u

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
A Study of Perceived Leader Behaviors and Communication

Behaviors among Elementary School Principals and Teachers

presented by

Sharon Johnson Wheeler

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for. .
Ph D Administration and

41331331,, Hiqher Education v
'(Educational Administration)

. ‘
1' [.1'IV." I ,- ‘1'} I //l' _‘ . :1

’1’ L , ' c
v K x” - . I 1 _ V'

/ ' 3/ <1 c e.

(aim professor

  
  

 

Date August 7, 1980

 

0-7 539

\\ \lllll“Willi\lllllllllll

’ |“‘:l\\\\\1\‘2“s\\a‘z\\i 10381 4087

 

 

 

LJBRARJES remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will

MSU ‘ RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to

 

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

A STUDY OF PERCEIVED LEADER BEHAVIORS AND
COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS AMONG ELE-
MENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

AND TEACHERS

BY

Sharon Johnson Wheeler

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Higher Education

1980

\3
r\

a
2‘

V

mew\\ W

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF PERCEIVED LEADER BEHAVIORS AND
COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS AMONG ELE-
MENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
AND TEACHERS

BY

Sharon Johnson Wheeler

The purpose of this study was to determine whether
or not principals' leader behaviors are related to the com-
munication behaviors in schools/I Previous studies have
revealed that distinct styles of leader behavior are dis-
cernible in school principals by the teachers they supervise
and that these distinct types of leader behavior affect
teacher attitudes and performance and the climate of the
school organization. /To determine if principals' leader
behavior are related to communication behaviors in schools,
sixty-three teachers from ten schools were surveyed. The
teachers completed a two-part questionnaire, the first part

being the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, which

 

was used to assess the leader behavior of principals as per-
ceived by teachers, and the second part, the Communication
Behavior Questionnaire, which was used to measure the per-

ceived frequency of instrumental and expressive communica—

tion. Correlation analysis was used to measure the

Sharon Johnson Wheeler

relationship between leader behavior and instrumental and

expressive communication.

The data were analyzed in an effort to answer the

following five exploratory questions:

1.

Do principals, who are perceived by teachers as
demonstrating high Initiating Structure leader
behavior, use more Instrumental communication

than principals perceived by teachers as demonstra-
ting lgw Initiating Structure?

Do principals, who are perceived by teachers as
demonstrating high Initiating Structure leader
behavior, use more Expressive communication than
principals perceived by teachers as demonstrating
lg! Initiating Structure?

Do principals, who are perceived by teachers as
demonstrating high Consideration leader behavior,
use more Instrumental communication than principals
perceived by teachers as demonstrating lg! Consid-
eration?

Do principals, who are perceived by teachers as
demonstrating high Consideration leader behavior,
use more Expressive communication than principals
perceived by teachers as demonstrating lg! Con-
sideration?

Is there a relationship between the perceived
instrumental and expressive communication patterns
of principals and the perceived instrumental and
exPressive communication patterns of teachers?

The analysis revealed that principals who were per-

ceived as demonstrating high initiating structure leader

behavior used more instrumental and expressive communication

than those principals perceived as demonstrating low initia-

ting structure. 'Likewise, those principals who were per-

ceived as demonstrating high consideration leader behavior

used more instrumental and expressive communication than

those principals perceived as demonstrating low considera-

tion.

The last analysis revealed that there was no

Sharon Johnson Wheeler

statistically significant relationship between instrumental
and expressive communication patterns of teachers and
principals and the instrumental and eXpressive communication
patterns among teachers.

In summary, principals' initiating structure and
consideration leader behaviors are indeed related to their
instrumental and expressive communication behaviors. The
frequency with which principals discussed curriculum objec-
tives, district policies, school rules and regulations,
rewards, praises and acceptance with teachers was not related
to the frequency with which teachers discussed curriculum
objectives, district policies, rules and regulations of the
schools, rewards, praises and acceptance with each other.
Overall, this study determined that leader behaviors and
communication behaviors are indeed related. In fact, the
study strengthened the assertions by Merrihue (1960) and
Gerloff and Cummins (1977) that one literally cannot study

either of these concepts apart from the other.

© Copyright by
Sharon Johnson Wheeler
1980

DEDICATION

For Douglas. My special friend, my dear husband,
my true love . . . always. Without your constant support,
encouragement and love this goal would not have been

attained.

ii

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the members of my doctoral
guidance committee. I am thankful to the chairperson of my
guidance committee, Dr. Philip Cusick, for his guidance and
support throughout my course of study. To Dr. Lawrence
Lezotte I am most grateful for the educational experiences,
as your graduate research assistant and as a committee
member, your support, assistance and encouragement was
invaluable. I am thankful to Dr. Louis Romano for his
concern and assistance throughout this experience. I am
appreciative of the guidance, assistance and concernpro-
vided by Dean Robert L. Green and for the Opportunity to
work for the College of Urban Development. I would especi-
ally like to thank Dr. Bruce Williams whose steadfast support
and words of encouragement were continuous and always timely.

I would also like to thank the Harvard Study Research
Team which stimulated my research.

To Len Bianchi and Stephanie Madison I owe thanks
for their assistance and preparation of data for computer
analysis and to Theresa West for many hours Spent typing

this study.

iii

I would also like to thank my dear friends, Drs.
Nelvia Brady, Lillian Hollomon, and Jim Johnson, for sharing
their talents and providing sincere concern and support
during this experience. To Ms. Dottie Rolfe and Ms. Judy
Chism Davis I am grateful for the long distance phone calls
and letters which always provided encouragement.

A very special thanks goes to my family. To my
parents, Vivian and Benjamin Johnson, I am forever indebted
because their guidance and love throughout my life taught
me to perservere. To Roy, Michael, Beverly, Vicki, Bryant
and Tyrone I am grateful for your expectations that provided
the incentive to continue. To my grandmother, Ollie Sharpless
and my nephew, Ky, whose lives somehow depict the past and
the future that make this all seem worthwile. To my
Uncle T. H., my Aunt Maggie, and my cousins Crystal and
Cathi thanks for the love and inspiration provided through-

out my life.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER

I.

II.

III.

IV.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background and Statement of the
Problem . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose of the Study . . .
Significance of the Study . . . . .
Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . .
Exploratory Questions . . . . . . .
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . .
Overview of the Study . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . .

Educational Leadership Research . .
Dimensions of Leadership . . . . . .
Communication in Schools: Principal-

Teacher Interaction . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . .

Design of the Study . . . . . . . .
Development . . . . . . . . . . . .
Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sample Population . . . . . . . . .
Instrumentation . . . . . . . .
Interpretation of the LBDQ . . . . .
Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .
Limitations of the Methodology . . .

ANAI‘YSIS O I O O O O O O I O O O O O O O

Perceived Leader Behavior of
Principals . . . . . . . . . . . .

Initiating Structure Leader Behavior
vs. Instrumental and Expressive
Communication Used by Principals .

V

Page

vii

76

81

CHAPTER Page

Consideration Leader Behavior vs.

Instrumental and Expressive Com-

munication Used by Principals . . . . . 87
Initiating Structure Leader Behavior

vs. Instrumental and Expressive

Communication Used by Teachers . . . . . 97
Consideration Leader Behavior vs.

Instrumental and Expressive

Communication Used by Teachers . . . . . 99
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Implications for Future Research . . . . . 112

BIBLIOGRAPHY . O O O C O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 114

APPENDIX 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 118

vi

4.4.

4.5.

4.6.

4.7.

LIST OF TABLES

Characteristics of the Schools .

Characteristics of the Principals

The Correlations Between Leader Behavior

and Communication . . . . . . .

The Correlations Between the Perceived

Patterns of Principals' and Teachers'

Instrumental and Expressive Communi-

cation 0 O O O O O O O O O O C

Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs.
Instrumental Communication as a Form

of Individual vs. Group Meetings

Used Between Principal and Teachers .

Initiating Structure Leader Behavior
vs. Instrumental Communication as a
Form of Written vs. Verbal Messages
Used Between Principal and Teacher

Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs.
Instrumental Communication as a Form
of Scheduled vs. Unscheduled Meetings
Used Between Principals and Teachers

Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs.
Instrumental Communication as a Form
of One-Way and Two-Way Communication
Used Between Principals and Teachers

Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs.
Expressive Communication as a Form
of Individual vs. Group Meetings Used

Between Principals and Teachers

Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs.
Expressive Communication as a Form
of Written vs. Verbal Messages Used

Between Principal and Teachers

vii

Page

59

60

78

80

83

83

84

84

86

86

Table

4.9.

4.11.

4.13.

4.16.

Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs.

Expressive Communication as a Form of
Scheduled vs. Unscheduled Meetings
Used Between Principal and Teachers .

Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs.

Expressive Communication as a Form of
One-Way vs. Two-Way Communication
Used Between Principals and Teachers

Consideration Leader Behavior vs.
Instrumental Communication as a Form
of Individual vs. Group Communication
Between Principals and Teachers . . .

Consideration Leader Behavior vs.
Instrumental Communication as a Form
of Written vs. Verbal Communication
Between Principals and Teachers . . .

Consideration Leader Behavior vs.
Instrumental Communication as a Form
of Scheduled vs. Unscheduled Meetings
Between Principals and Teachers . . .

