprise of business also tend to create social conflict in our country, since people 's beliefs and ideal self—concepts are con- stantly being modified in a random, yet thormgh-going, manner. “' Because social conflict is the rulpyf socialization in the United States, rather than the exceptionJ we are able to classify Americans into thne brad pmhological ggopps according to the wayg in which they perceive trumselves and others in social situations.98 Some people believe that they are worthwhile but that others are less worthwhile than themselves. Some people, on the other hand, believe that other people are worthwhile but that they, themselves, are not. A third group of people believe that both themselves and others are of mtual «tartan?9 Of the three tms of Ersanalities, 0113,: those pgople who accept themselves and others perceive the realities of socifal situations and are pptentiplél able, to act in sopialisati‘sfzing ways.100 People who accept self and others are democratic individuals. They have a high regard for the dignity, worth, and integrity of people, including themselves; and they have faith in the efficacy of group action.101 ”Bills, Q. Cit., p. 20. 99nide, and W“, as Cit., pp. 136-11‘0. 100 Iecky Q. Cit. p. 3; Snygg Q. Cit. pp. 136-1110 187° and Bills, g. Giti, pp. 19. ’ , , ’ IOIBills, Op. Cit., p. 21. 100 People who accept others but not self may be socially sensitive, but in social situations their behavior is designed to secure the approval of others rather than to achieve their ideal self-cmcepts. Therefore, personalities of this kind do not grow and develop in socially satisfying “.102 These individuals who accept themselves but not otters believe themselves to be accepted by others, but in fact they are rejected by tinm. nieir attemts to enhance phenomenal self--to grow and develop-- are resisted by others. Such people usually fall back on authority to achieve their ideal self-concepts, or they seek to leave the social situation in which they are participating.103 Pe le's rce ions of sglcf_ and others can be measured throgp inference from their behavior find used to indicate their ggpwth and develoapt toward maturitz as social beings.10h As a matter of fact, striking relationships have been shown to exist between perceptions and behavior. Characteristic patterns of behavior have been found to acccmpany each of the three basic personality types. Characteristic tterns of behavior have been established for the 105 in which 0 le canmunicate with others. Poople who accept themselves and others tend to use the personal pronouns we, us, and ours; few evaluative adjectives and adverbs; and make few comparisons lozsnygg, Qp, Cit., pp. 12h, 126, 187. loBl'bidu p. 1873 and Iecky, Op. Cit., pp. 120-126. lohanvse. - Cit., pp. 21r£., 29-33, h3rr., 19o; Lecky, Qp. Cit. W. 19-25, 30-31, 2'- , 1133 and Bills, 92: Cite, pp. 22.2140 10531118, as Cite, Pp. 22‘2he 101 in their speech and writing. People who accept others but not them— selves tend to use the personal pronouns I, my, and mine ; many evaluative adjectives and adverbs directed toward themselves; and significantly more comparisons in their speech and writing than do personalities of the first type above. And people who accept themselves but not others tend to use the personal pronouns they, their, theirs; many evaluative adjectives and adverbs directed toward others; and significantly more comparisons in tteir speech and writing than either of the other two personality types mentioned above.106 Characteristic patterns of behavior have been established 1133;: respect to people's accuracy of perception.107 People who accept self and others tend to be of average accuracy in their perceptions of reality. maple who accept others but not self are significantly over- accurate in their perceptions of reality. While people who accept self but not others tend to be significantly inaccurate in their perceptions of reality. 108 Characteristic patterns of behavior hale been established with recast to the respmse of the various types of personalities to a task.109 People who accept themsele and others tend to achieve a steacyrate of progress through completion of an assignd task. Those who accept others but not thmselves speed up their efforts to complete a task in the presence of authority. Psople who accept themselves but not others slow down and decrease their effort as they approach completion of an assigned “.110 106 1 id. 107mm 108Ibid. 09I'bici. 1IloIbid. 102 Peale will act to maintain or to enhance self-organisation in social situatims dam. in largg E, on their amgtions of threat in those situationan1 Those people who accept themselves are less likely to perceive threat in social situatims and will seek to enhance self-organisation.112 m the other hand, those people who do not accept self are more likely to perceive threat in social situations and will seek to maintain self-organisatinn.113 Thus, strengthening people's beliefs in themselves is important for human growth and development. Bach meshed goal in a mrson's ideal self-concept setg mans of obstacles to be overcome for attainmentpnd these obstacles directly affect that moon's growth and develmtflh If I decide that a college education would be a fine experience for me, I will probably take into consideration the financial burden tint going to college entails, the money Iwill lose bynot woe-Icing while at school, and other factors of this. kind, before I actually enroll in a collegiate program. If a person believes tint a perceived goal is achievable, he will be motivated to enhance self-organist:ation.115 Konver, if a person believes that a perceived goal is too remote to be achieved, he will be motivated to maintain self-organisation. 116 The difficulty to be overcme, perceived with each new goal, as well as the prospects for ._ .— __ mama, 2,313., pp. 13741.0; and leaky, g. Cit., pp. 52-53. mm. my. lap. 137-1h0. my. lunch, Mu pp. Isl-M; and Sung, m" pp. 51, 101. 115nm, 2: Cit., p. “20 1161131d. 103 our overcoming it, determines in large measures whether we will be motivated to grow and develop in each goal structuring situation. At bottom, Imman growth and development is occasioned by aglc's swig perceptions of self-organisation and subsguent Mac in their behavior.117 Once people act and achieve a goal, their perceptions of self-organization are modified.118 Subsequent behavior is based on the new perceptions of self-organization.u9 The Eowth and develowt of Eagle, thrgggh modification of their gregtions of self-organisation, can be cultivated effecting 120 ' in at least five ways. is people gain more adequate information about their self-organization in social situations where they feel accepted, they will be inclined to grow and develop in socially 121 satisfyingwayw. hoplewillalso tendtogrowsnddsvelopina socially satisfactory nanncr as they restructure perceptions of their ideal self-cmcepts through experience.122 is people perceive incon- sisteneics among values in their ideal self-concepts, they will strive to relieve them, and in this way, as well, they will tend to grow and 3 Similarly, people who perceive inconsistencies 117%., pp. 75-77; and Sung, Q. Cit., pp. 311-51, 216. ' 11 118nm’ as “-209 pp. 52:53e 91b1de mania, pp. 7-13, 50-51, 76-77. 82:15. 137m; and Saves. m, E.’ ”e 28.29. 121 . my, me Cite, Pp. 19, saffe’ 825 “d mg, me cite, ppe 28‘29e 122 Lucky, 9, Cit., pp. 19, so, 5817., 82; and spygg, m, Cit., pp. 28-29. zauzzleciq, g. Cit., pp. 10, 19, 51, 58ff., 823 and axygg, Q. Cit., PP- "’ 0 develop effectively. 12 1011 between their self-concepts and ideal self-cmcepts will, in a threat free environnent, tend to grow and develop satisfactorily. 121‘ And as people experience success in relieving their propensity to change 125 they, too, will tend to grow and develop in socially satisfying ways. 'Since_pu;posive human gaoups are gmgates of people which, .2533! their reflection of human pgrsonality, in_som wazs behave like 291e, an undermding of the behavior of human goups can be approached in ash the same at that we much an understam__;_;__ding of human arson- ali {.126 like people, human groups come into being, grow and develop, saintain status, and go out of existence.127 Essen groups also respond to that the same way that people (10.128 Enos lush of the terminology, the laws and principles, and the instruments of measurement which we employ for understanding growth and development in people can be applied to the problems of understanding growth md development among purposive hmun organisations. 1 A Philosm of lunar: Growth and Dovelogpt h Ww-Pcople are motivated to improve themselves and their environment. ”tion 2.--fhs motivation of people to improve is ailmd at maintaining or enhancing self-organization. Corolla gun-In situations where people perceive threat, they act consistently to preserve or naintain their self concepts. lzhhclq, g, cm, pp. 19, 58ff., 82, and Snygg, m, cm, pp. 28-29. 125m, M" m. 28-290 126Mde, we 190‘203. 127 128 Ibid. Ibido, ms 181-1820 105 Corolla B.--In situations which appear non-threatening, people strive to enhance self-organization. Corolla 0. --People act to relieve propensity to change in those situations which are repetitive. Conga D.-People act to eaintain self at sons level of biological efficiency. Mgr-In situations where people perceive that their actions taken to naintain or enhance self-organisation are successful, they cease to act in these ways. mus-m motivation of people to improve leads than to change their beliefs about self-organization in a nanner they perceive to be good for then, and in this way they grow and develop. Aseppption §.--]hdividual growth and development takes place in an environment and is markedly affected by it. For example, people seek to identify themselves with purposive social organisations, and these groups influence their growth and development. Corolla A. ”People seek to identify thnselves with human groups which satisfy their needs to naintain or enhanee self-organization. Corey}: B.--People tend to withdraw non groups whose approval they are unable to win or from groups which no longer satisfy their needs to naintain and enhance self-organza ation. Corey 0, --Identification of an individual with a group leads him to adopt and defend the . standards and behavior of the group. Coroll_a_1: Ila-m identifying with particular groups, people adopt sets of standards by which they evaluate the behavior and importance of others. , Corollgz E.-lbnbers of a group accept and approve those individuals who seem to then to be important. 00mg Iv"!!! person who is able to behave in ways admiredbynenbers ofagroupwillbe sought as an associate providing his acceptance will enhance the self concepts of the members. 106 Corogfl G.--Peop1e who behave in ways condemned by the group are avoided and rejected. Ww-Social systems are comprised of many interdependent taxman groups with numbers in each holding discrete beliefs about self-organisation which are generally common to their groups but which are generally uncommon to other groups in the social system as a whole 3 therefore, when human groups relate with each other to accomplish mutual goals, conflict in decision snaking ensues from different beliefs and perceptions about self-organization to block the enhancement of self-organisation for all of tin people who are involved. Corollg A. --Social conflict engenders threat. Gorellgz B.-'l‘hreat intensifies conflict and deters . human growth and development by motivating lumen behavior which is designed to main- tain rather than to enhance self-organisation. Assunption-l.-Because social conflict is the rule of socialization in ' the United States rather than the exception we are able to classify Muericans into three psychological groups depending on the combinations of ways in which they perceive themselves and others in social situations. Corolm A.-Sone people believe that self is basically acceptable and that others are not as acceptable. Corollgz B.-Some people believe that others are basically acceptable but not self. Coggg 0.»an people believe that both self and others a ' are basically acceptable. We“ the three types of people, only those who accept self and others perceive the realities of social situations and are potentially able to act in socially satisfying W8. Ooro .-People who accept self and others are democratic individuals who have a high regard for the dignity, worth, and integrity of people, including them- selves; they have faith in the efficacy of group action. Cop-gym B. «People who accept others but not self may be socially sensitive, but in social situations their behavior will be designed to secure the 107 approval of others rather than to achieve their ideal self concepts. Corolla C.-People who accept self but not others believe themselves to be accepted by others, but are in fact rejected. Their attempts to enhance self-organization are resisted by others. Such people usually fall back on authority to achieve their ideal self concepts, or they seek to leave the social situation. W.uhcple's perceptions of self and others can be masured through inference fro- their behavior and used to indicate their growth and development toward naturity as social beings. Corolla A.--Characteristio patterns of behavior have been established for the ways in which people can-- mnicate with others. Core B.--Characteristic patterns of behavior have been established with respect to people 's accuracy of perception. Corolla C. «Characteristic patterns of behavior have been established with respect to the response of the various types of people to a task. gamma lO.--People will act to naintain or to enhance self-organisation in social situations depending, in large part, on their perceptions of threat in those situatims. Carola i.--Pecple who accept self are less likely to perceive threat in social situations and will seek to enhance self-organic ation. Corol Bun-People who do not accept self are more likely to perceive threat in social situations and will seek to nintain self-organization. ”Mien ll.--lach perceived goal in a person's ideal self-concept sets up perceptions of obstacles to be overcome for attainment, and thee obstacles directly affect his growth and development. Corolla A.--l'f a person believes that a perceived goal is achievable , he will be motivated to enhance self-organization. 108 Corolla B.--If a person believes that a perceived goal is too remote to be achieved, he will be activated to main self-organization. Amtion 12.-Hunan growth and development is occasioned by people 's changing perceptions of self-organisation and sub- sequent changes in their behavior. . Corollary L--Once people act and achieve a goal, their ‘ perceptions of self-organization are modified. Corollgz B.-Subsequent behavior of people is based on their new perceptions of self—organisation. legion 13.--The growth and development of people, through aodification of their perception of self-organization, can be cultivated effectively in a number of ways. Corolla: A.--As people gain more adequate infernation about self-organisation in social situations where they feel accepted, they will be inclined to grow and develop in socially satisfying ways. Carola 3: «is people restructure perceptions of their ideal self-concepts through experience, they will tend to grow and develop in socially satisfying ways. Gerol C.