Consideration Leader Behavior vs.
Instrumental Communication as a Form
of One-Way vs. Two-Way Communication
Between Principals and Teachers . . .

Consideration Leader Behavior vs.
Expressive Communication as Forms
of Individual vs. Group Between
Teachers and Principals . . . . . . .

Consideration Leader Behavior vs.
Expressive Communication as Forms
of Written vs. Verbal Messages
Between Principals and Teachers . . .

Consideration Leader Behavior vs.
Expressive Communication as Forms
of Scheduled vs. Unscheduled Meetings
Between Principals and Teachers . . .

Consideration Leader Behavior vs.
Expressive Communication as Forms
of One-Way vs. Two-Way Communica-
tion Between Principals and Teachers

viii

Page

88

88

90

90

91

91

93

93

95

95

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Leadership and communication are essential elements
in the effectiveness of an organization. As pointed out by
Hersey and Blanchard (1977), "The successful organization
has one major attribute that sets it apart from an unsuc-
cessful organization: dynamic and effective leadership"

(p. 83), and Simon (1976) maintains that ". . . without
communication there can be no organization" (p. 15).

These perspectives suggest that leadership and com-
munication play a significant role in the successful opera-
tion of an organization. An indication of their interde-
pendence is reflected by some researchers who view communi-
cation and leadership as being essentially intertwined. For
instance, Thayer (1961) says that "The administration (lead-
ership) of any organization can be accomplished only through
communication" (p. 3). This interrelatedness of communica-
tion and leadership is alluded to by Merrihue (1960) who
reflects on the 19503 and proclaims it the:

. . . age in which businessmen discovered communication
as their principal tool, first to build understanding

and cooperation by the employees they were trying to
lead within their enterprise, secondly, to project

their leadership among the employees and the publics
they serve . . . (p. 5).

Not only are leadership and communication important
to organizations, but the effectiveness of one is dependent
on the other.

The organization of importance in this study is the
American Public Elementary School. Concepts of leadership
and communication and how they function in the school are
the topic of this study and for its purposes, principals
will be viewed as the leaders of the school. Therefore,
leadership will be discussed in reference to principalship.
Communication will be examined in reference to its role in

facilitating the principal's leadership tasks.

Background and Statement of the Problem
As heads of schools, principals are expected to dis-
play certain leadership behaviors to facilitate the tasks
necessary to meet the goals of the school's educational pro-
grams. Spain, Drummond and Goodlad (1956) view the leader-
ship role of the principal as requisite to a "challenging
educational enterprise" (p. 69). They explain that:
The elementary school principal holds a key position
in the improvement of the professional staff. He is
the acknowledged and appointed status leader . . .
whether the school becomes a challenging educational
enterprise or a dull dreary place for children depends
. . . upon the quality of leadership he provides for
the staff (pp. 69-70).
This point of view reflects the leadership a prin-

cipal is expected to exhibit and reinforces the importance

of the leadership role the principal plays.

Principals' positions allow them to guide the imple-
mentation of the goals and strategies to determine the suc-
cess or failure of schools' educational programs (Becker,
1970). Gross and Herriott (1965) suggest that if a prin-
cipal's meetings with teachers are meaningful they assist
in "stimulating educational experiences." Meaningful com-
munication is a part of a principal's leadership role.

Communication channel stability is imperative to
coherent and effective organizational systems. For any
organization to achieve its goals, sound communication
policies and procedures must exist (Lindgren, 1954) to pro-
vide direction for coordinating the activities necessary
to accomplish the goals of an organization.

Literature related to organizational communications
suggests that the organization administrator or leader
should be the catalyst for overall effective communication
(Thayer, 1961; Barnard, 1935). Communication is the criti-
cal link between the persons responsible for leadership and
the staffs they lead. Barnard (1938) also contends that
communication should be the first and continuous task of
any administrator since commonly held goals, necessary for
cooperative effort become known through communication.
Therefore, it is imperative that administrators implement
and maintain policies and procedures for effective communi-
cation because without sound communication an organization
can neither operate effectively nor accomplish the tasks

necessary to achieve its goals.

The development of effective communication processes
should be the responsibility of the leader in an organiza-
tion; in this case it is the principal of the school.
Therefore, the leadership behavior of principals should
determine the nature of communication within the schools.
The following discussion of communication in schools will
substantiate this assumption.

Communication infiltrates every process of the
school environment. Principals interact with teachers and
students. Teachers interact with the principal and stu-
dents, and students interact with teachers and the prin-
cipal. Most of what goes on in schools involves communi-
cation. Announcements, bulletins, intercom messages,
faculty or department meetings, teacher-parent conferences,
and teacher-student information exchanges are all examples
of daily communications in the school.

The principal relies on different forms of communi-
cation to operate the school. For instance, school bulle-
tins, intercom messages and meetings are means a principal
uses to provide his staff and students with information.

Principals should develop policies and procedures
that will prompt effective communication in order to pro-
vide the necessary information that all staff need to
achieve the goals of the educational program. It is also
their job to provide for the implementation of these poli-
cies and procedures. The decisions that principals make

concerning implementation of communication involve such

questions as: What is the best means to communicate with
the staff individually and collectively? When is the
appropriate time to communicate certain information and
where? Which atmosphere is conducive to certain kinds of
communication? All of these concerns will be addressed in
relation to a principal's communication style which is
influenced by leadership style (Tannenbaum et al., 1966).

Tannenbaum et al. (1966) contend that leadership
is the "interpersonal influence exercised in a situation
and directed through the communication process, toward
the attainment of a specified goal or goals" (p. 317).
This definition reinforces the earlier contentions that
communication and leadership are interrelated. Woffard,
Gerloff and Cummins (1977) maintain that Tannenbaum's
definition of leadership, ". . . points out the close
dependency of leadership upon communication and that lead-
ership cannot occur without communication" (p. 317).

Based on a survey of eighty-five companies, Woffard
(1970) identified five dimensions of leadership: group
achievement and order: personal enhancement; personal
interaction; dynamic achievement and security and main-
tenance. Tannenbaum et al. (1977) assigned a communication
style to each leadership dimension. According to the
association that Tannenbaum finds between these dimensions
of leadership and communication styles, it is conceivable
that one familiar with leadership styles of principals

could determine their communication styles and vice-versa.

Therefore, one can conclude that not only are leadership
and communication essential to an organization, but the
nature of communication in a school is dependent on the
communication style of the principal which is influenced
by that person's leader behavior.

While the leadership and communication styles of
principals do influence the educational programs, a very
important factor in the educational program is directly
impacted by principals' communication and leadership
styles--the teachers. Teachers' tasks for meeting goals
of educational programs are influenced by the principals'
leader behavior. If principals' leadership styles inhibit
teacher tasks, it is highly likely that this could cause
deficiency in programs.

Washington and Watson (1976) contend that a part
of a principals' leadership task is to assess the needs
of teachers and help them develop means of meeting those
needs since to do so can provide positive rewards for the
teacher and make a positive contribution to schools.

Hearns (1974) maintains that if principals are
serious about meeting the personal and professional needs
of their staffs they must provide effective communication
channels that give teachers an opportunity to express
their needs. Hearns suggests that without opportunities
to express their needs, teachers will become alienated.

Again, this is a factor which could cause deficiencies in

educational programs. The development of effective com-
munication channels can prevent alienation.

In order for principals to know whether or not
their leader and communication behaviors are accommodating
and facilitating teachers directly and educational programs
indirectly, they need to know how their communication and
leadership styles are perceived by teachers, the persons
who can best judge these behaviors.

In view of this situation, the writer will conduct
a research study to determine the nature of the relation-
ship between leader behavior and communication behaviors

among staffs in schools.

Purpose of the Study

 

Communication and leadership are central organiza-
tion processes. In schools, the principal is the person
around whom these two elements evolve.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether
or not principals' leader behaviors are related to the
communication behaviors in schools. The nature of prin-
cipals' and teachers' communication behaviors must be
assessed to determine whether they reflect the principals'
leader behavior. Therefore, the researcher will identify
principals' leader behavior and, subsequently, determine
if there is a relationship between these identified leader
behaviors and the frequency and form of communication

behaviors among the staff.

Significance of the Study

It is evident from the literature that communication
and leadership are essential elements in an organization.
The literature further suggests that the head of an organi-
zation plays a vital role in developing and maintaining
successful communication channels. In view of principals'
leadership position in schools, they need to be aware of
the perceptions and effectiveness of their communication
processes.. However, while there are numerous studies that
address leadership in schools, very few studies have been
conducted concerning communication behavior in schools.
Yet, the literature seems to suggest that leadership is
dependent on the communication process to attain goals
(Tannenbaum et al., 1966). Therefore, assessing leader
and communication behavior in schools to determine whether
leader behaviors do relate to communication behaviors, will
perhaps enlighten principals to the close association
between their communication and leader behaviors. Further,
this study can also enlighten principals to the relation-
ship that some leader behavior, coupled with communication
behaviors, can have on teacher communication behaviors.
This awareness can perhaps serve as a model with which to

improve relations between principals and teachers.

Conceptual Framework
Parsons (1951, 1953) maintains that every collec-

tivity, organization or group, must address four functional

problems or functional imperatives. Of these, two are
instrumental activities: goal attainment and adaption;
two are expressive activities: pattern maintenance and
integration.

The instrumental activities, goal attainment and
adaption, serve two different functions. Goal attainment
serves the function of coordinating activities so the sys-
tem moves toward attainment. Adaption is acquiring resource
facilities that have value for system goals and obtaining
the means necessary to reach them.

Expressive activities--pattern maintenance and
integration--also have distinctive functions. Pattern
maintenance reconciles the norms and demands of partici-
pation in one social system with the demands of another
social system, i.e., the person as a system fitting into
the organizational system. It is maintaining a level of
motivation sufficient for the performance of tasks neces-
sary to achieve the stated goals. The fourth functional
imperative, integration, addresses relationships between
members of an organization. It establishes and maintains
a level of solidarity and cohesion among the units.

According to Parsons, every organization must cope
with all four functional imperatives in order to maintain
an adequate operation. Attention to only one imperative
could cause lack of equilibrium in the organization. A
system moves toward maintaining dynamic equilibrium of the

four functional imperatives over time.

lO

Parsons contends that collectivities develop dif-
ferentiated action systems to fulfill instrumental and
expressive needs. Each system requires control position
for its direction. Based on experimental studies, Bales
(1953) has shown that control positions of each system
become segregated because they require incompatible role
orientations and psychological characteristics. However,
as stated by Etzioni (1961), some "great men" are able to
effectively combine both controls.

Some groups do find leaders who effectively combine
both controls; they are referred to as "great men."
Empirical studies demonstrating the segregation of
control positions have focused primarily on task-
oriented groups and families. It is possible that
there are other types of groups for which the state-
ments made above do not hold. Until such groups are
found, however, and considering the universality of
instrumental and expressive needs, it seems justified
to assume that these propositions about group struc-
ture apply to all collectivities.

To investigate whether or not Parsons directly
impacted other researcher's means of addressing leadership
is not the purpose of this paper. Rather the purpose is to
study the relations between Parsons' dimensions as evidenced
in communication behavior and leadership.

Many researchers have addressed the concept leader-
ship. They have identified such dimensions of leadership
as effectiveness-efficiency (Barnard, 1938); Instrumental
Activities-Expressive Activities (Etzioni, 1961): Goal
Achievement; Group Maintenance (Cartwright and Zander,

1953); Nomothetic-Idiographic (Getzels and Guba, 1957);

Production Orientation-Employee Orientation (Kahn, 1966);

ll

Task Leader-Social Leader (Bales, 1969); Goal Emphasis-
Support (Bowers and Seashore, 1966); System Orientation-
Person Orientation (Brown, 1967); and Production Emphasis-
Tolerance of Freedom (Stodgill, 1963). The two dimensions
of leadership that will be used as the conceptual framework
for this study are: Initiation of Structure and Consideration
(Halpin, 1954).

These two dimensions are derived from Stodgill's
(1963) attempt to compare the leader-behavior of individuals
thought to be effective with those thought to be ineffective
to determine significant differences between them. Based
on their extensive studies of leadership, Hemphill and Coons
(1950) developed the Leader Behavior Description Question-
ggigg (LBDQ) to compare leader behavior. It was later
refined by Halpin and Winer (1952).

Halpin (1952) used the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire to compare the behavior of flight crews in a
military leadership study. In the analysis, two dimensions
of leadership, consideration and initiating structure,
differentiated leader behaviors. Initiating structure
accounted for 34 percent of the variance and consideration
accounted for 50 percent of the variance (Halpin, 1966),
and they are defined as follows:

Consideration includes behavior indicating mutual
trust, respect, and a certain warmth and rapport
between the supervisor and his group. This does not
mean that this dimension reflects a superficial "pat-

on-the-back," "first name calling" kind of human
relations behavior. This dimension appears to

12

emphasize a deeper concern for group members needs and
includes such behavior as allowing subordinates more
participation in decision making and encouraging more
two-way communication (Lowin et al., p. 238).

Initiating structure includes behavior in which the
supervisor organizes and defines group activities and
his relations to the group. Thus, he defines the roll
he expects each member to assume, assigns tasks, plans
ahead, establishes ways of getting things done, and
pushes for production. This dimension seems to empha-
size overt attempts to achieve organization goals
(Lowin et al., p. 238).

These two dimensions provide a typology for study-

ing leader behavior. The Leader Behavior Description

 

Questionnaire provides a means of identifying them. In
this study, the L§29_will be used to determine whether or
not a principals' leader behavior is initiating structure
or if it is consideration.

If principal's leader behaviors are perceived by
teachers as initiating structure, it can be expected that
the principals define the goals of the schools and their
relationship with the teachers. Principals who initiate
structure define the roles that they expect teachers to
assume; they also assign tasks, establish ways of getting
things done and push for production (Owen, 1970). On the
other hand, leader behaviors perceived as consideration
indicate mutual trust, respect, and a certain warmth and
rapport. The principal so identified will also show con-
cern for teachers' needs, participation in decision-making
and encourage two-way communication (Owen, 1970).

As reflected by the above descriptions, "the dimen-

sions are relatively independent of one another; the

13

consideration and initiating structure factors seem to be
separate and distinct dimensions, not opposite ends of the
same continuum" (Hoy and Miskel, 1978, p. 183).

Initiation of structure and consideration can be
divided into high and low groups and then combined with
one another to make the following four dichotomies:

1. High Initiation of Structure,
Low Consideration

2. High Initiation of Structure,
High Consideration

3. Low Initiation of Structure,
High Consideration

4. Low Initiation of Structure,
Low Consideration

The mean score of leader behaviors determines which
set of dichotomies a person'a leadership reflects. Those
(persons) who score above the mean on both dimensions are
in set two. Those below the mean on both dimensions are in
set four. Those who score below the mean in consideration,
but above the mean in initiating structure, are in group
one. Those who are scored below the mean on initiation of
structure but score above the mean on consideration are in
group three (Halpin, 1953). Because these dimensions of
leadership can be "cross-partitioned," by using mean scores,
the nature of a principal's leader behaviors may be iden-
tified as being in one of the four dichotomies.

From Halpin's perspective on leadership it can be
expected that if principals are going to be good leaders

they must contribute to the major objectives of the

14

educational program (goal achievement) and provide an atmos-

phere conducive to accomplishing tasks (maintenance).

Halpin contends that:
practical men know that the leader must lead, must
initiate action and get things done. But because he
must accomplish his purpose through other people, and
without jeopardizing the intactness or integrity of
the group, the skilled executive knows that he also
must maintain good "human relations” if he is to suc-
ceed in furthering the purposes of the group (p. 87).

Therefore, according to the constructs developed by
Halpin and Winer (1952), principals should be "strong” in
initiating structure and they should also show high con—
sideration for teachers.

So far, we have discussed the four functional
imperatives of an organization and some possible dimensions
of the term leadership. The major premise of this study is
that there exists a relationship between the functional
imperatives of an organization as evidenced through communi-
cation and the behavior of the leader of that organization.
Our study is designed to investigate the nature of that
relationship. The collectivity in this study is the ele-
mentary school, the actors are the principals and teachers.
Initiating structure is comparable to Parson's "Instrumental
Activities.” It represents also, one of the "action systems"
necessary for the function of an organization. Parsons
views instrumental activities as functions which coordinate
activities; the means by which resources are manipulated.

Persons who demonstrate initiating structure leader behavior

carries out similar, if not the same tasks. For instance,

15

they establish well-defined channels of communication and
methods to meet the goals of the organization. In other
words, they manipulate resources to meet organization goals.

Consideration, Halpin's other dimension of leader
behavior, is consistent with Parson's concept of expressive
activities. Leaders who demonstrate consideration behavior
are concerned about the relationship between themselves and
members of their staffs since this relationship determines
how well a person can be integrated into the organization.

Etzioni (1961) applies Parson's instrumental and
expressive activities to communication. He contends that
communication in complex organizations is two-fold. One
form is instrumental and task related to disseminate infor-
mation and knowledge such as administrative directives,
policies and curriculum objectives.

Expressive, the other form, is communication to
integrate individuals into an organization. Person oriented,
it changes or reinforces attitudes, norms and values, and
includes praise and expressions of acceptance. Communica-
tions flow vertically and horizontally (Etzioni, 1961).
Flow direction is also useful in analyzing communications in
schools. Vertically, communication moves up and down the
levels of the school hierarchy through memos, directives,
policies and programs of action. Communication between
principals and teachers is vertical.

Horizontal communication stays on one hierarchical

level, between teachers in this study, to coordinate

16

educational activities on that level. It may be job-
related or personal.

In summary, both instrumental and expressive activ-
ities must take place for a group to function properly.
This writer will refer to these activities as task oriented
and maintenance activities. Task oriented or instrumental
activities accomplish tasks that are imperative to meeting
the goals of an organization. Maintenance activities sup-
port an optimal level of performance for each group member.
Whether or not members of an organization function at an
optimal level depends on how they are integrated into the
group. Further, leader behaviors and the communication
behaviors of leaders are closely related, therefore, influ-
encing the functioning of each activity as well as the
members of the group. It follows that a certain leader
behavior prompts a certain communication behavior. Initi-
ating structure, associated with task-oriented activities,
is the type of leader behavior principals engage in when
they define the tasks of teachers communication patterns
or define methods and procedures. As a result, one could
speculate they would use instrumental communication. On
the other hand, principals concerned with expressive or
maintenance activities demonstrate consideration leader
behavior. Given Etzioni's definition of expressive com-
munication, "communication that helps integrate a person

into a group by expressions of praises and acceptance,"

17

it is probable that principals who demonstrate consideration
leader behaviors would use expressive communication.