-—As people perceive inconsistencies among values in their ideal self-concepts, they will strive to relieve than, and in this way they will tend to grow and develop in socially satisfying ways. Corolla D.-As people perceive discrepancies between their self-concepts and ideal self-concepts, they will, in a threat free environment, tend to grow and develop in socially satisfying ways. Corolla E.-As people experience success in relieving their propensity to change, they will tend to grow and develop in socially satisfying ways . Asgmtion gw-Since purposive human groups are aggregates of peeple which, through their reflection of human qualities, in some ways behave like people, an understanding of human groups can be approached in much the same way that we approach an understanding of human personality. 109 Corollarz;§.--Human groups come into being, grow and develop, maintain status, and go out of existence. Corollfl B.--Hmnan groups respond to threat the same as ' people. Corollagz C.--The terminology, laws and principles of growth and development which we apply to understand individual behavior can also be applied to understand the behavior of groups. W What have we done so far by way of building a theory? First in Chapter II, we constructed a new, comprehensive operational definition of administrative leadership for contemporary education based on the research literature in educational administration. Next, we found that the uniqueness of individual perceptions and a concept of human growth and developgggt were appropriate bases for selecting a set of assumptions relevant to a theory of administrative leadership, since they were major forces motivating empirical inquiry in educational administration. Then we found that at least three selected works of Lecky, Snygg and Combs, and Hills conformed to these bases of relevancy. we abstracted from these works a set of relevant asgggptions for a theory of administrative leadership and arranged them.in outline form. we are ready now to turn to Chapter IV“where the assumptions outlined above will be used as a base for deriving inferences about the operational definition of leadership advanced in Chapter II. These inferences, as we shall see, will lead to the construction of explicit predictions about the nature of administrative leadership for contemporary' education. CHAPTER IV A THEORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP FOR CONTEMPORARY EDUCATION According to the criteria for building a useful theory which was assumed in Chapter I of this paper, three tasks remain uncompleted in this theory building mtum. A central one is to derive predictions about the nature of administrative leadership in education by drawing explicit inferences from the assumptions in Chapter III and applying time to the discrete aspects of administrative leadership as it was operatimslly defined in Chapter II. However, it was noted in Chapter I that the predictions in a useful theory must be organized within a logical, internally-consistent and reasonably simple structural frame- work. Before we actually begin to make predictions about leadership here, it is essential that we discuss and formulate a structure for the theory. Once the organizational framework and its dynamics are clearly in mind, specific predictions or the content of the theory as it may be called will follow more meaningfully for the reader. A third considera- tion in these pages is to present the materials of this chapter in such a way as to encourage research of any predictions about administrative leadership in education which are set forth. 110 111 Hence, Chapter IV will begin by considering the structure of this theory. Prediction-making within the structural framework will follow. In order to encourage research of the theory in the future, predictions will be cast in the form of hypotheses. Here and there in the discussion of content for this theory, discussion will also focus upon ways in which the testing of certain hypotheses can be approached. Structure Early in Chapter I we found that research in administrative leadership in education has tended to emerge in three areas-win leader- ship theory, practice, and in programs of instruction for training administrators. It is logical in view of these emphases to take the can three areas as basic dimensions for a general theory of leadership. We can call these basic dimensions by specific names, as follows: meansion InResearch into Theoretical Foundations for Understanding Administrative undership. Dimension II--Research into Effective Practices of Administrative leaders. Dimension III--Research into Effective Instruction of leader Trainees. The first dimension of this theory as its name implies is concerned with basic or fundamental research into the phenomenon of leadership. The theoretical predictions to be contained within it will focus upon the comon purpose of administrative leadership for contemporary education and attributes of effective leaders. The theoretical 112 principles upon which instruments for viewing and evaluating effective leader practices, as well as instruments for evaluating and improving the effectiveness of administrative leadership in educational systems, are all contained in the schema of theoretical research foundations set forth in Dimension I. The second dimension of this theory is concerned with applying some of the predictions advanced in Dimension I as theoretical founda- tions in order to develop an inventory of effective leader practices. Strictly'speaking, this part of the theory sets forth in hypothetical terms a.model for research into effective administrator practice. The third dimension of the theory is concerned with applying some of the predictions advanced in both Dimension I and Dimension II in order to predict what the principles upon which effective instructional programs for administrative leader trainees might be. under each of the three basic dimensions in this theory are organised all of the various aspects of administrative leadership operationally defined in Chapter II. In detail this outline is as follows: Dimension Ib-Research into Theoretical Foundations for2 Understanding Administrative Leadership. 9 A. anmulating one Common Purpose of Administrative leadership for Contemporary Education. B. Fbrmulating the Attributes of Effective Administrative leaders. 129The reader may wish to refer to Chapter II of this paper where administrative leadership is defined as researchers of educational administration know it. Note that all of the component parts of the structure outlined here conform to the aspects of administration “Cari-bed 111 M“? II. 0. F. G. H. 113 Formulating one Standard beam of Effective Administrator Practices. Fomulating one Standard manure of Effective Administrative leadership. Formulating one Standard Program for Improving the Effectiveness of Adminis- trative leadership. Formulating one Standard Threat Analysis. Formulating one Standard leadership Improve- ment Criteria. Formulating sane General Considerations. Dimension II--Research into Effective Practices of A. B. 0. Administrative leaders. Applying some Standard Administrative (parations. Applying some Standard Behavior Factors for Education. Applying one Standard Measure of Effective Administrator Practices. Dimmsion III-~Research into Effective Instruction of A. B. C. D. I. leader II‘rainees. Determining tb Purpose. Determining the Curriculum. Determining Effective Instructional Practices. Determining Effective Evaluation Procedures. mtermining Effective Internal Governance. Now, such an organization scheme provides a reasonably simple frmork for a theory of administrative leadership in education. This structure also provides a framework within which internal consistency among the theoretical predictions can be achieved--an essential feature 111; of any theoretical frame of reference which ultimately will be used in organizing the knowledge which testing of its predictions uncovers. logical consistency is manifested through this organizational scheme in the following manner. First, it is already understood that all theoretical predictions or value Judgmmts advanced in the theory will be based on one explicit source, the Philosophy of Eamon Growth and Develomt outlined at tin close of Chapter III. Second, the reader should note in Dimension I, A, of the above outline that all theorising begins with a basic prediction about a Cmmon Purpose of Administrative leadership in all contemporary Amrican educational systuns. Third, all of the other predictions within the thory will be so designed as to stem from, and be subordinate to, this basic prediction about the purpose of leadership. Thus all of the predictions within the entire structure of the theory will be arranged in a hierarclw. or logical scalar chain. If the'basic purpose of administrative leadership predicted at the start in Dimension I is found invalid through upirical testing, it is logical to suppose that the whole theory advanced in tiese pages is also invalid. Perhaps this cursory explanation of the thories strmture and internal cm- sistency can be clarified best by proceeding now with prediction-making. 115 Content Using the organisational framework outlined above, it is a ratlnr straightforward Job to derive inferences from the Philosophy of mean Growth and Development set forth in Chapter III and apply than to aspects of administrative leadership as this phenomenon was defined in Chapter I[, because tress aspects are now a part of the structure of this theory. Before moving on, the reader should bear in mind, however, that we are seeking to test one working hypotheses in this section of the paper which is that from Lset of assumfiions about human and develo t abstracted from selected works of Prescott leg, Donald Eng and Arthur Combs, and Robert fills it is possible to formulate at least one prediction about every aspect of administrative leadergm in edicatim included in the operatimal definition of this phenomenon. let us see if this working hypothesis is valid. Dimmsion I--Research into Theoretical Foundations for Underw Administrative leadership Formulating the Couch moss of Administrative leadership for Con- Leggy ca ion. nemesis l.--A basic aim of pooping: our society is to grow and develop. mtgsis 2.--(he omen purpose of all edmational systh in tlm American enterprise of education is to facilitate the growth and develop-eat of our oifisenry in socially satisfying ways. 130m. hypothesis is based on A Philosophy of am Growth and Develop-ant, Assumtions l and 2, Corollaries A, B, C, and D, in Chapter III, above. 131Ibid. , Asmmpticn 1h. 116 nthesig gnu-(me comes purpose of administrative lead- ership for contemporary education is to ensure that tin socially satisfactory growth and development of people involvz in alledueational system takes place. 2 Formulatig the Attributes of Effective Administrative_leaders. ”thesis gnu-The effectiveness of administrative leader- ship in education is directly related to the extent and degree that people involved in educational systems experience perso growth of a socially satisfactory kind. ”thesis §.--‘1'he effectiveness of administrative leader- ship is directly related to the eff iveness of administrative leader practices. Mitosis 6.-The effectiveness of adninistrative leader practices in education is directly related to the extent and degree that administra- tive leaders in educational systems per- ceive themselves and othlsg people involved _ as mutually acceptable. Formlatigg me Standard fissure of Effective Administrator Practices. mgesis Z.--Effective administrator practices can be measured empirically by sampling certain behaviors of the administrator and infer- ing from these how he is perceiggyg himself and ctbrs with whom he works. 132_I_b_i_d_., Assumptions 1, 2, Corollaries A, B, C, and D3 and 114. 133nm” Asmmption 8, Corollaries A, B, and O. my. 135Ibi.d., Assumption 7, Corollary C and 8, Corollary A. 135mm, Assumption 9. 117 Mtbsis 8.--Ue can sample and analyze an aduinistrative leader's pattern of commnication tpfietermine the effectiveness of his practices. Corolla}: A.--If there is a mum. tendency to use the personal pronouns we, us, and ours; few evaluative adjectives and adverbs; and few comparisons, he tends to perceive himself and others as mutually acceptable and is, therefore1 goat effective in his leader practices. Corolla B.--If there is a significant tendency to use the personal pronouns I, any, and nine; many evaluative adjectives and adverbs directed toward MnseIfg and significantly more cmparisons than the individual in Corollary A, he tends to perceive others as acceptable but rejects self and is, therefore, less effective in his leader practiigs than the individual in Corollary A. Corolla C.-If there is a significant tendency to use the personal pronouns they, their, theirs; many evaluative adjectives and adverbs directed toward others; and significantly more casparisons than either the individuals in Corollary A or B, he tends to perceive self as acceptable but rejects others and is, tbrefore, least effefifive of all in his leader practices. Mthesi 2.--Ue can sample and analyse an adainistrative leader's perceptions of reality to d termine the effectiveness of his practices. 137Ibid. , Assmpticn 9, Corollary A. 138mm,, Assumption 8, Corollary A. “obj-do, AMtion 8, carmm Ce V llama" Assumption 9, Corollary B. 118 Corollgrz.A.--If an administrative leader's percep- tions of reality are of average accuracy, he tends to perceive himself and others as mutually acceptable and.is, therefore most effective in his leader practices.”2 Corollary B.--If an administrative leader's percep- tions of reality are significantly over-accurate, he tends to perceive others as acceptable but rejects self and is, therefore, less effective in . his leader practises than the individual in Corollary A. Corollary_C.--If an administrative leader's percep- tions of reality are significantly inaccurate, he tends to perceive self as acceptable but rejects others and is, therefore, least eff ve of all in his leader practices. gngthesis lO.-éwe can sample and analyze an administrative leader’s response to assigned tasks to 1&5 determine the effectiveness of his practices. Corollary A.-If he consistently achieves a steady rate of progress through completion of the tasks, he tends to perceive himself and others as mutually acceptable and is, therefore, ost effective in his leader practices. Corollary B.-If he consistently speeds up his efforts to complete the tasks in the presence of authority, he tends to perceive others as acceptable but rejects self and is, therefore, less effective in his leader practicfiTtfi-the individual in Corol- lary’A. 1h?!§§g., Assumption 8, Corollary A. 1h3;§gg,, Assumption 8, Corollary B. lhiggig., Assumption 8, Corollary C. “5%., Assumption 9, Corollary 0. 1h€§2§g., Assumption 9, Corollary A. 1which, Assumption 9, Corollary B. 119 Corolla C.--If he consistently slows down and decreases his efforts as he nears completion of the tasks, he tends to perceive self as acceptable but rejects others and is, therefore, leastlfigfective of all in his leader practices. Formulating’ Che Standard Measure of Effective Administrative Leadership. ”thesis ll.-1'he effectiveness of administrative leader- ship in education is directly related to the effectiveness of practices by those who are involved in educational systfls below adminis- trative levels of authority. gathesis 12.