This researcher also speculates that teacher's
communication behaviors reflect principals' communication
behaviors because of the important role principals play in
the school. According to the literature, because the
principal is the leader, his/her leader behavior will influ-
ence a certain communication style. Therefore, it is con-
ceivable that the principals communication style will influ-
ence teachers' communication style. Because of a lack of
studies relating leader behavior and communication, the
significance of the study will be to provide information in
this neglected area, and perhaps enlighten principals to
the close association of these behaviors and to the influ—
ence they exert on teacher communications. In order to
determine if, in fact, certain leader behaviors--initiating
structure and consideration prompt particular communication
behaviors--instrumental and expressive, respectively, the
exploratory questions in the following section will be

addressed.

Exploratorygguestions

 

In order to determine whether or not principals'
leader behaviors are related to communication behaviors in
schools, the following exploratory questions were addressed
in a questionnaire to teachers. In order to address each

exploratory question, it was necessary to assess the

18

frequency of instrumental and expressive communication
behaviors demonstrated by teachers and principals, as well
as the forms of these communication behaviors. Preceding
the communication behavior questionnaire, the Leader

Behavior Description Questionnaire was completed in order

 

to identify a principal's leader behavior as either high,
low consideration; or high, low initiating structure.

#1. Do principals, who are perceived by teachers as
demonstrating high Initiating Structure leader
behavior, use more Instrumental communication
than principals perceived by teachers as demon-
strating 193 Initiating Structure?

#2. Do principals, who are perceived by teachers as
demonstrating high Initiating Structure leader
behavior, use more Expressive communication
than principals perceived by teachers as demon-
strating lg! Initiating Structure?

#3. Do principals, who are perceived by teachers as
demonstrating high Consideration leader behavior,
use more Instrumental communication than principals
perceived by teachers as demonstrating 193 Con-
sideration?

#4. Do principals, who are perceived by teachers as
demonstrating high Consideration leader behavior,
use more Expressive communication than principals
perceived by teachers as demonstrating 193 Con-
sideration?

#5. Is there a relationship between the perceived
instrumental and expressive communication patterns
of principals and the perceived instrumental and
expressive communication patterns of teachers?

Definition of Terms

 

The following terms are operationally defined for
this research study:

Communication: Any initiated behavior on the part

 

of the sender which conveys the desired meaning to the

19

receiver and causes desired response behavior (Thayer,
1961). "Communication (can be) conceived of as the dynamic
process underlying the existence, growth, change, the behav-
ior of all living systems--individual or organization.
Communication can be understood as that indispensable func-
tion of people and organizations" (Thayer, 1968, p. 17).

Instrumental communication: Information necessary

 

to complete a task. This type of communication is used
to disseminate information and knowledge such as adminis-
trative directions, policies, and instructions.

Expressive communication: Information related to

 

helping an individual integrate into the organization.
This kind of communication expresses rewards, praise, and
acceptance.

Horizontal communication: Information that stays

 

at one level of the organization; that is only discussed
on one hierarchical level (i.e., communication only
between teachers or only between principals) may be one or
two-way communication.

Vertical communication: Communication that moves
up and down the levels of a hierarchy (i.e., Information
provided to principals, then given to teachers about which
teachers respond or give feedback to principals. The
principal may then give feedback to his superiors).
Vertical communication may also be one-way (i.e., Instruc-
tions given by a superintendent to principals to be passed

on to and followed by teachers).

20

One-way communication (nonreciprocal communication):

 

The sender of a message does not allow the receiver of the
message the opportunity to respond or give feedback.

Two-way communication (reciprocal communication:

 

The sender of a message allows the receiver of the message
to respond or give feedback.

Communication behaviors: The act of providing

 

information.

Perceived leader behavior: The actual leadership

 

activities of elementary principals as described by them-
selves and the teachers (Stodgill, 1963) refers to this
type of behavior as "real" behavior.

Leader: The individual in the group given the task
of directing and coordinating task--relevant group activ-
ities (Fiedler, 1967, p. 8).

Leadership acts: Those in which a leader engages in
the course of directing and coordinating the work of his
group. This may involve such acts as structuring work
relations, rewarding or criticizing group members, and
showing consideration for their welfare and feelings

(Fiedler, 1967, p. 36).

Overview of the Study

 

Chapter II will be a review of the related litera-
ture and research pertaining to educational leadership and

communication behaviors in schools.

21

Chapter III will delineate the methods and pro-
cedures undertaken to conduct this study.

Chapter IV will be an analysis of the data and a
report of its findings.

Chapter V will be a summary of the data as well as
a discussion of the implications as a result of the find-
ings. Finally, conclusions from the study will be reported
in this chapter.

Given the order of this presentation, the next
phase is an indepth discussion of the pertinent literature

in the field that has implications for the topic at hand.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature presented in this chapter
consists of four sections. The first section, Educational
Leadership Research, is an examination of well-known
leadership studies conducted in the field of education.
Section two, Dimensions of Leadership, discusses literature
supporting the concept that leadership is multidimensional.
Section three is a discussion of the literature related to
communication in schools. Because of a lack of studies
concerned specifically with relationships between leadership
and communication in schools, this section is somewhat
limited to studies of communication interaction between
principals and teachers and its importance. Lastly, the
summary will be a discussion relating and synthesizing

the information from each section.

Educational Leadership Research

 

Numerous organizations varying in size and purpose
have been studied by researchers trying to determine the
nature of the leadership and leader behavior of the per-

sons "in charge." However, regardless of the size or the

22

23

purpose of the organizations, research has shown that there
are similar patterns of leadership and leader behavior
demonstrated by those persons who hold these positions in
organizations. The following research studies areconcerned
with the leadership and leader behavior of school principals.

In the 19503, the Personnel Research Board at Ohio
State University made a significant contribution to the
study of leadership when they participated in developing
the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), which
measures leader behavior. Among those cooperating on devel-
opment of the questionnaire, Hemphill and Coons are cited
(1950). Many researchers have used this instrument to
study leader behavior including Halpin (1966) who along with
other researchers, used the instrument several times in air
force and educational leader behavior studies. From his
summary of these studies, Halpin concludes that there are
five principal findings:

(1) The evidence indicates that initiating structure

and consideration are fundamental dimensions of

leader behavior, and that the Leader Behavior

DescriptiopAQuestionnaire provides a practical

and useful technique for measuring the behaviors
of leaders on these two dimensions.

 

(2) Effective leader behavior is associated with high
performance on both dimensions.

(3) There is, however, some tendency for superiors and
subordinates to evaluate differently the contribu-
tion of leader behavior dimensions to the effec-
tiveness of leadership.

(4) Changes in the attitude of group members toward
each other and group characteristics such as
harmony, intimacy, and procedural clarity, are

24

significantly associated with the leadership style
of the leader high initiating structure combined
with high consideration is associated with favor-
able group attitudes and with favorable changes

in group attitudes.

(5) There is only a slight positive relationship
between the way leaders believe they should behave
and the way in which their group members describe
them as behaving.

(6) The institutional setting within which the leader
operates influences his leadership style (PP. 23-24).

Halpin (1956) studied the leader behavior of fifty
superintendents in Ohio using the Leader Behavior Description

Questionnaire. The findings of this study suggest that

 

staffs, board members and superintendents characterize the
ideal superintendent as one scoring high in consideration
and initiating structure.

Since the development of the LBQQ by Hemphill and
Coons, the instrument was reused once in 1952 by Halpin
and Winer. Later, as a result of other's identification
of two factors which account for variance in leader behav-
ior, Stogdill (1963) developed another revision called the
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire - Form XII.

The new edition of the LBDQ - Form XII was used by
Brown (1967) to study the leader behavior of principals as
perceived by their teachers. Brown's study consisted of
170 school staffs and was centered around his assumption
that how a leader really behaves is less important than how
his followers perceive that he behaves. In another study,

Brown (1967) reported that it was the teaching staffs'

25

perception of the principal's behavior that influenced their
actions and determined what they called leadership.

Brown also suggested that teachers' satisfaction
and their confidence in their principals are influenced by
the perceived leadership of the school. However, the
teachers' estimate of the school's organizational perform-
ance is not. Brown concluded, after analyzing the results
of the study, that two distinctive factors were present:
"The first, a set of leader behaviors that responded to the
needs of the school ggg system; the second, a set of behav-
iors that responds to the needs of the staff members qua
persons" (p. 46).

Brown refers to these two sets of behaviors as the
system and person factors of leadership. This dichotomy
reflects the idea of leadership dimensions, which will be
discussed in the next section.

In 1965 Gross and Herriott did a national principal-
ship study called: Staff Leadership in Public Schools: A
Sociological nguipy. They measured the behavior of prin-
cipals and assigned to this behavior the term Executive Pro-
fessional Leadership (EPL). The study was designed to
explore problems of interest to educational practitioners
as well as social scientists. The major assumption of the
study was that EPL positively influences the behavior of
students and/or the morale of teachers. Gross and Herriott

formulated twelve hypotheses. They are as follows:

(l)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(ll)

(12)

26

The more a principal permits his teachers to share
his decisions, the greater his EPL.

The more egalitarian a principal's relationship
with his teachers, the greater his EPL.

The more social support a principal offers to his
teachers, the greater the EPL.

The greater the managerial support a principal
offers his teachers, the greater the EPL.

The greater the principal's support of his teachers
in cases of conflict between teachers and pupils,
the greater his EPL.

The higher a principal's evaluation of his ability
to provide educational leadership to his staff,
the greater his EPL.

The more off-duty time a principal devotes to his
job, the greater his EPL.

The more fully a principal internalizes the pro-
fessional leadership definition of his role, the
greater his EPL.

The greater importance a principal attaches to his
routine administrative duties, the greater his EPL.

Principals with a service motive for seeking their
positions will provide greater EPL than those
without it.

The greater the intellectual ability of the prin-
cipal, the greater his EPL.

The greater a principal's interpersonal skills, the
greater his EPL (pp. 121-149).

All twelve of these hypotheses were substantiated.

Another principalship study conducted by Hemphill,

Griffiths, Frederickson et a1. (1961) focused on problem-

solving and decision-making. Their study had the following

three objectives:

(1)

To determine the dimensions of performance in the
elementary school principalship and thus to develop

27
a better understanding of the nature of the job of
the administrator.

(2) To provide information helpful in the solution of
the problem of selecting school administrators.

(3) To provide materials and instruments for study and
teaching of school administration (pp. l-ll).

In order to present a simulated school situation, a
twelve-category schema was developed by the researchers.
Based on a preliminary tryout of the materials, some minor
revisions were made and 127 principals across the country
were tested. Three of the findings were:

(1) "Men are not overwhelmingly superior to women as
principals";

(2) "Little relationship between experience and admin-
istrative performance was noted"; and

(3) "Personality tests might be employed as a screening
device in the selection of administrators in con-
junction with ability and knowledge tests if the
district can determine what kind of personality
is needed for the particular job situation"

(p. 35) .

This study did not provide any major findings in
the area of leadership, however, it did clarify questions
pertaining to the sex and experience of persons in adminis-
trative positions.

From a different perspective, Chester, Schmuck and
Lippett (1963) investigated "The Principal's Role in Facili-
tating Innovation." They determined that principals with
innovative staffs were found to be in agreement with their
teacher's feelings about education and well informed con-

cerning their informal relationships. The researchers also

found that the teachers who perceived their principals and

28

other teachers as supportive reported the highest number

of innovations as opposed to schools with the lowest number
of innovations where teacher perceived their principals and
other teachers as nonsupportive.

Taken together, the studies discussed above suggest
that there are distinctive patterns of leadership and
leader behavior demonstrated by persons who hold the posi-
tion of principal, the ultimate "in charge" position of
responsibility and authority, in schools. Further, these
distinctive patterns of leader behavior principals demon-
strated can be perceived by the teachers they supervise.
They can also be identified and measured by means of the

Leader Behavior Description Qpestionnaire (LBDQ) which was

 

developed by Hemphill and Coons of the Personnel Research
Board at Ohio State University (1950) and then revised and
used extensively by researchers such as Halpin (1952, 1956,
1966), Stogdill (1962) and Brown (1967). In conducting
various studies using the LBQQ these researchers have not
only identified and described leader behavior in schools
and other organizations, they have studied the effects of
different types of leader behavior on subordinates and
organizations and determined that leader behavior is multi-
dimensional, an aspect which will be discussed further in

the following section.

29

Dimensions of Leadership

As mentioned before, the dimensions of leadership
identified by several researchers are corollaries of Parsons'
(1951) four functional imperatives which were discussed
extensively in Chapter I. In brief, two of the functional
imperatives, goal attainment and adaption, serve as instru-
mental activity which is concerned with planning and coor-
dinating tasks necessary to achieve the goals of an organi-
zation. Pattern maintenance and integration, the other
two functional imperatives, comprise the expressive activity
of a group. Expressive activities are person-oriented and
associated with helping individuals integrate into an
organization.

This section of the literature review discusses the
relationship between researchers' concepts of leadership
dimensions and Parsons' contention that instrumental and
expressive activities are imperatives in a collectivity.

Barnard (1938) has identified effectiveness-
efficiency as two dimensions of leadership. He contends
that:

The persistence of cooperation depends upon two con-
ditions: (a) its effectiveness; and (b) its efficiency.
Effectiveness relates to the accomplishment of the
cooperative purpose which is social and nonpersonal in
character. Efficiency relates to the satisfaction of
individual motives, and is personal in character. The
test of effectiveness is the accomplishment of common
purpose or purposes; . . . the test of efficiency is

the eliciting of sufficient individual will to c00p-
erate" (p. 60).

30

The concept of effectiveness that Barnard addresses
is consistent with what Parsons calls instrumental activity.
Both terms are concerned with the goals and purposes of
an organization. Efficiency, the other dimension of leader-
ship identified by Barnard, is represented as Expressive
activity by Parsons. The latter terms are concerned with
the integration of members into the organization.

Goal Achievement and Group Maintenance are dimen-
sions of leadership identified by Cartwright and Zander
(1953). Again, these two dimensions of leadership coincide
with Parsons' concept of functional imperatives. Goal
achievement addresses the issue of tasks necessary to meet
the goals of the organization. Group maintenance is con-
cerned with the relations among members of the organizations
necessary to keep members working at optimal levels of
performance.

Getzels and Guba (1957) also dichotomize leadership.
Nomothetic and Idiographic are the two terms they use.
Getzels and Guba contend that there are two dimensions of
organizational behavior--personal and organizational.
Idiographic, the personal dimension, encompasses individual
personality--the dynamic organization within individuals
which governs their actions in the environment-~and needs-
disposition; an individual's tendencies to orient and act
with respect to objectives and expect certain consequences
from these objectives is concerned with how an individual

integrates into an organization.

31

Nomothetic is the organizational dimension which
encompasses institution regulations and policies that carry
on the functions in a social system. Roles are obligations
and responsibilities, a pattern of expectations applied to
particular social positions which persist independently of
the people occupying them, and expectations are the explicit
performance behaviors within the roles.

Bowers and Seashore (1966) conducted a study to
determine whether or not supervisory and peer leadership
influence outcomes of satisfaction and factorial performance
measures. They concluded, "that leaderships relation to
outcome may best be determined when both leadership and
effectiveness are multidimensional" (p. 238). The dimen-
sions of leadership identified by these researchers were
support, interaction facilitation, goal emphasis and work
facilitation. These dimensions are related to Instrumental
and Expressive activities. Support, which is indicative
of behavior that enhances someone else's feeling of personal
worth and importance, and interaction facilitation, which
is concerned with behavior that encourages members of the
group to develop close, mutually satisfying relationships,
are concepts closely related to expressive activities. In
addition to these, there is goal emphasis which is behavior
that stimulates an enthusiasm for meeting the group's goal
or achieving excellent performance. In a like manner,
Parsons' instrumental activities are related to what Bowers

and Seashore refer to as work facilitation or behavior that

32

helps achieve goal attainment by such activities as schedul-
ing, coordinating, planning and by providing resources.

Kahn (1956) concluded that employee orientation and
production orientation are independent dimensions of leader-
ship. Again, overtones of instrumental and expressive activ-
ities permeate these leadership dimensions. For instance,
employee orientation is behavior demonstrated by leaders
who feel that it is important to consider staff members as
human beings of intrinsic importance, to show that they
accept their individuality and personal needs and take an
interest in them. As such, employee orientation has the
same goal as expressive activities; to let individuals know
their worth in an organization. Likewise, instrumental
activities which are concerned with planning and coordinat-
ing tasks necessary to achieve goals, are synonymous with
Kahn's production orientation which is behavior that
emphasizes production and the technical aspects of the job.

In an effort to reduce Stogdill's twelve dimensions
of leadership, those identified as representation, demand
reconciliation, tolerance uncertainty, persuasiveness,
initiating structure, tolerance freedom, role assumption,
consideration, production emphasis, predictive accuracy,
integration and superior orientation; Brown (1967) per-
formed a factor analysis using a principal axis factor
solution. According to Brown, "this solution called for
the extraction of six factors of which only two were found

to be significant." A two-factor verimax rotation was

33

performed in order to distinguish the factors. Factor I -
System Orientation and Factor II - Person Orientation,
accounted for 76 percent of the total test variance.
Initiating Structure, superior orientation, persuasion,
role assumption, representation, and production emphasis
comprise what Brown determined to be "perceived leader
behavior that responds to the needs of the school qua sys—
tem," or system-oriented leadership. Factor II — tolerance
of freedom, tolerance of uncertainty, consideration, demand
reconciliation, integration and predictive accuracy were
found to be "measure(s) of perceived behavior that responds
to the needs of staff members qua persons." This was
referred to by Brown as Person-Oriented Leadership. Brown
further defined Factor I as "behavior that responds to the
needs of the school as an apersonalized system with its own
goals, themes, and institutional existence" and Factor II
as the "behavior that responds to the idiosyncratic personal
and professional needs of fellow human beings on staff."