--The effectiveness of subordinate practices is directly related to tin extend and degree that peeple involved in educational systems perceive thergselves and otters as mutually acceptable.1 mothesis 13.--The effectiveness of administrative leader- ship can be determined for an educational system by sampling the perceptions of rep- resentatives fra the various groups of individuals who are involved within 3.151 Corolla: A.--The same instrumnts cited above for measuring the effectiveness of achinis- trative leader practices through per- ceptions of self and others can be employed to measure the effectiveness of practices by all otter individuals sampled within the educational system. 152 CorolM B. when the representative sample of practices for people involved in an edmational system below administra- tive levels of authority we can infer mIbidu Assumption 9, Corollary C. M9329... Assumptions 6 and 1h, corollaries A, s, and 0. 150Ibid., Assumption 8, Corollary A. 151nm" Assumptions 9 and 1h, Corollaries A, B, and C. 1521mm, Assumption 9, Corollaries A, e, and c. 120 how the educational system is Perceiving itself and others.153 Corollary C.—-Sone educational systems will tend to accept self and others to a significant degree, in which case the administra-. tive leadersfiip within them is most effective.15 Corolla Ila-Sons educational systems will tend to accept others to a significant degree but not self, in which case the admin- istrative leadership within them is less effective than is the case in Corollary 0.155 Corollary E.--Some educational systems will tend to accept self to a significant degree ' but not others, in which case the adminis- trative leadership zithin the. is least effective of all. 5 Formulat (he Standard Pro am for rovin the Effectiveness of Administra ve dership. mothesis 1h.--‘fhe effectiveness of administrative leader- ship in education is directly related to the extent and degree that administrative leaders and people involved in educational systems increase the effectiveness of their practices.157 Mthesis l§.--'Ihe effectiveness of practices by adminis- trative leaders and other people involved in educational systems can be increased by applying to flair perceptions a Standard Program for Improving the Effectiveness of Administrative Leadership.]-58 15BIbidu Assumptions 9 and 1h, Corollary C. 15"Ibid., Assumptions 7, Corollary C, 8, Corollary A and 9. 155Ibid., Assumptions 7, Corollary B, 8, Corollary B and 9. 156Ibixi., Assumptions 7, Corollary A, 8, Corollary C and 9. 1571mm, Assumption 8, Corollaries A, B, and C. l 8 5 Ibid., Assumptions 1, h, and 12. 121 Corollary A. --A Standard Program for Improving the Effectiveness of Administrative leader- ship consists, in part, of the identifi- cation and removal of threat perceived by administrators and other people in educational systems through appgication of a Standard Threat Analysis. 9 Corollary B. --A Standard Program for Improving the Effectiveness of Administrative leader- ship also involves the application of a Standard leadership Improvement Criteria to the perceptions of administrators and other peogle involved in educational systems.1 0 Fomulatgg a Standard Threat Analysis. mothesis 16.--Threat may be perceived in any aspect of the planning operation in an educational system when, in making policy, determining purposes, aims, goals, or objectives. for the system; or when, in providing for material and human resources to attain the avowed ends of the system, a leader or any other person involved believes tkmt his intelligence and energies have not been solicited adequately. 61 Corolla}: A.--Sometimes the individual is not adequately solicited in sensing and defining problems relevant to the attaiment of the ends of the educational system and this may be a source of threat. 62 Coroll_a_ry B.-Somstimes the individual is not adequately solicited in exploring problems through such specific tasks as collecting relevant data, making inferences, relating problems to 159mm” Assumptions 2, Corollaries A and B; 6, Corollaries A and B; mm, Corollaries A and B. léolbid" Assumption 13, Corollaries A, B, C, D, and E. 162 161mm, Assurnption 6. Ibid. 122 people, and this can be a source or thmat e 16 Corollagy_C.--Sometimes the individual is not '—w adequately solicited in formulating possible courses of action to solve educational problems through such specific tasks as postulating alternative courses of action and predicting out- comes of courses of action, and this can be a source of threat.16h Corollary D.--Sometimes the individual is not ade- quately solicited in deciding which course of action should be taken to solve a problem relevant to the attainment of the ends of an educational system, and this can be a source of threat}65 Corollary E.--Sometimes the individual is not adequately solicited in evaluating progress toward chosen Eggls, and this can be a source of threat. ggpgthesis 17.-Threat.may be perceived in any aspect of the organizing operation in education when, in allocating human and material resources, designating jobs to be performed, or pro- viding for channels of communication among the jobs, a leader or a person perceives that progress toward attaining his ideal self-concept-as it is affected by the operation of the educational system-~13 blocked.167 Corollary A.--Soo1etimes the individual is unable to secure or utilize existing human or material resources for getting his assigned tasks done, as resources are being allocated, agg this can be a source of threat.1 163nm. léthid. 165mm. 1662mm. 1681bid. 123 Corollary B.--Sometimes the individual is unable to complete his assigned tasks as existing jobs are designated, an this can be a source of threat.1 Corollaly C.--Sometims the individual is unable to be understood and to understand . what is going on in an educational system as existing channels of com- munication which run up and down, back and forth, and diagonally across the organizational structure are provided; and this can be a source of threat.170 ‘ mothesis 18.--Threat may be perceived in any aspect of the staffing operating in education when, through recruitment, transfer, promotion, demotion, or expulsion, a leader or any person involved in an educational enter- prise finds that progress toward attaining his ideal self-concept is blocked. 1 Coronal: A.-Sometimes the individual is recruited by an educatimal system which has purposes, aims, goals, and objectives, that are basically incompatable with his ideal self-concepti and this can be a source of threat. 72 Corolm B.--Sometimes the individual is assigned tasks, or transferred to two or more tasks at the same level of authority which do not tax the limits of his interest, skills, talents, knowledge, and abilitiea; and this can be a source of threat.)- Corolla C.--Sometimes the individual is donated to tasks with duties and responsibilities which do not tax the limites of his interests, skills, talents, knowledge and abilitie ; and this can be a source of threat.17 1691bid. 17°Ibid. 171 Ibid., Assumptions 5, Corollaries A, B,C, D, E, F, G. 3 and 6, Corollary B. 17 2Ibid. 17 3Ibid. l7“Ibid. 12h Corollary_l_). --Sanetimes the individual is promoted to talks with duties and responsibilities which overtax the limits of his interests, skills, talents, knowledge and abilities; and this can be a source of threat. 7 C_o_r_ollary E.--Sometimes the individual is expulsed from an educational system even though the purposes, aims, goals, and objectives of that system are basically compatable with his ideal self-concgpt; and this can be a source of threat.1'7 memesis 12.--Threat may be perceived in any aspect of the directing operation in education through the application of controls to human behavior within the enterprise, through arbitration of interpersonal disputes, the delegatign of authority, and through authorizing.l 7 Corollary A.--Sometimes controls are dogmatically and inflexibly imposed on human behavior within educational sysiegs and this can be a source of threat. Corollary B.--Sometines disputes which generate inter- personal conflict are not successfully arbitrated in educational systems and this can be a source of threat.17§ Corolla: C.--Sometimes the delegation of authority and responsibility for accomplishing the tasks of an educational system are practiced in an overly restrictiig way, and this can be a some. of threat. 0 " Corolla D.--Sometimes the delegation of responsibility for accomplishing the tasks of an educa- tional system is not accompanied by the . dole gation of commensurate authority for getting the tasks 6‘38 , and this can be a source of threat. __ 176mm. 175nm. 177 d. Assumptions 6, Corollaries A and B; 7, Corollaries A, B, and C; an 10, Corollaries A and B. 181 1713naid. 179mm 18Druid. Ibid. 125 Corollary B.--Sometimes those in authority fail to exercise their authority or authorize inconsistently in educational systems, and this can be a source of threat.182 gypotlnsis 20.--Threat may be perceived by administrative leaders or by any other people involved in education through the activation of the administrative process in other social systems in which they hold membership, and these threats will carry over to their performance within educational ayatGMel FormulatingLa Standard Leadership Improvement Criteria. smothesis 21.-~A Standard Leadership Improvennt Criteria may be applied to tin perception of adminis- trative leaders and otlnr people involved in educational systems to obviate threat and, thus, to facilitate socially satisfactory hmnan growth and development within themlsl‘ Mothesis 22.--Socially satisfactory human growth and development is achieved in education by changing the perceptions that administrative leaders and people involved in educational systems have about their self-organizatial which, in turn, eventuate in habituated changes of behavior at new levels of self- idealism or self-realization that are con- sistent with the comon purpose of education.185 Corolla A.--Socially satisfactory grarth and develop- ment can be facilitated in administrative leaders and people involved in educational systems by providing thu with the oppor- tunity to gain more adequate information about their self-organization--partioularly 182 d. 183mu., Assumtions 6, Corollaries A and B; 11;, Corollaries A, B, andC. lathid” Assumptions 1; 2, Corollaries A and B; h; 6, Corollary B; 7, Corollaries A, B, and C; 8, Corollary A; and 10, Corollaries A and B. 18 5Ibid., Assumptions 3; h; and 12, Corollaries A and B. 126 the cannon purpose of education-- in sociallgétuations where they feel accepted. Corollary B.--Socially satisfactory growth and develop- ment can be facilitated in administrative leaders and/people involved in educational systems providing them with t!» oppor- tunit to restructure perceptions of their ideal self comepts through experience with the cannon purpose of education in social situations wtnre they feel accepted.187 Corollan C.--Sccially satisfactory growth and develop- ment can be facilitated in administrative leaders and people involved in educational systemaby providing than with the oppor- tunity" to perceive and to relieve incul- sistencies among values in their ideal self concepts, which are relevant to the common purpose of education, in socifg situations where they feel accepted. 8 Corollg D.--Socially satisfactory growth and develop- ment can be facilitated in administrative leaders and,peop1e involved in educational systems by providing them with the oppor- tunity/to perceive discrepancies between their self-concepts and ideal self-concepts, with respect to the cozmnon purpose of educa- tion, in igcial situations where they feel accepted. 9 Corolla}: I.--Socially satisfactory growth and develop- ment can be facilitated in administrative leaders and people involved in educational systems by providing them Idth the oppor- tunity'to experience success in relieving tbir propensities to change cmsistent with the cannon purpose of education. 190 186Ibid., Assumption l3, Corollary A. 187mm , Corollary B. 188nm. , Corollary 0. 189nm. , Corollary 1:. 190mm. , Corollary 1:. 127 Formlat Some General Considerations . Mitosis 22.-1'he effectiveness of administrative leadership in all contemporary American educational systems is directly related to the extent and degree that effective, external leader practices are imposed upon them.191 Corollary A.--External leader practices imposed by legal gongnmental organizations must be effective. 92 Cong B.-Externa1 leader practices imposed by voluntary extra-1e gal organizations must be effective.193 W.--m effectiveness of administrative leader- ship in all contemporary American educa- tional systems is directly related to the extent and degree that the general influence of organizations and individuals frcm the outside world of society is non-threatening.19h Dimension II--Rescarch into Effective Practices of Administrative leaders The second part of tln's tbory of administrative leadership for cute-purery educatim is concerned with research into effective adminis- trative luder practices in the day-to-dsy operation of educatimal systems within our emational enterprise. The specific ad which mmeasiea 11 seeks to serve is the on-gogg accumulation of an inventory of effective leader Eactices for the field of Anrican edmatim. This partofthetheorypmetobenomorethanasysteeoftocls er. constructs threagh which a more adequate understanding of effective *A A A—_—_‘ w —' v—v— 191mm. , “caption 6, Corollaries A and B. 19213111. 193]},1d. 19thido . 128 administration in education can eventually come. aich a system of instruments really constitutes a model for research into administrator practices, and as such it contains five elements. The first of these is concerned with applying tin Standard Administrative Operations, discussed and defined in Chapter II, to the task of structuring predictions about effective administrator practices as these people activate the administrative process. The second elauent deals nth listing the Standard Behavior Factors for edmaticn, also discussed and defined in Chapter II. The third element is devoted to generating a system of twpotheses for testing which refer to the effectiveness of leader practices in educatipn. These hypotheses are formulated by substituting specific helmvior factors, listed in the second element, into the hypotln ses cantained in the first elezuent. A fourth element of this model deals with applying a Standard beam of Effective Administrator Practices, the theoretical principals of which are predicted in Dimmsion I above, to test the hypothetically effective practices which are formulated in element three. The fifth, and last, element deals with recording these verified, effec- tive practices which the testing uncovers. Since this research model is merely structured in motlmtical terns here, no attempt is made in this stw to activate it by actually attempting to verify some specific leader practices. The model is a theoretical one, hence element five is blank at the present time. When the model is activated for research, however, the fifth element will be used as a place for recording verified, effective leader practicu. Exactly what hypotheses are tested and what 129 instruments are used to test them can tknls become cannon knowledge to all who are concerned with the study administration in American education. ‘ he natun of this research model can be clarified by looking first at the content of the first and second elements. Then a refer- ence to an illustration of the model will be helpful. Finally, an example of how the model might be used in actual research should lend understanding to this portion of the tbory. HEEL-'38 the Standard Administrative mations. , gmthesis 25.nThe effectiveness of administrative _ leader practices in edmation may be measurured as administrative leaders actiute amr one, any combination, or all of the Standard Administrative (mentions of planning, organizing, staffing, and direct in their educational systems.” ”thesis 26.