He compares his identified leadership dimensions to those
of Getzel, Barnard, Cartwright and Zander, which were
mentioned earlier. Brown's comparison reinforces the idea
of the relationship between dimensions of leadership and
Parsons' four imperative functions. Brown's concept of
person-oriented leadership is consistent with expressive
activities and system-oriented leadership corresponds to
instrumental activities. The above discussion reinforces

Parsons' contention that both instrumental and expressive

34

activities are vital to a group. The discussion also sug-
gests that to be effective, leaders must recognize the
importance of these two activities. A further contention,
that either activity without the other causes a group's
equilibrium to be unequal is discussed in the next section
which is concerned with principal-teacher interaction.
Communication in Schools: Principal-
Teacher Interaction
In studying interactions in the school setting,

Dror (1972) maintains that the relationship between prin-
cipals and teachers is complex and that the complexity of
this relationship influences the majority of interaction
that take place between them. Dror surmises that it is the
contradictions in the role of the principal that causes a
communication problem between principals and teachers.
"The relationship actually achieved when the administrator
is simultaneously expected to be a watch dog and judge is
something less than open, free and intimate" (p. 47).
This situation, according to Dror, inherently transforms a
professional relationship into a bureaucratic relationship
which causes "insecurity and anxiety" in teachers. He
explains that:

The weakness of the professional components in educa-

tion engenders insecurity and anxiety in teachers and

they usually avoid behavior which threatens their

security in the organization and their chance for

organizational rewards. They, therefore, conform to

demands made by the hierarchical power positions,

thus causing positional authority to take precedence
over professional authority (p. 47).

35

The interaction between principals and teachers is
the concern of many teachers and Watkins (1969) seemed to
be reflecting on the uncertainty of principals-teachers
interaction in his article, "An Inquiry Into the Principal
Staff Relationship." He was interested in the nature of
the interaction between the principals and their profes-
sional staffs in public schools. In order to study this
interaction Watkins replicated Fiedler's (1958) research
efforts which "investigated the relationship between psycho-
logical distance of the school principal and organizational
effectiveness" (p. 11). Fiedler's assumption "that the way
in which the group member perceives others affects his
relationship with them," determined that leaders who develop
an impersonal style in their relationships with group mem-
bers are significantly more effective than are leaders who
maintain a more impersonal style in their interaction with
group members (p. 11).

Fiedler's work consisted of groups that conducted
tasks which could easily be measured. However, this
easily defined criteria does not exist in public schools.
Therefore, Watkins used Halpin and Crofts (1964)
Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ)
which describes the morale of a school. After completing
their study using this questionnaire, Halpin and Croft
had pointed out that the chief consequence of the research
had been their identification of the importance of "authen-

ticity" in organizational behavior which was characteristic

36

of the Open Climate. The two concepts of thrust, which pro-
vided an index of the authenticity of the principal, and
esprit, which provided an index of the authenticity of the
morale of the group were deemed of pivotal importance.

On the basis of their findings, Watkins used the
Organizational Climate DescriptionQQuestionnaire to measure
effectiveness while studying the concept of psychological
distance in the school situation.

Watkins conducted a study in forty-eight schools.
Each of the principals had been at their current schools at
least two years. The following hypotheses were tested:

(1) schools which tend toward an Open Climate will have
principals who maintain high psychological distance;

(2) there will be a positive relationship between esprit
(OCDQ) and Fiedler's concept of psychological distance; and
(3) there will be a positive relationship between thrust
(OCDQ) and Fiedler's concept of psychological distance.

Watkins concluded that:

There is a negative relationship between (assumed
Similarity Opposite) concept of psychological distance
of the school principals and: (l) the openness of the
organizational climate of the schools as defined by
the OCDQ, (2) the morale of the professional staffs
as measured by the OCDQ dimension of Esprit, and
(3) the authenticity of the behavior of school prin-
cipals as established by the OCDQ dimension of thrust
(p. 13) .
These findings are consistent with other studies. For
instance, Hoy and Appleberry (1970) also found that a

principal's relationship with teachers has an impact on

school climate and teachers morale.

37

Based on the hypothesis that principal-teacher and
teacher—teacher interactions would be significantly differ-
ent in schools with humanistic pupil control orientation
from those in schools with a custodial orientation, Hoy and
Appleberry identified these school types by using the
Pupil Control Ideology Form and studied the principal-
teacher interactions.

The researchers define schools with custodial
orientation as having a rigid and highly controlled environ-
ment concerned with maintaining order. The students in
this environment are often treated in accord with their
appearance, behavior, and parents' social status. The
teachers who work in schools with a custodial orientation
perspective perceived the school as an autocratic setting
having a rigid pupil-teacher-hierarchy with communication
and power flowing unilaterally downward. In contrast, the
humanistically oriented school was perceived as an "educa-
tional community in which students learn through coopera-
tive interaction experience" (p. 28).

As anticipated by the researchers, there were
several differences in the schools. Their study determined
that humanistically oriented schools were more likely than
custodially oriented schools to have:

(1) teachers who work well together, that is pull
together with respect to the teaching-learning task;

(2) high morale and satisfied teachers, satisfaction
growing out of a sense of task accomplishment and
fulfillment of social needs;

38

(3) principals who deal with teachers in an informal,
face-to-face situation rather than "go by the
book";

(4) principals who do not supervise closely but instead
attempt to motivate through personal example; and

(5) an atmosphere marked by openness. Acceptance and
authenticity in teacher—principal interactions.

The findings of Hoy and Appleberry reinforce the
assertion that the principal's relationship with teachers
(and students) has an impact on school climate and teacher
morale. This study also reinforces Parsons' (1961) con-
tention that both instrumental and expressive activities
are necessary in a collectivity. This same attitude is
reflected in Crooke's (1965) study in which he surveyed
the nature of the supervisor-staff relationship in refer-
ence to staff morale. In Crooke's effort to assess the
significance of administrative and supervisory practices
on morale, and subsequently, upon the effectiveness of the
total organization, he concluded:

. . . that building an accepting, understanding pattern
of group interaction requires a supervisor to identify
with the group physically as well as psychologically;
to help participation by encouraging members to speak
up; to promote thinking; and to detect unmet needs of
the members of the organization (p. 94).

The same finding was the substance of Helwig's
(1971) study in which he hypothesized that the amount of
oral and written communication that goes on between a prin-
cipal and his staff as a group, including the downward

messages from the principal and his staff as a group,

including the downward messages from the principal to the

39

teachers and the upward from the teachers to the principal,
is significantly related to the quality of the school's
organizational climate and the teachers' morale. The basis
of this hypothesis stems from the assertion of organiza-
tional conflict theory which maintains that when organiza-
tional homeostasis become unbalanced the participants in
conflict should communicate more.

Helwig tested this assertion by taking the average
total frequency of principals' oral and written communica-
tion in thirty-seven schools over a twenty day period.

The data were correlated with two empirically-determined
variables school climate which explained the nature of
homeostasis, and teacher esprit, the extent of teacher
morale.

The results of two statistical analyses failed to
substantiate his hypothesis or organizational conflict
theory. Helwig concluded with an inquiry into whether or
not there actually is ". . . a relationship between communi—
cation behavior and other organizational variables including
morale" (p. 54). It is important to note that in this
study Helwig considered only the frequency or amount of
communication, not its nature nor the leadership style of
the principal, which might more likely affect the variables
of teacher morale and school climate.

In a study of how verbal expression can affect a
school's climate, in a segment related to principal-teacher

verbal interaction, Valentine, Tate, Seagren, and Lammel

40

(1975) concluded that how and what principals say makes a
difference in the school climate.

For instance, principals who tended to be indirect
in their verbal behavior administered schools that were
perceived by teachers as stressing practicality and friend-
liness. The authors of the study reported that principals
using this kind of verbal behavior increased the opportunity
for teachers to give input because their verbal behavior
reduced restraints and encouraged participation. When
principals stated their decisions to their staff members,
there appeared to be an emphasis on recognition of accom—
plishments rather than feelings of inferiority or shyness.
The utilization of humor, when interacting with teachers,
provoked a greater interest in achievement and a significant
emphasis on hard work and a commitment to the goals of the
school.

Another finding of this study suggests that one of
the most significant verbal behaviors principals used was
stating attitudes or values. The more the principals
stated their attitudes or values, the more the staff became
group-centered, they elicited public recognition for their
accomplishments and the staff tended to be impetuous rather
than reflective.

In a like manner, this study revealed that value
statements by teachers were also a significant behavior.
For instance, an increase of value statements initiated by

teachers was consistent with increased teacher motivation

41

for achievement and success through personal effort and
exhibiting hard work and a commitment to the goals of the
school. In schools where teachers took the opportunity to
make value statements following information given by the
principal, there was considerable emphasis on change and
flexibility. Conversely, when teachers initiated teacher-
talk only at the content level, there was little expressive-
ness or emotion present among the school staff, also there
was less pressure for reasoning and abstract thinking.

This study also noted that in schools in which
cognitive level discussion frequently followed general
information discussion by the principal, teachers tended
to have a feeling of dependency upon other members of the
organization as opposed to being self-reliant.