-The effectiveness of administrative leader practices in planning is directly related to the extent and degree that the intelli- gence and energies of those involved in an educaticnal system are enlisted in corporate problem-solving.”6 Corollary A. --This means that the intelligence and energies of people involved in educa- tion avast he enlisted to make policy, determine purposes, establish aims, goals and objectives, or to provide for material and human resources with- in their educational systems. 197 195nm. , Assnption 8, corollaries A, a, and 0. 196Ibid., Assumptions 1; 2, Corollaries A and B; and 5, Corol- 1313108 " B, M C. 197 Ibid. 130 Corolla B.--'l'his means tint people involved in education must be encouraged to assist their educatimal systems in sensing and defining problems; exploring problems by collecting relevant data, making infer- ences, or relating problems to people; formulating possible courses of action by postulating alternative solutions to educational problems or predicting out- comes of courses of action; deciding; and evaluating progress toward agreed upon goals. mothesis_ 27.--The effectiveness of administrative leader practices in organizing is directly related to the extent ani degree that the activities of an educational system are coordinated.199 Corolla A.-Coordination may be achieved in educational systems by designating specific tasks which must be performed for the attainment of educational objectives.200 Corolla: B.-Coordinatim may be achieved in educational systems by allocating resources, both material and human, for getting the tasks done.2 Carola C. «Coordinatim may be achieved in edicational systems by providing for a thorough flow of communication up and dam, back and forth, and diagmally across the crgsnizaticnal structure of each enterprise.202 Mothesis 28.-The effectiveness of administrative leader practices in staffing is directly related to the extent and degree that people involved in education are assimed to duties and responsibilities which are commensurate with their interests, skills, knowledge, talents, and abilities. 203 198Ibid. 199%” Assumptions 33 6, Corollaries A and B; and 13, Corol- laries A and B. 201 202 20"Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 203nm” ”swim S, Corollaries A, B, and F; and 13, Corollary E. 131 Corollary A.--Hhen tmse individuals are 201: recruited, they met be so assigned. Corolla Bun-When tbse individuals are transferred to two or more different tasks at the sam level of 20guthority, they must be so assigmd.20 Corolla C. "When these individuals are promoted to duties and responsibilities at a higher level of authority, they must be so assigmd.206 Corollary D.--Uhen these individuals are denoted to duties and responsibilities at a lower level of authority, they must be so assigmdf:o7 Corolla Lumen tmse individuals are expelled fraa the educational sgstem, they must be so assigned.20 Mothesis 2 .-The effectiveness of administrative leader practices in directing is directly related to the extent and degree that people involved in educatim are energized to accomplish the ends for which their educational systems avowedly exist.2°9 Corolla A.--People involved in educatimal systems can be so energized by appl flexible controls to their behavior. CorollaryB. «People involved in edmational systems can be so energised by the successful arbitration of tmir inter-personal disputes which generate social conflict and threate2ll 208 ZOSIb__i,_d. 206mg. . 207mm. Ibid. 2°th1d. 2091bi___g. , Assumptions 5, Corollary A and c; 6, Corollaries A and B; 11, Corollaries A and B; and 13, Corollaries A, B, C, D, and E. 211 21°Ibid. Ibid. I I1: ul 5.3]. 132 Corollary C.-People involved in educational systems can be so energized by delegating to them unlimited authority and respon- sibility.212 Corollary D.--People involved in educational systems can be so energized by delegating to them commensurate authority with each delegation of responsibility.”- Corollary B.--People involved in educational systems can be so energized through the full and cmsistent exercises of authority on the of their administrative leaders. WM Standard Behavior Factors 432' Education. When we were constructing an operational definition of adminis- trative leadership for contemporary education in Chapter II, we said that administrators do not interact with other people in educational systems by merely planning, organizing, staffing and directing in the abstract. They interact through an administrative process, rather, in relation to discrete things in the educational environment. These things we called Standard Behavior Factors for Education. You will recall that we listed a number of factors, as follows: I. Sane of the factors pertained to the Educaticnal M, i. e., buildings, equipment, materials and supplies, and facilities. II. Some of the factors pertained to the Educational Brogan, i. e., admissions, curriculum, instruc- tion, evaluation, governance, and articulation with higher and lower schools. 212mm. 213nm. zmIbid. a: 91!!! I I£.l ,1afil: 133 III. Some of the factors pertained to Educational Finance, 1. e., capital funds, operatfinal funds, endowment funds, gifts and bequests, bond drives, fund drives, governmental aid, purchasing, dis- bursing, accounting, and budgeting. IV. Some of the factors pertained to Educational Personnel, 1. 6., salaries, housing, pensions, insurance, credit unions, sick leaves, leaves of absence, in-service training, teaching assign- ments, research assignments, and service assign- ments. V. Sane of the factors pertained to Edm ational Auxiliary Agencies, 1. e., student activities, student government, student counseling, student housing, student health, student welfare, student employment, student placement, student loans, student scholarships, maintenance of buildings and grounds, storage of supplies and materials, transportation, institutional study, institutional promotion, and auxiliary personnel. VI. Some of the factors pertained to Educational Governance, 1. e. , legal governing agencies: extra-legal governing agencies, constituencies and clientele, local comunities, controlling boards, administrative officers, and faculty. We did not assmne that this list was necessarily complete in its inclusion of all factors in the educatimal environment. Bit we did list the se many mecific items as Standard Behavior Factors for Education. New at this point we can formulate the following prediction: gmthesis gov-me effectiveness of administrative leader practices in activating any one or all of the Standard Administrative Operations can be measured with respect to any one or all of the Standard Behavior Factors for Education.21 2151mm. , Assumption 5. 13h Take the hypothesis about Planning, for example, we said the effective- ness of administrative leader practices in_planning_is directly_related to the extent and degree that the intelligence and energies of those involved in an educational_system.are enlisted in corporategproblem- solving. let's say we are interested in planning for student-health, since this is one of the Standard Behavior Factors for Education. By substituting this factor in the original hypotheses as though it were a research formula we can structure the following hypothesis about effective leader practices for actual empirical testing: The effective- ness of administrative leader practices in planning for student-health is directlz;£el§ted to the extent and degree that the intelligence and energies of those invglyed with student-health in an educational system are enlisted in corporate_problem-solving. By repeating this procedure until all of the behavior factors have been substituted.in all of the administrative operations, we can conceivably structure an entire system of hypotheses for testing the effectiveness of administrator practices in education. And these practices are cast in rather specific.concrete terms. Having built a system of hypotheses we can then apply the Standard Mbasure of Effective Administrator Practices to verify or falsify them. Those practices found to be truly effective can subsequently be recorded and preserved. we should consider for a.moment FIGURE 2 which illustrates this research model. Mich of what has been said so far in Dimension II will be clarified by the explanation there. 136 Ming the Standard wasure of Effective Administrator Practices. How will this research model actually operate when it is activated for research? Panel I contains hypotheses about the achninistrative process and its relatimship to the effectiveness of administrative leader practices. Panel II contains a list of Standard Behavior Factors for Education. Though this list is incomplete in its present form, the things contained in it are real aspects of the educational environ- ment through which the interaction of administrative leaders and other people involved in education occurs as these people activate the adminis- trative process. Panels I and II can thus be used in conjunction as a device for generating a system of hypotheses in Panel III relevant to effective leader practices in education. Actually, hypotheses in Panel I serve as research formulas of a kind. Behavior factors can be substituted in these formulas in myriads of ways until all canbina- tions of substitution have been exhausted. The next step in the opera- tion of the research model is to verify or falsify the hypotheses in Panel III by applying the Standard ibasure of Effective Administrator Practices in Panel IV. Those verified effective practices, along with the instruments used for testing them, can be recorded in Panel V. In order to explain how testing procedures actually work in this model, suppose we employ a specific example. Let us start with a hypothesis fron Panel I and follow through, step by step, the testing of it. For example, we might take methane 27 which is listed above under ”Applying the Standard Administrative mentions. " This hypothesis 137 from Panel I of the model specifies that the effectiveness of adminis- trative leader practices in organizing is directllgelated to the extent and dame that the activities of an educational system are coordinated. The extent to which specific tasks are designated, resources for getting the tasks done are allocated, and channels of communication are provided, are all specified as Corollaries to methods 2 . Let's say we wish to generate through this research formula a new hypothesis for testing the effectiveness of leader prac- tices in organizing for a bond _drive , since a bond drive is me of the Standard &havlor Factors for Education which pertains to Educational Finance. The hypothesis we would generate for testing should be stated like this: The effectiveness of administrative leader practices in organizing for a bond drive is directly related to the extent and degree that the activities of an educational system relating to the bond drive are coordinated. In order to verify or falsify this hypothesis, it is necessary to do four things. First, we need to construct a specific instrument for measuring effective leader practices which is based upon the prin- ciples of neasurement enumerated in Dimension I. Then we need to validate this instrument in the real world of educational systems. We might approach the task of validating such an evaluation instrument by using an adequate sallple of informed judgment to identify those edu- cational administrators in all types of American educational systems who were felt to be effective,or good, or successful. Then, after measuring their perceptions of self and otters, we would expect to find 138 a significant tendency among these individuals to accept themselves and otbrs with whom they work as mutually wortl'xwhile.216 If this expectation were borne out in reality, the evaluation instrument would be a valid one. A third step in verifying the hypothesis about organizing for a bond drive involves observing leader practices in the work-a-day world of an adequate sample of American educational systems. We would observe tie extent to which administrative leaders in trees educational systems decimated specific Jobs to be performed for attaining the objectives of the bond drive. Tb mater the specificity among desifited tasks to be Erformed, the greater the ppordination. He would then observe the extent to which administrative leaders were successful in allocating lumen and material resources for getting the designated Jobs done. The Eater the efficieng in allocating resources, the Eater the coordination. Us would also observe the extent to which administrative leaders in these educational systems provided for a thorough flow of camunication up and down, back and forth, and diagonally across the organizational structure of the enterprise. The; more thorm the flow of communicationI the sore thorggh is the eoordimtion. it this point, we could form Judgesnts about the extent to which the activities of the bond drive are coordinated in each edmaticnal systu. Are administrative la ders in each system average, 216For a clarification of this point, the reader may wish to refer to Hypotheses 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 unler Dimension I above. 139 below average, or above average in their ability to coordinate the activities of a bond drive? To formulate these Judgments scientifically, it would, of course, be necessary to uploy informed judgment before hand in order to establish natimal norms with respect to the ways in which edmational administrators activate the Standard Administrative mentions. Finally, we wmld apply the instrument for evaluating effective leader practices to tin perceptions of administrative leaders in tin edmational systems under observation. If we find that tlnre is a positive correlation between effective leader practices, as measured by the validated instrument, and an above average coordimtion of the activities of the bond drive in a significant number of educational systus we have sampled, tkmn the hypothesis we have taken for testing will have been verified. Accordingly, it can be recorded in this research model in Panel V as a proven, effective leader practice in education. So we have verified a kwpothesis about effective leader practice in educatim, but what exactly have we proven? well, for one thing, we have proven that an effective educational administrator must per- ceive himself and others in the educational system with which he works as mutually worthwhile. This does not give us web specific insight into the techniques of educational administration, however. Iet 's push on; we hive also proven that effective administrators must coordinate the activities of their educational systems, and that this involves designating specific Jobs, allocating resom'ces, and structuring lho channels of conmunication. Such knowledge of administrative technique is aseml, though it is still rather germ-a1. Let's keep going; we Imve also proven that the effective administrator must organize effec- tively in conducting a bond drive, and we have specified at least three things he must do in order to achieve effective organization. At this point we have reached a degree of specificity in our knowledge of edmatimal administration: which makes it easy for practicing adminis- trators, or for those learning to be administrators, to apply it in developing their own personal leadership techniques. This is not to say, of course, that specificity in our knowledge of administrator practices cannot be enhanced beyond what this research model presently provides for. Actually, the task of every empirical science is to push empirical knowledge incessantly onward to new levels of specificity and precision. There is no reason to asstnee that a science of educational administration is an exception in this regard. He might reasonably expect that subsequent theorizing and research generated by this model will produce more precise knowledge about effec- tive leader practices in education as time goes on. lbanwhile we must contut ourselves with the hope that tin details of this research model are sufficient in its present form to provide useful directions to those who would practice educatimal administration. Dimension Inn-Research into Effective Instruction of Leader hainees what should be the nature of an instructional progras which seeks to develop administrative leaders for contemporary edmation? men we apply several of the theoretical foundations for understanding leader- ship which were advanced in Dimension I of this theory, some rather interesting predictions about the Purpose, Curriculum, Instruction, Evaluation, and Governance of these programs can be‘ set forth. m0” e Mthssis 21. "The purpose of programs of instruction for developing leader trainees is to provide a supply of administrative leaders for our educational systems who are able to maintain perceptions of themselves and others with when they work as mutually' acceptable, once they have been trained.2 7 mrriculun. ”thesis 22.--1'he effectiveness of propane of instruction for developing leader trainees is directly related to the extent and degree that they assist leader trainees in a genuine interest in flair future Jobs. Mtbsis :2.”le effectiveness of programs of instruction for developing leader trainees is directly related to the extent and degree that they produce trained leaders who have the talents, knowledge, skills and abilities required 2171313. , Assumption 7, Corollary A and 8, Corollary A. 213nm, Assumptions 2, corollaries A and a; 5, Corollaries A, B, C, D, l, P, and G; 6,Corollaries A and B; and 13, Corollary E. for cmpetent perfonaance of the tasks that will be «aimed then on their future job-.21 Mhesis 35.4» effectiveness of progress of instruc- tion for developing leader trainees is directly related to the extent and degree that they subject leader trainees to intern practice in actual educational systems to perform the kinds of tasks that will be associated with their future Job-.220 motion. Mthesis §§.--‘1'he effectiveness of programs of instruction for developing leader trainees is directly related to the extent and degree that instruc- tional practices confers to the ideas set forth in the Standard Program for Inproving the Effectiveness of Administrative leadership. 221 W.--m effectiveness of programs of instruction for developing leader trainees is directly related to tie effectiveness of instructor practices as detersined by tin Standard team of Effective Administrative Practices,222 nthesis 31 .--‘1'he inventory of effective instructor prac- tices may be accumulated by the sale research that is eaployed to accumlate an inventory of effective administrative leader practices, provided the torn instructor is substituted for the tern Administrative leader throughout this meshed-.223 21911:“. 220mm. 221mm, usmtiom 2, Corollaries A, B, C, and D3 6, Corollaries A and B; 9, Corollaries A and B3 and 13, Corollaries A, 2 22 It ., Assumtiom 6, Corollaries A and B; 7, Corollaries A, B, and C; , Corollnries A, B, and C; and 9, Corollaries A, B, and C. 223 ., Assumptions 5, Corollaries A, B, C, D I, F, and G; 6, Core es A and B: 7, Corollaries A, B, and C; é, Corollaries A, B, and C; and 9, Corollaries A, B, and C. ul- 3:: 1;. .- viini 11;], 1h3 Evaluation. mothesis _3_8.--'1‘he potential effectiveness of administra- tive leader trainees for practice in the profession can be empirically determined by placing these people in intern situations in actual educational systems, performing at tleir future tasks, and then applying the Standard fissure of Effective Adminis- trator Practices to their perceptions and the Stsniard Measure of Effective Adminis- trative leadership to the perceptions of people involved in the system over whom the trainees work.22 Governance. mthesisj9.o-The effectiveness of programs of instruc- tion for developing leader trainees is directly related to the effectiveness of administrative leader practices within the educational system whergzghe leader training program is housed. The Theou in Sumnary Now that this theory building venture has run its course, it is helpful for understanding to smarize throughout Chapter IV. What has gone on here? First, we seemed that a three-dimensimal organisation, cuprised of predictions regarding leadership Theory, Practice, and Instruction was a logical and reasonably simple structural framework for a tbsry of administrative leadership in education. Under these three broad dimensions, we then organized the aspects of administrative zzhlbid. , Assumptions 7, Corollaries A, B, and C; 8, Corollaries A, B, and C; and 9, Corollaries A, B, and C. 225nm. Assumptions 6, Corollaries A and B; 7, Corollaries A, a, and offin 6, Corollary A. lid; leadership which were previously incorporated in a comprehensive operational definition of this phenomenon derived from the research literature of educational administration in Chapter II. Then we con- structed a series of predictions about the nature of leadership in education which were cast in the form of hypotheees and corollaries. Tiles we used as content for the theory within the organisational framework that had been provided. The predictions, themselves, were formulated through the process of drawing inferences from A Philosophy of Human Growth and Development set forth in Chapter III and applying them to specific aspects of leadership as it has been defined. We cast the predictions in the form of hypotheses to encourage future research of them. As a matter of fact, we explained at some length how research of the predictions contained in the second dimen- sion of this tteory might be instrumented. The purpose of del'dng into the realm of testing here, which is really beyond the bounds of theory construction, was also to encom'age future research of acne theoretical. predictions which had been made. As ’a frame of reference for viewing the phenomenon of adminis- trative leadership for contemporary edu: ation , and as a conceptual echem for relating the results of future testing in the area of educatimal leadership,this theory has attempted to achieve a measure of usefulness by being internally cmsistent in its logic and in its values. We started prediction-making in this Chapter from a set of assumptims about human growth found in perceptual psychology because a philosophy which puts positive value on this commodity was found to 11:5 be a basic motivating force in research in educational administration as was the desire to understand the implications of individual perception for education. Using this set of assumptions as a value base, we formulated some predictions about theoretical foundations for understand- ing leadership in education (Dimension I). These fundamntals were subsequently applied in making predictions to advance research in leader practices (Dimension II) and instruction (Dimension III). Internal consistency in the theory has thus been achieved by (a) assign- ing to the theoretical foundations one logically consistent value base which has as a central value the notion that people are basically motivated to grow and develop; (b) applying these foundations to predict how to upgrade the practices and instruction of educational administrators; (c) which,~if the central value is valid and the theory is verified, ought to result in an improved educatimal enterprise as improvement is defined by the central value 3 (d) the end result being an improved social order where people in increasing numbers will be educated to live in accordance with the philosophical ideals toward which our society is currently striving. In concluding this theory building venture, it will be helpful to study FIGURE 2 on the following page. A re-reading of Chapter IV in the light of this illustration may also prove helpful for understanding what has gone on here. 11:6 FIGURE 2 A THEORY OF‘ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP FOR CONTEMPORARY EDUCATION Research into THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS fer Understanding Administrative Leadership An Enterprise of Education Striving to Attain at Least One Common Purpose which Society Avows fbr it. INSTRUCTION of Administrative Leader esearch into EFFECTIVE PRACTICES of Administrative This theory is comprised of three dimensions-Jrheory, Practice, and Instruction. All of these dimensions contain content hypotheses which are based on a single philosophical inundation. The found- ation, itself, postulates the basic social-philosophical goal of the society in which administration takes place. Thus, the content of this theory emerges from the culture; while the research it engenders feeds back, through improved educational leadership and more effect- ive education, to upgrade the quality of life in the society from which it has sprung. That is to say, people will be educated to live more in accordance with the philosophical ideal toward which society is striving. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The purpose of this study was to develop a comprehensive and verifiable theory of administrative leadership for contemporary education. The function of a general theory of this sort is to serve as a.frame of reference for empirical research.in educational administration. It stimulates empirical research and, at the same time,it serves as a base for relating and interpreting those research findings which it stimulates. The need for a.comprehensive and verifiable theory of leadership in education has been felt for quite some time, according to researchers working in this field. An abundance of research.which.hae been facilitated through the combined resources of the National Council of Professors of Educational Adminis- tration, the American Association of School Administrators, and the Kellogg Foundation has appeared over the last half decade in regional research centers. The work of these Cooperative Programs in Educational Administration, or CPEA centers as they are sometimes called, has been decentralized in character, resulting in research of leadership that is regional rather than national in nature. Hence, there is a need to fermulate a new, comprehensive theory of administrative leadership 1h? 1&8 which can be used profession-wide to further systematic inquiry in this special field. The Stu A roach. This theory building venture began with an explicit concept of theory and the art of theorizing. It was assumed that a theory is no more than a set of conventions created by a theorist which embody predictions about the nature of an empirical phenomenon. Theories are never true or false in this concept, although their predictions may be either. There is no formula in existence for creating a theory either, but there is a criteria for evaluating a theory on the basis of its usefulness. A useful theory will be defined as one which meets these qualifications: (a) it starts from a comprehensive definition of an empirical phenomenon; (b) it brings a set of relevant assumptions to bear upon the definition; (c) it generates predictions about the nature of the empirical phenomenon by drawing explicit inferences from the assumptions and applying them to particular aspects of the opera- tional definition; (d) it incorporates its predictions into a logicallyb consistent and reasonably simple framework; (9) it stimulates subsequent research; and (f) it generates predictions about a given empirical phenomenon which are verifiable when tested with appropriate empirical data from the world of reality. 11:9 The Theoer Retrospect. Using this rationale about the nature of a theory as a basic guideline for investigation, Chapter II began with an analysis of the comprehensiveness of those theories which lie behind existing major smdies of administrative leadership in education. This phenomenon was found to be comprised of eleven discrete aspects or dimensions as it is known in the research of educational administration. None of the research studies analyzed in this paper included all eleven aspects of leadership in their explicit concerns. These aspects were set forth as follows: 1. Philosophy and purposes. 2. Identification of personal attributes of effective administrative leaders. 3. Measurement of effective administrative leader practices. 1;. Measurement of effective administrative leadership. 5. Programs for improving the effectiveness of American education through administra- tive leadership. 6. Identification of the sources of human conflict in educational systems. 7. Development of specific means for improving the effectiveness of American education through administrative leadership. 8. Relationships of educational systems to the social order. 9. An administrative process. 150 10. A specific environment which surrounds educational systems. 