When the principal used direct administrative
verbal behavior in which he gave directions to staff mem-
bers it was found that the more frequently principals used
this type verbal behavior following teacher talks, the more
teachers perceived the organization as being constraining
and restrictive with little opportunity for personal
expression, little respect for the integrity of the person,
and little personal autonomy. Nonetheless, it was also
found that in schools in which directive communication was
the norm, teachers expressed more respect for authority.
This finding is consistent with the notion of a collectivity

having to address instrumental needs. However, the study

42

also reinforces the fact that without expressive activity,
instrumental activities are restricted.

In summary, this study of the verbal behavior of
administrators revealed significant relationships between
administrator communication and the climate of the adminis-
trator's school. Although the finding of administration-
parent and administration-student studies are not discussed
here because they are outside the subject matter of this
study, it is of interest to note that parents and students,
as well as teachers, were found to be responsive to the
indirectness and directness of administrator communication.
The more direct the principal, the more positive the atti-
tudes of teachers, students and parents.

In summary, some communication behaviors were
found to be more critical than others. The use of humor
indicated a relaxed, positive human-relations atmosphere.
The expression of personal values by principals and staff
members provided a positive working relationship. The
researchers reported that the amount and length of inter-
actions, as well as the contents supported their conclusion
that principals/administrators directly influence the teach-
ing staff more than students or parents. As a result,
these researchers contend that because administrator influ-
ence on teachers is the strongest and teachers have more
contact with students and students have more contact with
parents, the "domino effect" of the administrator's influ-

ence on the staff, is critical.

43

In a similar manner, these findings are reinforced
by Lucietto (1970) who determined in her study that how a
principal says what he has to say affects teacher and stu—
dent involvement.

Lucietto's interest in the speech patterns of
administrators was based on the belief that language con-
tains the key to many questions concerning the interaction
in the school situation. She hypothesized that the differ—
ence in the subject's score on Halpin's LBQQ leadership
behavior questionnaire would be related to difference in
their linguistic behavior.

First, Lucietto used a statistical analysis to
determine the emphasis that subgroups of principals gave to
different elements of spoken language. Then she used the

General Inquirer System to identify language differences

 

of principals and classify them into one of the dimensions
of LBQQ - initiation of structure or consideration.
Lucietto found that principals scoring high in initiating
structure used relatively few self words and when they did
use them they were in a direct, specific context. Whereas,
principals demonstrating low initiating structure used more
self words in a context of cooperative agreement.

In relation to the consideration dimension, prin-
cipals demonstrating high consideration, as perceived by
their teachers use ". . . language which demonstrates a
concern for the individual child, whom they view as a many-

faceted person, not just a pupil having relationships to the

44

school" (p. 4). On the other hand, principals showing

low consideration, ". . . generally restrict themselves to
viewing the child in the context of the school setting,
judging him only by what goes on in school" (p. 4).

In this study it was shown that principals demon—
strating low consideration do not appear to use clarifying
language and seem defensive. The principals showing high
consideration do a great deal of clarifying and are more
open.

The ramifications of high consideration communica-
tion are positive. When the principal paraphrases teachers'
comments this lets the teachers know the principal is
listening and is concerned with their contributions. As
a result, these teachers tend to feel accepted and secure.

It is apparent from the above that teachers have
certain needs that influence their jobs. Chesler, Schmuck,
and Lippitts' study (1963) investigating the significance
of both staff norms and principal attitudes on the influ-
ence of creative teaching, found that teachers with the
highest number of innovations were found in schools where
teachers perceived that the principal supported their
creative efforts. On the other hand, the teachers with the
lowest number of innovations perceived that the principal
was not supportive of their creative efforts.

As a result, these researchers concluded that staff
norms are influenced by principals' leadership styles. It

is important to note that the principals with highly

45

innovative staffs were more "professionally" oriented, and
those principals who had less innovative staffs more
"administratively" oriented. This is an example of how
principals leadership behaviors can affect the performance
of teachers.
If principals are serious about meeting the personal
and professional needs of their staff, Hearn (1974) contends
that the principals must provide the opportunity for
teachers to express their needs. He further explains that
if a principal fails to provide this, teachers may become
alienated. Hearn explains that:
. . . alienation can very well be a result of the fail-
ure to communicate. When a teacher cannot communicate
his needs, and when an administrator cannot, or does
not care to, communicate the reasons why the institu-
tion cannot serve such needs, alienation will result
(p. 135).

Hearn suggests that there are means of preventing aliena-

tion. School administrators can and should develop effec-

tive channels of communication and monitor the channels

of communication to ensure that each message successfully

reaches its destination.

Washington and Watson (1976) support Hearn's con-
tention. They contend that not only is communication
important in the principal-teacher relationship, the way
it is done is even more important and is a reflection of
the principal's leadership style. Washington and Watson

contend that, "effective leadership means effective two-way

communication. Face-to-face communication should have

46

priority over written communication so that areas of mutual
concern can be discussed and clarified" (p. 6). This con—
tention stems from the belief that when teachers feel they
are part of a team, when they believe in their job and feel
that the principal also values and respects the job they
are doing, and when teachers believe in the administrative
leadership, only then can they develop loyalty and positive
morale. The end result of such positive interactions among
teachers and principals is school staff satisfaction which
Washington and Watson contend brings about beneficial
results.
Teachers whose basic needs are satisfied tend to con—
stantly strive for fulfillment of higher goals, and
their efforts and attitudes ultimately will overflow
to the student body resulting in more productive stu-
dents (p. 6).

A principal who can and does assess the needs of
teachers and help teachers develop a means of meeting those
needs contributes only positive rewards for the teachers
and a positive contribution to the school. Null (1970)
feels that providing this kind of satisfaction is the main
role of the principal as Null explains:

. . . the principalship exists to help teachers find
satisfaction in the performance of their duties, and
the position does not exist for the main purpose of
imposing rigid, inflexible standards. . . . He (the
principal) will then possess a theory base which will
permit him to help each teacher make a total contribu-
tion that is both goal oriented and personally satis-
fying (p. 351).

Up to this point, all the literature seems to sug-

gest that the principal's communication patterns affect

47

the school's climate and teacher morale. In a similar vein,
but from a different point of View, McCleary (1968) looks
at communication from the principal's perspective.

McCleary's contentions evolve from a nationwide
study of practices and problems relating to intraschool
communication. The study's research population was those
schools which enrolled more than 1,000 students and whose
principals who were members of the National Association of
Secondary School Principals, the sponsors of the study.

The purpose of the study was to obtain information
about methods and media of communication, characteristics
of communication systems in operation, principals' percep-
tions of needs and priorities for improvement and some
evaluation of the effectiveness of various practices.

The findings of the study were as follows: First,
the methods used most frequently by principals to bring
the entire staff or significant parts of it together in
face-to-face situations are general faculty meetings,
department meetings, principal's cabinet meetings, and
meetings of department chairmen. Written communication was
reported most frequently in the form of a daily or weekly
bulletin. While principals in this study expressed dis-
satisfaction with written communication more than any other,
they viewed this form of communication as an effective means
to reinforce announced decisions, to follow up discussions,
and to disseminate results of studies and deliberations.

The researchers suggest that this attitude implies that

48

principals who use written communication effectively attempt
to link it to other forms of communication and do not rely
solely upon the written word to communicate changes in pro-
cedures or new ideas that run counter to current practices.
In reference to individual face-to-face communica-
tion, the researcher found this seemed to be a "perplexing
dilemma for the principal of the large school." Respondents
repeatedly noted the frustration of too little time to con-
fer adequately with individual staff members. It was
further noted that some principals felt their schools had
expanded so much that they could no longer maintain an
"open door" for teachers. Researchers concluded that it
is apparent that principals want to relate directly and
individually with their staff members and students but the
size of many schools limits the opportunities for doing so.
The researcher of this study was also interested
in determining the extent to which visual electronic media
was utilized to overcome the problems caused by size and
complexity of operation in schools. The only significant
finding was the report on the extensive use of intercom
systems. In response to the question, "What is needed most
to improve schools," the principals' answers centered on
the relationship between principal and staff members. The
most frequently reported need was time to increase personal
contacts with staff, to work with new teachers and to
involve staff with planning and decision-making. The second

most frequently reported concern was the need to consult

49

with staff in order to get feedback about the quality of
teaching, problems of teacher—pupil and parent relations,
and the interests teachers had in professional development.

Although it was not as frequently reported, many
principals expressed serious concern about the value of
expert help to systematize and improve the quality of com-
munications. Many were also concerned about the use of
electronic media to expedite routine messages and infor-
mation handling.

In summary, the author concluded that the greatest
needs expressed by principals were the need for improving
communications, freeing teachers and department chairmen
for group work within the school day and increasing the
informal, direct contact of the principal with teachers in
order to exchange ideas, discuss problems, and share
experiences.

From the former discussion, it is apparent that the
interactions between principals and teachers is not only
complex, it is also important to the school climate. Prin-
cipals' leader and communication behaviors seemed to be the
two factors determining teacher morale and school climate.
Principals who provided teachers with directives for task
accomplishments and support for their efforts were per-
ceived by teachers as supporting good staff relations and

open, two-way communication.