11. Programs of instruction for training new administrative leaders. Subsequently, in Chapter II a new comprehensive definition of the leadership phenomenon was constructed which embraced all of these aspects. The task of defining leadership was approached by seeking to explain how each of the elements listed above apparently functioned in the work-arday‘world of educational systems. For example, it was noted that administrative leadership for contemporary education is a pugposive endeavor. All educational systems within our total educational enterprise have at least one purpose in common. Eduzational administrators assume the responsibility of guiding the destiny of American education toward the accomplishment of that purpose when they accept the challenge of administrative practice. The effective adminis- tration of our educational enterprise--as effectiveness is defined by the common purpose-~depends upon at least one Standard Nbasure of Administrative Legder Practices and at least one Standard.hbasure of Administrative Leadership. The common purpose of all educational systems in the enterprise of American education can best be attained through at least one Standard Program forglmproving the Effectiveness of Adminis- trative Leadership. Such a program.aims to improve education through the improvement of leader practices which, in turn, will improve leader- ship. Any programmatic improvement of the effectiveness of American education, it was maintained, is likely to generate conflict which stems 151 from threat because it involves changing, in part, some of the purposes which individual educational systems seek to attain. Therefore, programmatic improvement of education will need to apply specific means for implementing improvement. It follows that administrative leadership for cmtexnporary education must encompass at least one Standard Threat MM and at least one Standard Leadership__l’mprove- ment Criteria. The phenomenon of administrative leadership in any contemporary educational system must be seen as embracing relationships with the general social order. Each system must, first of all, act in ,ég-r ‘f vhl“|l . \ ' p ' ( accordance with regulatory criteria set forth by legal and extra-legal organizatims. And each must succumb to the influences of other parts of society in a variety of ways. Administrative leadership was viewed, then, as including some General Considerations which pertain to the relationships of edmation with the outside world of our social order. Administrative leadership also subsumes an administrative process which is comprised of at least four Standard Administrative 0pe_z;ations-- planning, organizing, staffing, and directing. In addition, it embodies a host of specific facttrs in the educational environment. Tress factors refer to the Plant, Program, Finance, Personnel, Auxiliary Agencies, and Governance. It is in relation to these things that administrators and other people involved in educational systems activate the administrative process. The environmental factors were called Standard Behavior Factors for Education. 152 Finally, in order to ensure the accomplisknnent of the common purpose of education, it is necessary to replenish our supply of competent adninistrative leaders. Thus, administrative leadership for contemporary education also involves at least one Standard Program gustrggon for Develgpipg_Administrative leader Trainees. Such a program needs to take into account its m, Curriculum, Instruction, Evaluation, and its own internal Governance. Having constructed this operational definition of adninistrative leadership for contemporary education, the forces motivating leadership research were taken as an approach for determining the bases upon which a relevant set of assumptions could be selected for a theory of adminis- trative leadership in education. While this approach to the problem of determining relevancy for assumptions was by no means an exclusive one, it was assumed to be appropriate. Two bases for selecting a relevant set of assumptions were uncovered then. (he stemed from a desire among researchers in this field to understand better the implications for education of the uniqueness of individual perceptions. Another evolved from a desire among researchers to improve education by upgrading educational administration so that our educatimal enterprise will be more effective in preparing people to live in accordance with a philosophy which puts positive value on human grwth and development. In seeking to isolate some specific studies in the massive expanse of htulan knowledge which conformed to these bases of relevancy, tin history of man's concern with understandim human perceptions was 153 briefly surveyed. A number of recent studies which anployed a personal, perceptual point of view as a frame of reference for investigation were identified. Among these studies there were only three which were devoted primarily to the task of constructing the principles which govern hmnan growth and development. These studies were: 1. Prescott Iecky, Self-Consistenc : A Theor of Personality (New ork: Island Press, 9 S). 2. Donald Snygg and mm w. Combs, Individual Behavior: A New Frame of Reference for PsEholog {New York: Harper 8: Bros. , 191:9). 3. Robert Bills, About People and Teaching’ - ("College of Education, Bireau of School Service Bulletin," Vol. xxvnI, No. 2; lexington, Kvu University of Kentucky Prose,1955). A number of specific assumptions abeut the nature of human growth and development-«tint it is, how we know what it is, and how we can bring it about-were extracted frm these works; and their meaning was explained. The assumptions were then condensed in Chapter III into an outline of A Philosopr of fiman Gmwth and Development. Chapter IV was devoted to the task of making predictions about the nature of administrative leadership for contemporary education. In order to make the predictions understandable, this chapter started with a discussion of the structural ironwork of the theory. The general areas of Theory, Practice and Instruction were taken as. basic dimensions for a theory of educational leadership. This seemed logical since research in educational administration has tended to focus on the same three areas of inquiry. Under tress three dimensions we organized I 15b the aspects of administrative leadership in education as it was defined in Chapter II, thus producing the following organizational scheme : Dimension I--Research into Theoretical Foundations A. B. C. D. F. G. H. for Understanding Administrative leadership. Formulating one Comon Purpose of Adminis- trative leadership for Contemporary Education. Formulating the Attributes of Effective Administrative leaders. Formulating one Standard Measure of Effective Administrator Practices. Formulating one Standard masure of Effective Administrative leadership. ‘ Fomlating one Standard Program for Improving the Effectiveness of Administrative leadership. Formulating one Standard Threat Analysis. Formlating one Standard leadership Improvement Criteria. Formulating some General Considerations. Linension II--Research into Effective Practices of A. B. 0. Administrative leaders. Applying some Standard Adninistrative Operations. Applying some Standard Behavior Factors for mutione Applying one Stamiard Measure of Effective Administrator Practices. g-msion III-- Research into Effective Instruction A. of leader Trainees. lbter-ining the Purpose. 155 B. Determining the Curriculum. C. Determining Effective Instructional Practices. D. Determining Effective Evaluation Procedures. E. Determining Effective Internal Governance . Predictions about the nature of administrative leadership for contemporary education were then organized within this structure. They were derived by drawing explicit inferences fret the assumptions in A Philosophy of Himan Growth and Development in Chapter III and applying than to each of the aspects of leadership which the above outline contains. The predictions were set forth in the form of lwpotheses and corollaries to encourage future research of them. In Dimension II of the theory a particular effort was made to explain how certain hypotheses might be tested in order to encourage future research. Now, this theory was not only premised upon a reasonably simple framework. It was also a‘ganized in such a way as to be internally consistent in its logic and values. Prediction-making in Chapter IV was promised upm one logically consistent value base--the Philosophy of Human Growth and Development outlined at the end of Chapter III. Theorizing began with a basic hypothesis about the Cannon Purpose of administrative leadership in all of our educational systems. The rest of tin predictions about leadership stemmed free, and were subordinate to, the basic prediction about the purpose of leadership. If the basic 156 predictim were found invalid through empirical testing, the entire theory would presumably be invalid. Prediction-making in Chapter IV was seeking to test the following working hypothesis of this study: From a set of assumptions about human growth and develop- ment abstracted from selected works of Prescott leaky, MaldfixyggandArtlerombs, sndRobertBillsitis possible to fouuulate at least one prediction about every aspect of administrative leadership in education included in a comprehensive operational definition of this phenomenon. the working Impotheses were found to be valid. Evidence in support of this assertion can be seen in TABLE 2 where each aspect of administrative leadership defined and the number of predicticns about it derived from the works of these scholars have been smsrised It is interesting to note in passing that a set of aestmptions about lumen growth have proven to be relevant to a theory of leadership for education in more than a minimal way. mly one aspect of adminis- trative leadership has a single prediction made about it. We were able to formiate from 3 to 22 predictions per aspect for all of the other cosponent parts of this phenomenon frae the asmmptims which were employed. The extent of prediction-making about leadership from these assumptions fortifies in a round about way selection of the uniqueness of mm perceptions and a concept of human development as bases for determining relevancy. 157 m2 ANANAIISISOFTBEREIEVANCIOF mmwsmmmnmmmrm AMIOFWTMWFORMWABIEDWAM headache nausea up.“ can. #039» 9 98» denounces—em we pcossoamtfi magneto: magnesia 832»an 288a Repeated-.3 5 neg House» on. gflvssem Ho @3253"? cm h191 means 0 Mo was: 093% gen 7 9.3 gaseous» 5 0.3980 weififiofi 3.333 23%.“; 9:59"le new assumed 1:22 9.33.3. magnum 8 sequenced 33533 03308.3 gases smog 05.3093» no oBflgoe gag 3313 use use seeder— R‘ujber of predictions about leadership generated by A Phil L ‘v 0f Hum Growth and lbvelcment* Totals include all hypotheses and their corollaries. * 158 mleimitati Ekand Weaknesses of the Theory. In the opening pages of this paper, it was assumed that theories are never true or false, only useful or not useful. A useful theory we said must be evaluated in terms of its capacity to generate a comprehensive set of predictions about an empirical phenomenon. This capacity of a theory to generate comprehensive predictions is dependent upon the completeness of a particular theory's operational definition and tin relevancy of its assumptionsu-the extent to which explicit inferences can be drawn frm the assmptions to each aspect of the phenomenon that is incorporated in its operatimal definition. According to this criteria, is the theory of administrative leadership for con- temporary education set forth in this study a useful theory? Yes, it is. This theory started from an operational definition of leadership which incorporated all aspects of the phenomenon that the major research studies in the field contained. A set of assumptions were selected then which, as TABLE 2 indicates, was quite relevant to the phenomenon with which the theorizing dealt. And predictions about this phenomenon were comprehensive, encompassing all of the aspects of administrative leadership which had been defined. Even so, the usefulness of this theory can only be determined in a limited way at the present time. For according to the criteria of usefulness which was seemed, a theory must also be evalmted in terms of its ability to stimlate research in any field of inquiry. Predictions were cast in the form of hypotheses within the theory, and Dimension II 159 of the theory did deal at some length with the problem of testing predictions about effective administrator practices. These things were done to stimulate empirical research, but only time can tell whether or not research will be stimulated by the theoretical predictions. Another limitation to the usefulness of this theory, as we are able to evaluate it at this time is attributable to the nature of theory, itself. It was assumed at the outset of this study that a clear dichotomy can be drawn between the creative task of theory building and the testing task of empirical research. However, it was also acknowledged that the ultimate test for the usefulness of any theory is its ability to produce predictions which turn out to be true when tested with appropriate empirical data. Useful theories, in other words,mnst be verifiable. There is no way to determine, prior to testing the predictions of this theory, whether the hypotheses that were formulated are true. It follows that the theory of administrative leadership for contemporary education constructed in this investigation only conforms to some of the criteria of usefulness. There is no way to determine with finality in these pages the theory's ultimate usefulness. The most interesting discovery for me in this entire theory building venture was not the extent to which the results of this study conformed to an arbitrary criteria for a usem theory, but rather it was the things which this theoretical rationale, purportedly a general frame of reference for research, failed to encompass. The reasons for the failure are also of interest. A.most striking omission in Chapter IV is consideration of what could be called the EEEEE of activities within 160 educational systems. Surely the rate of speed at which events take place in purposive human organizations must have some bearing on the attutudes of both administrators and other people within them. Certain individuals seem able to perform well if they work at a slow pace. Others appear to perform best when they are under the pressure of dead- lines and shortages of time. What might happen when those who work slowly find tramselves working under the pressure of time? And what might happen to those who work swiftly when time hangs heavy on their hands? Does 29239, indeed, have a bearing on the climate of inter- personal exchange between administrators and other people within edmational organization? It seems logical to assume that it might. Yet this theory, which purports to be a comprehensive, general frame of reference for understanding leadership in education gives no con- sideration to it. How did this happen? It would appear that this omission is directly attributable to tin concept of theory and the art of theorizing which was asslmed at the outset of this stuch'. A theory we said should start frail a comprehensive definition of an empirical phenomenon. Then the research literature of educational administration was used to find out what the aspects of this phenomenon were. In subsequently defining leadership in education on the basis of these aspects, 331129 was necessarily excluded. This suggests that there must be more than no way to build a theory of administrative leadership for education. And if we are ultimately interested in extending systematic empirical inquiry in this special field we should probably strive to identify and 161 utilize a}; useful means of theorizing rather than limit ourselves to only one. Had the base for defining aspects of leadership not been restricted to research literature in educational administration, and had a more comprehensive and inductively selected base been used in constructing the operational definition of leadership, 33mm might have found its way into this theory. Had 2.91122 been incorporated in the theory, the resulting predictions about leadership would have been more comprehensive, hence, potentially more useful, than they turned out to be. Isn't it likely, too, that if the research studies which were analyzed to determine the aspects of leadership had waited for prior theorizing in order to formulate an operational definition of this phenomenon neither they nor this study could ever have come into being? There is another flaw in the concept of them construction arbitrarily adopted in this investigation which really imposes tremendous limitations upon the usefulness of its predictions about leadership. By defining administrative leadership in education on the basis of aspects of leadership found in the research literature of educational administration, a series of predictions about leadership evolved which, because of their level of abstraction, probably have little real meaning for practicing administrators and professors of educational administration who train new leader personnel. It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that the theory set forth in this study will have little impact upOn the practice of educational adminis- tration and programs of leader training, eventhough it may achieve 162 sons measure of success in stimulating empirical research. The notions that the neat conception of theory and the art of theorizing is only one way to build a frame of reference for research, and the realization that this theory is probably too abstract to be useful in leadership practice and instruction opens the door to several other observations about needs for further study in this special field. Inglications for Feather 8!:to 1. Wm tools of systematic inquiry to the field of administrative leadership for contemorary education may be only one El to approach an understanding of this phenomenon. Nowhere in this study have we questioned the assumption that it is within the realm of possibility to develop a science of administrative leadership for education. As a matter of fact, our theory-building enercise has been tantamount to an emphatic endorsement of this assumption. At this point, however, it may be wise to scrutinize the assumption rather closely; for if it is feasible to think that there is more than one way to build a theory of administrative leadership for education, it may also be possible to understand this phenomenon from more than one approach. A concern with alternative approaches, other than the use of tools of empirical science, to understand the leadership phenomenon stems from a broader acquaintance with the complexity of this subject now that this study has run its course. Administrative leadership in education, to be sure, is an extremely complex and detailed phenomenon. 163 Surely the reader sensed in Chapter IV, above, particularly in the discussion of Dimension II of this theory, that applying the tools of systematic inquiry to verify only one aspect of educational leadership is going to be a very arduous task. So arduous, in fact, that the specific Job of formulating hypotheses about administrator behavior for testing purposes could only be explained in this study. Space and time did not permit an exhaustive formulation of all predictions about effective leader practices that could have been generated by the research model explained in Dimension II. If we add to this the fact that the hypotmses for testing leader practices generated by the research model are still so very vague, so very imprecise, so very incomplete in terms of the totality of understanding that is ultimately possible here, then we can begin to appreciate what an enormous under- taking it is going to be to build a factual understanding of adminis- trative leadership through the scientific method. We cannot help but wonder whether tiers is not a more efficient approach to understanding educational administration. Of course, with educational administration we may at present be viewing an embryonic field of inquiry arising within the behavioral sciences which, in a few years with the formulation of more efficient instruments, will appear to lend itself quite efficiently to empirical investigation. When we contemplate the intricacies of this phenomenon, however, and see the crudeness of our tools for understanding now, we must adknowledge that alternative approaches to understanding adminis- trative leadership for education may be more useful in the long run. 16h It would be unfortunate, indeed, if after years of applying the tools of empirical research to understand educational leadership, we dis- covered that instead of understanding this phenomenon we had merely been dabbling with the nuances of understanding one way to understand. 2. If we are to succeed in applying_the tools of scientific inquiry to understand administrative leadership, some’priority must be egtablished_amggg the multitude of researchglobs that need to be performed. In view of the many, many predictions which.must be tested, verified, or proven false, to extend our knowledge of administrative leadership through empirical research, it seems only sensible to conclude that research resources must be used efficiently in testing the predictions of any general theory of leadership. ~Efficiencyin testing presupposes instrumenting research in a systematic fashion, avoiding as much.duplication of effort as possible. On the basis of the operational definition of leadership constructed in Chapter II of this paper, it would seem logical to focus research of this theory first upon verifying the common purpose of administrative leadership for contemporary education. Only after agreement has been reached regarding the common and of this leadership endeavor will it be possible to devise and verify evaluation instruments in educational administration. (hoe equipped with tin as tools researchers will be in a position to verify programmed procedures for upgrading educational administrator practices. When sufficient headway has been made in that area, our attention can shift to improving training programs for students of educational administration. It is possible, of course, to have research 165 in all of these areas going on simultaneously. But if we do, we must also recognize that there will be much repetition of effort, considerable back-tracking, and a lot of time wasted in advancing our knowledge of administrative leadership for educatim. 3. If we are pp succeed_ in aplegLng the tools of empirical resggph to understand administrative leadership, we must centralize the governance of leadership research on a national basis. In order to test the predictions of this theory, or any other general theory of educational leadership, in an efficient manner, it is fair to suppose that research activities should be governed by some central agency, commission, or other organization. Decentralization here can inad- vertently foster a host of deterents to the rapid advance of anpirical knowledge in educational administration. Rivalry for professional prominence among individual researchers, or groups of researchers 3 competition among higher institutions; and regional cultural differ- ences among our citizenry which make for inaccurate national understand- ings of leadership are but a few of the deleterious forces that can be unleashed by decentralized research in educational administration. It would seem that the notion of programmatic improvement in educational administration on a nation-wide basis has inherent in it the notion of centralized control of research. It. If we are to succfieed in applyingihe tools of scientific inquig to understand administrative leadershipL we must centralize and increase financial resources for research. The best theoretical predictions in the world and the best plans for researching them will 166 not contribute one wit to the programmatic expansion of knowledge about.leadership unless these plans can be expressed in fiscal terms. From what has been said already about the enormous Job of building an understanding of leadership in education through empirical research, it seems almost hopeless to suppose that one central organization could ever muster enough financial resources to extend knowledge in this field at a satisfactory pace. We must greatly increase the monies available for research in educational administration if we wish to pursue a scientific approach to understanding in this field and still hope for practical improvements in education to result from it. Beyond that, we must centralize control over these resources and budget them cautiously in order to get the maximum.amount of knowledge in return for each precious research dollar. 5. ‘Weaknesses in the theory45esultipg from this investigation suggest ways in which a bettengpneral theogy’offiadministrative leader- ship for contemporapy education might be constructed. In view of the extremely abstract nature of this theory and its‘resulting loss of utility, it seems reasonable to speculate that a general frame of reference for research in this problem area should probably begin with an operational definition of leadership which is derived from practical problems of educational administration faced by administrators, by other people involved in edhcaticn, and hy teachers of educational administration. A.general theory in this field.probably should also employ a set of assumptions which are comprehensive in their integration of known principles governing human behavior. This speculation is 167 premised upon the suspicion that an understanding of leadership is all one with an understanding of human behavior. It seems reasonable to suppose, therefore, that any theory of leadership will prove useful to the extent that it can incorporate knowledge acquired in the social sciences. In the final analySis, the construction of a general frame of reference for research in administrative leadership for contemporary education is prdbably the rightful task of a central research organiza- tion not one individual. For if interested researchers have a part in the formulation of such a theory, they will undoubtedly exert more energy to test its predictions. APPENDIX figlected Readings in Administrative leadership for Contemporary Education The titles listed below comprise an inventory of selected studies in educatimal administration and related fields which bear upon the study of administrative leadership in educatim. These studies are ’ representative of the major approaches to understanding leadership in education. The Traits Approach. Caldwell, 0. H. and E. Hellman, "Characteristics of School Leaders," Journal of Educational Research, XIV (1923’, LE. Choudhry, K. and Newcomb, ‘1'. H. "me Relative Abilities of Leaders and Non-Leaders to Estimate Opinions 01 Their Own Groups ," Journal of Abnormal Social-Pa cholo , XLVII 119325, Elf-37. Cowley, W. H. "The Traits of Face to Face Leaders," Journal of “normal and Social szghology, “VI 931 9 3 ”3130 Flemming, E. A. "A Factor Analysis or the Persmality of High School leaders,” Journal of lied m, m (1935). 55:32:65. Gibb, C. A. 'haderslfi.p," in Handbook of Social Penholog (Cambridge: Addison-Hesfi Publishing Company, me., 1951‘), n, Chapter I Gibb, C. A. "The Principles and Traits of leadership," Journal of Abnormal and Social PsEholog, 19 ’ 2 7’2 0 168 169 Goodenough, F. L. ”Inter-relationships in the Behavior of Young Children," Child Develomnt, I (1930), 29.1.8. Eollingworth, L. 3. Children Above 180 I. Q. New York: World molt 00., 19h2. mere, R. B. "The Development and lmplicatim of a Conception of leadership for leadership Education.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 19She Partridge, E. D. Leadershi Amen Adolescent Boys. (Teachers College EBB-trimtions to Edmation, No. 608) New York: Columbia University, 1931;. Stogdill, R. 1!. "Personal Factors Associated with leader- ship: A Survey of the Literature,“ Journal of Psychology, nv (191.8), 35-71. This source also lists 12}; studies of leader traits. Zeleny, L. D. "Characteristics of Group leaders," Sociolog and Social Research, mm (1939), lhO-h9. The Situational Approach. Aha, F. "A Study of Community Forces in a School District firing a Period of District Reorganization.“ Unpublished meters' thesis, Ohio State University, 1951:. Armstrong, V. L. "The Role of the Superintendent of School- Initiated Community Improvement. " Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1951:. Denmart, R. "Effectiveness of School Board labors,“ Administrator's Handbook, 1, No. 2 (September, 1952). Barnhill, G. D. "A Study of Group Opinions Concerning the County Superintendent in a North Carolina County,‘ Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina, 19514. Biffington, R. L. "The Job of tin Elementary School Principal as Viewed by Parents. " Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1951:. 170 Bullock, R. P. School-Community Attitude W Educational Administrators. TResearch report to the Center for Educational Administration, Ohio State University, 1956). Campbell, R. F. "The Social Implications of School Board Legislation." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Stanfcrd University, 19h2. Capener, H. B. ”The Influence of Social and Psycho- logical Factors in School District Reorganization." Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University, 1951;. Charters, H. w., Jr. ”Social Class Analysis and the Control of the School." Harvard Educational Review, XXIII (Fall, 1953 , -27 . Chase, F. S. "Professional leadership and Teacher Morale," Administrator's Notebook, I, No. 8 (March, 1953). " Chase, F. 8. ”Row to Meet Teachers' Expectations of loadersInp,“ Administrator; Notebook, I, No. 9 (April! 1953)e Clark, D. 0. “Critical Areas in the Administrative Behavior of High School Principles.” Unpublished Doctcu‘al dissertation, Ohio State University, 1956. Coladarci, A. P. “Administrative Success Criteria," The Phi Delta Kappan, mm (April, 1956), 281;. Corbally, J. E. I'A Study of the Critical Elements in School Board-Community Relations. " Unpublished Doctoral dissertatim, University of California, Berkeley, 1955. Cornell, F. G. "Socially Perceptive Administration ," [he Counts, G. S. Decision-Hahn and American Values in School AEEistrati on. (CPEA Series, man of Publications, TeacErs College) New York: Columbia University, 1951;. Davis, B. P. "Comunity Forces in a Recently Organized School District." Unpublished mster's thesis, (hie State University, 19514. 171 Garland, W. C. "An Identification of mccess Criteria in Educational Administration." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1955. Gleaner, E. J. , Jr. "The Identification of Certain Alignments of Social Power Impinging Upon Decision-Making of School Comittees and Superintendent in a New England Community." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1953e Goldhamuer, K. 'Conammity Power Structure and School Board wmbership," American School Board Journal, Griffiths, D. E. 'An Evaluation of the leadership of the School Siperintendentd' (A Digest of a Study, Cooperative Program in Educational Administration-- Digest Series, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College) New York: Columbia University, 1952. Gross, N. "Easing Strains and Tensions Between Super- intendents and Board lbnbers,u The Nation's Schools, LVI (October, 1955): ’43-’47. Haak, L. A. ”The General Public and the Public Schools ," Administrator’s Notebook, IV, No. 8 (April, 1956). Halpin, A. W. The leadershi Behavior of School Su r- intendents. (SCDS Series, Cofiege of Education) Won» State University, 1956. Hartzler, J. E. “Critical Areas of Administrative hhavior of City School Superintendents. " Unpublist Doctoral dissertation, mic State University, 1956. Eemphill, J. K. and C. H. Hectic. "The basurenent of Group Musicals," The Joumal of P33201032, XXIX (1958), 325-312. Bess, O. L. “Critical Areas of Administrative khIVior of Elementary School Principals." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, (his State University, 1955. Hunter, F. Commit Power Structure. Chapel Hill: burnt? orl [We—firms Press, 1953. 172 James, H. T. ”Our Itinerant School-meters," Adminis— trator's Notebook, III, No. 6 (Few. Jenkins, D. H. and C. A. machnan. Antecedents and Effects of Administrator Behavior. (CPEA Series, College of Education) Columbus: Ohio State University, 1956. Jensen, G. E. "The School as a Social System," Educational Romero; Bulletin, XXIIII (February 10, 1951?), 38-116. Kimbrough, R. B. “The Operational Beliefs of Selected leaders in a Selected County." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1953. bdsker, L. L. ”The Job of the Elainentary Principal as Viewed by Teachers.” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1951:. Moore, R. F. Nine Help Themselves. Austin: University Texas, 1955. more, H. A., Jr. ”Signs of Success in School Adminis- ttirazion,” The Naticns Schools, LII (July, 1953), 9" 30 more, R. E. "An Appraisal of Southern State Professional Associations of School Administrators. " Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for hflChBl’B, 1953e Mayer, D. C. 'Teachers' Attitudes Toward leadership as They Relate to Teacher Satisfaction." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1951;. Pierce, 1'. 14., et. a1. Comunit leadershi for Public Education. Eng wood fs, . J.: Prentice- “m"“1, 132., 1955. Ramseyer, J. A., et. a1. Factors Affect Educational Administratim. (SCLB Series, flags of Education) Columbus: Ohio State University,l955. Rosenberger, D. 8. “Critical Areas of Administrative bhavior of Local School Executives. " Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1956. 173 Rossi, A. S. “Determinants of Reliance on Religious leaders as Reference Groups and Their Effects Upon School Attitudes and Participants ," (Graduate School of Edtx: ation, Staff Memorandum No. 1) Cambridge: Harvard University, 1951;. Rossi, P. H. "The Publics of local Schools." (Graduate School of Education, Staff Research Mamrandum No. 2) Cambridge: Harvard University, 1951:. Seeman, M. "Role Conflict and Ambivalence in leadership," American Sociolgical Review, XVIII (August, 1953), 373-380- Sharma, C. L. "Who Should mks Decisions,” Administrator's Notebook, III, No. 8 (April, 1955). Shartle, C. 1.. Executive Performance and leaders%p. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, c., 1956. Shipton, J. M. "W110 are the Critics of the Public Schools?" (Graduate School of Education, Staff Research minorandum No. 3) Cambridge: Harvard University, 1951:. Shipton, J. N. "Reference Groups in the Formation of Public Opinion: Part I." (Graduate School of Education, Staff Research lbmorandum No. 6), Cambridge: Harvard University, 1955. Shipnuck, H. E. "Perceived Hostility in Administrator- Teacher Relationships." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 19514. Sternloff, R. E. ”The Critical Requirements for School Administrators Based upon an Analysis of Critical Incidents." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1953. Sletten, V. “A Related Study of the minions of Montana School Board lbmbers and Superintendents on Selected Board Policy Practices." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1951:. Story, M. L. "Defining the Administrative Function," Journal of Educational Research, ILVI (January, 5933 S 9 371-3714. _ 17h Sweitzer, R. E. "What They Don't Know Can Hurt You,” lAdministrator's Notebook, II, No. 3 (November, 1953). The Social Composition of Boards of Education. (Supplementary Educational Monographs) Chicago: University of Chicago, 1927. Van myn, R. G. "An Interpretation and Evaluation of Con- ferences, Conventions: A Workshop as In-Service Education for Superintendents of Schools in Michigan, 19h7-h8 through 19h5-50.' Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1953. Wilson, L. C. "Conmunity Power Controls Related to the Administration of Education.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1952. A value Theory. Mort, P. Princi les of School Administration. New York: FEGraw—EI’ 1 Book Co. , 19146. Several other studies which have gone into the Mort theory are to be found—in the bibliog- raphy of this source. The Denver $12191. Casey, V. and Corey, S. M. “Parents and Teachers Practice Action Research to Cope with Mitual Problems ," Educational Administration and Sugrvision, XXXVIII OCtOber, 19 2 ’ 3 - 0 Corey, S. H. “Cirriculum Development Through Action Research," Educational leadership, VII (December, 19149), 1147-153. Corey, S. M. and Halverson, P. "The Educational Leader's Ideas about His Interpersonal Relations ," The Bulletin of the National Association of Second School Principals, XXXVI (October, 1952), 57-33. Mackenzie, G. N. and Corey, S. M. "A Conception of Educational leadership," The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, XXXVfl January, 1952), 9-114. 175 A Field The 0:1. A mepMConcwt of the SuperintendencLof Education. (Resource Manual 1, revised) Albany: Cooperative Development of Public School Administration, 1951;. Criterion masures. Clark, D. 0. "Critical Areas in the Administrative Behavior of High School Principals." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1956. Graff, 0. B. et a1. RatinLGuide. Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1955. Mimeographed. Halpin, A. W. "The leader Behavior of School Superintendents. (SCDS Series, College of Education) Columbus:— Ohio State University, 1956. Halpin, A. w. "A Paradigm for Research on Administrative Behavior,” in Campbell, R. F. and R. T. Gregg, (eds.) Agninistrative Behavior in Education. New York: Harper & Bros., 1957, pp. 155-200. Hess, O. L. “Administrative Behavior of Elementary Principals.” Unpublished Doctcral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1956. Ramseyer, J. A. et. a1. Factors Affecting Educational Wetration. (SCDS Series, College of Education) Columbus: 0110 State University, 1955. Southern States Cooperative Program in Educational Adminis- tration. Better Teaching in School Administration. Nashville: Gecrge Peabody College for Teachers, 1955. Sprowles, L. and D. M. Snith. The Principal's-L Profile. Athens: The University of Georgia, 1955. Mmeographed. Role Theory. Bidwell, Charles E. "Some Effects of Administrative Behavior: A Study in Role Theory," Administrative Science Quarterly, (September, 1957), pp. 163-181. 176 Brookover, W. B. "Research on Teacher and Administrator Roles," The Journal of Educational Sociolog, XXIX (September, 19557, pp.1-l3. Cattell, R. B. "New Concepts for masuring leadership In Terms of Group Syntality," Human Relations, IV, No. 2 (1951), 161-1811. Chase, F. S. and E. Guga. "Administrative Roles and Behavior ," Review of EducationaLRewarch, XXXV (Get car, 1955) , 281-29 8 e Coladarci, A. P. and J. W. Getzels. The Use of Theogz in Educational Administratim. Stanford: University of California Press, 1953: Counts, G. S. Decision-Making and American Valges in School Administration. (CPEA Series, Bureau—of Publications, Teachers College) New York: Columbia University, 1951:. Getzels, J. W. "A Psycho-Sociological Framework for the Stucbr of Educational Administration,“ Harvard Educational Review, 1111, No. A (Fall, 1352')",— 235-215w Gross, N. , W. S. keen, and A. W. McEachern. Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Siperintendenpy Role. New York: John Wiley 8: Sons, Inc., 1957. Halpin, A. W. The leader Behavior of School Su rintendents. (SCDS Series, College of Education) Columbus: Ohio State University, 1956. Pierce, T. N., et. a1. Community Leadership for Public Education. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice- ‘11al""l,"'“'1nc. , 1953. Seaman, M. "Role Conflict and Ambivalence in leadership," American Sociological Review, XVIII (August, 1953) 3 3-3 0e Several of the studies noted under the Situational Approach in this reading list are so re event to Role Thegq. 177 Personality Theories. Hopper, R. L. and R. E. Bills. "What's a Good Administrator Made of?" The School Executive, LXXIV (March, 1955), 93-950 Bills, R. E. About People and Teaching. (Bulletin, Bureau of School Service, XXVII No. 2, College of Education) lexington: University of Kentucky, 1955. Bills, R. E. "Attributes of Successful Educational leaders" in Hopper, R. L. (Ed.) Interdisciplm Research in Educational Administration. (Billetin, Bureau of School Service, XXVI, College of Education) Iexington: University of Kentucky,l951, l6-38. Bills, R. E., Vance, E. L. and McLean, O. S. "An Index of Adjustment and Values ,” Journal of Consulting Psmhology, XV (1951) 257-2 1. See the several doctoral dissertations in educational administration completed at the University of Florida (1 E the Eat five Bars. General References. Campbell, R. F. and R. T. Gregg, (Eds.), Administratig Behavior in Education. New York: Harper and Bros., 19 . Moore, Hollis A. , Jr. Studies in School Administration: A Re ort on the CPEA. Washington, D. 0.: American Association of School Administrators, 1957. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books . A Developing Concept of the Superintendencz of Education. TRtesource Manual 1, revised) Albany: Cooperative Development or Public School Administration, 1951:. Angel, A. Foundations for a Science of Perscnalit . New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1951. Bartlett, F. C. Remembering. New York: mcnfllan, 1932. Bills, R. E. About People and Teacthg' . (Bulletin, Bureau of School Service, XYVIII No. 2, College of Education, Iaxingtan: University of Kentucky Press, 1955. Bird, C. Social Ps holo . New York: Appleton-Cmtury—Crofts, Inc. , T9730. Boring, E. G. Sensation and Perception in the Histog of wrimental Pszghologg. App etch-CenturybCrof‘ts, Inc., 2. Campbell, R. F. and R. '1‘. Gregg, (Eds.). Administrative Behavior in Education. New York: Harper & Bros., 1957? Coladarci, A. and J. U. Getzels. The Use of Theo in Educational Administratim. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1955. 6011er, A. w. (Ed.). Studies in Leadership. New York: Harper & Bros., 1950. Haglnan, H. L. and A. Schwartz. Administration in Profile for School Executives. New York: Harper & Bros. , . Hall, C. S.‘ and G. Lunacy. Theories of Personalitz. New York: Wiley P136889 19570 Halpin, A. The leader Behavior of School Su rintendents. (SCDS Series, 001530 of Education) Columbus: Ohio State University, 1956. 178 179 Hilgard, E. R. Theories of learning. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 19h8. Incky, P.’ Self-Consistenc : A Theo of Personalit . New York: Island Press, 1955. Mackenzie, G. N. ; S. N.Corey; and Associates. Instructional Leadershi . New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1951;. Masserman, J. E. Principles of manic gallium. Philadelphia: samdors, 19 0 Mayo, E. The Social Problans of an Industrial Givilizatim. Boston: DiVision of Research, Harvard Business School, 19 . lblby, E. O. Administering Commit; Education. mglewood Cliffs, Ne Jo: Mice-ml , bee, l e Mort, P. Princi les of School Administration. New York: Mraw- Hill Book ‘Co., 19135. Mirphy, G. Personalit : A Biosocial A roach to Or s and Structure. Ne? York: Mr I Bros., 195?. Rmseyer, J. A. , et. a1. Factcrs Affect Educatimal Administration. (SCDS Series, College of Emcatfi) Columbus: Ohio State University, 1955. Roethlisberger, F. J. and w. J. Dickson. moment and the Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939. Sherif, M. and H. Cantril. The Eulogy of Ego Involvements. New York: Wiley, 1914?. 313mg, D. and A. N. Combs. Individual Behavior: A New Frame of Reference for Echelog. New York: Eerper I Bros. , 193. Southern States Cooperative Program in Educatimal Administration. Better 1%ng in School Administration. Nashville: George Paabody llege for Teachers, 9 . Weber, C. A. and H. E. Weber. Mdauntals of Educational Leadershi . New York: lersw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , I955. 180 Articles and Periodicals Allport, C. W. "The Psychologist '8 Frame of Reference ," Lezcho- logical Bulletin, mm (19140), 1-28. Canlpbell, R. F. 'Situatimal Factors in Educational Administraticn," in Re Fe MMII and Re To Gregg, (Eds. )e Adllthlistratifl Behavior in Education. New York: Harper & Bros., 1957, Epter VII, 228:238. Class, F. S. and E. G. Guba. "Administrative Roles and Behavior," Review of Educatimal Research, XXXV (October, 1955) 281-298. Combs , A. W. 'Plnnonenological Concepts in Non-Directive Therapy ,“ Journal of Consult_:l_n_g EgghoIogy, XII (l9h8), 197-208. Frank, L. K. "Projective Methods for the Stu of Personality," Journal of tholog, VIII (1939). 389- 3. Gibson, J. J. and L. E.A. Crooks, “A Theoretical Field-Analysis of Automobile Driving ," American Journal of Pmolog, LI (1938), 163-1.71. Graft, O. B. and C. M. Street. “Daveloping a Value Framework for Educational Administratim,' in R. 1". Campbell and R. T. Gregg, (Eds.). Administrative Behavior in Education. New York: Harper & 50s., 1957, Chapter IV, 120-158. Griffiths, D. ”Toward a Theory of Administrative Behavior ," in R. F. Campbell and R. ‘1'. Gregg, (Eds. ). Administrative Behavior in Question. New York: Harper 8: Bros., I957, ESE-r Y, 358-592. Halpin, A. W. 'A Paradigm for Research on Administrator mum,“ in Campbell, R. F. mid R. T. Gregg, (Eds. ). Administrative Behavior in Education. New York: Harper & Bros., 1957, war V, 33-200. ' Hopper, R. 1.. and R. s. mus, “What's A Good Administrator lhde or?" The School Executive, Lmv (March, 1955), 93-95. Krechevsky, I. "'m'pothesis' versus 'Chance' in the Presolution Period in Sensory Mscrimination learning," Universit of California; Publications in PM, VI (1932), 27-53. leeper, R. A. "A Study of a Neglected Portion of the Field of Learninguthe Ibvelopnent of Senso Organis atim," Journal of Genetical tholog, XLVI (1935), 1-75. 181 Lewin, N., et. al. "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created 'Social Climates," Journal of Social P cholo , I melow, A. H. "Dynamics of Personality Organization," Pflchological lbwrer, O. H. and C. Kluckhorn, "Dynamic Theory of Personality," in J. PbV. Hunt (Ed.). Personality and the Behavior Disorders. New York: Ronald, 191m. Pierce, T. H. and E. C. lbrrill, Jr. "The Individual and Administrator Behavior," in R. F. Campbell and R. T. Gregg, (Eds.), Adminis- trative Behavior in Education. New York: Harper & Bros. , 1957, al-a'II-I-lll-l’ter fig 318-3330 Rogers, C. R. ”The Organization of Personality," American P cholo ist, II (191m, 358-368. Rosenzweig S. "An Outline of Frustration Theory," in J. MN. Hunt, (Ed.). Personalitg and the fihavior Disorders. New York: Ronald, 9 , 379- 880 Wag, D. "The Need for a Phenomenological S stem of Psychology," musical Review, nvm (191.1), hog-1:21;. bee, w. and W. Line. ”The Influence of the Fons of Presentation Upon Reproduction: The Principle of Determination,” British Journal of Psygholog, XIVIII (1937), 167-189. Unpublished rhterial Clark, D. 0. ”Critical Areas in the Administrative Behavior of mgh School Principals.“ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1956. Graff, O. B. and Associates. Ra Guide. Knoxville: College of Education, University of fiasco, 1955. Nimeographed. Hess, O. L. "Administrative Behavior of Elemmtary Principals." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1955. Rainy, V.C. "The Self-Concept as a Factor in Counseling and Personality Organizatimfl' Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1943. Sprowles, L. and D. limith. The Principal's Profile. Athens: The University of Georgia, lmgraphed. t-coom USE ONLY MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES 1W “WI ‘|\ W “I WI NH ll WWI“ “I m ”M ll” WI 31293103809822