50

Summary

To summarize, it is evident from research pertinent
to leader behavior and communication that distinctive
styles of leader behavior are discernible in school prin-
cipals by the teachers they supervise and that these dis-
tinctive types of leader behavior affect teacher attitudes
and performance and the climate of the school organization.
Different patterns of leader behavior can also be identi-
fied and measured. Several researchers, particularly
Halpin (1952, 1956, 1966) and Brown (1967) have revised and
extensively used the QBQQ, developed by Hemphill and Coons
(1957), to describe and measure leader behavior in the
school setting. Their research has shown that leader behav-
ior is multidimensional and that various dimensions are corol-
laries of Parsons' (1951) functional imperatives of goal
attainment and adaption, which correspond to instrumental
interaction; likewise pattern maintenance and integration,
which comprise the expressive interaction in the school
organization.

Other researchers, notably Cartwright and Zander
(1953), Kahn (1956), and Getzels and Guba (1957), have also
identified dimensions of leader behavior which appear to
correspond closely to and provide additional support for
the assumption of dichotomons variables that are similar to
the identified task-oriented and person-oriented functional
imperatives described earlier. Additionally, Brown (1967)

has, through factor analysis, classified and reduced

51

Stogdill's (1962) twelve dimensions of leadership discussed
in section two of this chapter, to the two factors of sys-
tem or task-oriented and person-oriented leadership which
are consistent with initiating structure and consideration
activities, respectively.

Studies of communication and interaction between
principals and teachers in schools, while not relating com-
munication modes specifically to leadership behavior, have
described the complexity of the principal-teacher relation-
ship and the pervasive influence their interaction has on
teacher attitude, creativity, loyalty, morale and satis-
faction. Principal-teacher interactions were also found
to be significant in determining the quality and tone of a
school's organizational climate; particularly pervasive
and influential because of the domino effect the principal-
teacher interaction has in affecting teacher contacts with
students and student contacts with parents, in the context
of attitudes about and interaction with the school (Valen-
tine, Tate, Seagren and Lammel, 1975).

In studies of principal-teacher interactions, some
findings on communication modes determined that both how
and what principals say is significant in how they are per-
ceived and their effectiveness. For instance, whether their
communication was direct or indirect, whether principals
revealed their values and attitudes, whether they used
humor, self-words and clarification and whether the com-

munication was one- or two-way, written or oral, frequent

52

or infrequent all affect their interactions with teachers
although there was not 100 percent agreement among all the
researchers on all points.

Washington and Watson (1976) contended that not
only is communication important in the principal-teacher
relationship, the way it is done is even more important
and reflects the principal's leadership style. This rela-
tionship between communication and leadership style or
leader behavior is, of course, the subject of the study at

hand and is examined in depth in the chapters to follow.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The relevant literature pertaining to leadership
and communication was reviewed in Chapter II. This chapter
outlines the procedures utilized to answer the exploratory
research posed in Chapter I. The purpose of this study
was to determine whether or not principals' leader behaviors
are related to the communication behaviors in schools.

The topics discussed in this chapter are: design of
the study, development of the study, setting, study popula-
tion, rationale for the instrumentation, analysis of the

data, and the limitations of the methodology.

Design of the Study

 

The study has been designed to address five explora-
tory questions regarding principals' leader behavior and
communication behaviors in school. These questions are as
follows:

Do principals, who are perceived by teachers as demon-
strating high Initiating Structure leader behavior,
use more Instrumental communication than principals
perceived by teachers as demonstrating low Initiating
Structure?

Do principals, who are perceived by teachers as demon-
strating high Initiating Structure leader behavior,

53

54

use more Expressive communication than principals per-
ceived by teachers as demonstrating low Initiating
Structure?

Do principals, who are perceived by teachers as demon-
strating high Consideration leader behavior, use more
Instrumental communication than principals perceived
by teachers as demonstrating 12g Consideration?

Do principals, who are perceived by teachers as demon-

strating high Consideration leader behavior, use more

Expressive communication than principals perceived by

teachers as demonstrating low Consideration?

Is there a relationship between the perceived instru-

mental and expressive communication patterns of prin-

cipals and the perceived instrumental and expressive

communication patterns of teachers?

Information to address these questions was obtained

via a two-part questionnaire which was administered by the
researcher to teachers in ten elementary schools in a

middle size, urban school district.

Development

 

This study is part of a larger research project
entitled, "Search for Effective Schools Study," which is
being undertaken by the Center for Urban Studies at Harvard
University, under a grant from The National Institute of
Education (NIE). The purpose of the "Search for Effective
Schools" project is to determine (1) what are the limits
on educational achievements of poor children, and (2) what
is the standard of achievement that can reasonably be
expected of urban schools when working with this population
of pupils (Fredericksen, 1980). Data for this project are
being gathered in a number of school districts throughout

the country, including the population for this study. The

55

sample of school districts selected represent some schools

which are instructionally effective and others which are in-

structionally ineffective in teaching disadvantaged students.
The primary research tool utilized in the study is

a survey-questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed by

the research team to assess (l) instructional practices

used by teachers, (2) teacher perceptions of curriculum,

and (3) organization and administration of the school. In

short, the project seeks to shed some light on how teaching

urban disadvantaged can be improved.

The overall purpose of the "Search for Effective

Schools Study," was to determine the differences between
schools instructionally effective and ineffective in teaching
disadvantage students. The objective of the researcher's
study was to examine the role of principals' leader behaviors
and communication behaviors which could be the determining
factors of instructionally effective and ineffective urban
schools. It was also felt that such a study would provide

an important, neglected persPective on effective teaching,

eSpecially the urban disadvantaged.

germs

This study was undertaken in a small urban city,
which is the center of a metropolitan service area with a
population of 400,000 people. The city's economy might
be classified as service-industrial as more than two-thirds
of the labor force is employed in either the automotive

industry or education and government-related jobs. The

56

city's school district consists of forty-one elementary
schools, five junior high schools and four senior high
schools. During the 1979-80 school year 1,545 teachers and
over 100 administrators (including principals) served the
approximately 26,000 students enrolled in grades K-12.

In regards to racial composition, 65 percent of the students
are white, 22 percent black, 10 percent Latino, 1 percent

Native American and 1 percent Asian.

Sample Population

The sample for the "Search for Effective Schools"
project was chosen based on students' low socio-economic
status and whether or not their reading and math test scores
on the state-wide educational, assessment program were above
or below aVerage. The ten schools chosen represented a
cross-section of the achievement levels of elementary schools
in the district.

The author of this study served a dual research
role. The first part of the research was conducted on
behalf of the "Search for Effective Schools" project.

This part of the research involved an interview with each
teacher who volunteered to participate in the research pro-
ject. Once the teachers had completed the interview and
had received their honorarium, the second part of the
research was conducted on behalf of the researcher's study.
The teachers were asked to complete a two-part question-

naire relating to their principal's leader and communication

57

behaviors as well as the communication behaviors among
teachers. Each teacher that volunteered to participate in
the "Search for Effective Schools" project, volunteered to
participate in the researcher's study. The Specific methodo-
logy was as follows:

The researcher contacted the principal at each
school regarding permission to discuss the purpose of "The
Search for Effective Schools" project. The researcher
met with principals and teachers during staff meetings at
their individual schools. The researcher's meetings with
the school staffs were scheduled such that each school was
visited a week in advance of the actual interview. At this
time, the teachers were informed that they would receive a
$20 honorarium for participating in "The Search for Effec-
tive Schools" project. Principals and teachers were assured
that all responses would be confidential and anonymous; that
is, that neither teachers nor principals would be referred
to by name in the study. A week later, the researcher
returned and conducted scheduled interviews. After each
interview the teachers were asked to complete the question-
naire related to the researcher's study. The directions
for completing the questionnaire were explicitly stated
on the form. This process was repeated for each school in
the population. The researcher spent approximately one
week in each school. Out of a possible 173 teachers,
sixty-three teachers (approximately 6.5 per school) volun—

teered to participate in the study.

58

The respondents (teachers) average number of years
of experience at their current schools was 3.9 (ranging
from 1 to 6.1; Table 3.1). Of the ten principals surveyed,
five were male and five were female; in terms of race,
three were Black, one was Mexican American and six were
Caucasian. All of the principals had Masters degrees,
three had graduate credits beyond the Master degree and one
had earned a doctoral degree. The principals' average
years of administrative experience was 9.3 (ranging from

1.5 to 17; Table 3.2).

Instrumentation

 

To determine whether principals' leader behaviors
relate to communication behaviors in schools, five explora-
tory questions which were discussed earlier in this section,
are addressed using the following instruments.

The Leader Behavior Description Qpestionnaire was
used to identify perceived leader behavior of principals
as Initiating Structure and Consideration. According to
Halpin (1966), estimated reliability by the split-half
method is .86 for the Initiating Structure scores, and .93
for the Consideration scores.

These two dimensions of leadership are derived
from Stogdill's (1963) attempt to compare the leader-
behavior of individuals thought to be effective with the
leader-behavior of those thought to be somewhat ineffec-

tive in order to determine if there were significant

 

59

mm.v w ma hem mix OH

m.m n ma gum «is mo

m N «a ANN «is mo
~.m ca cm was win no
m.m m . ma cam one we

H m NH mam elm mo
e.~ m we was one so
m.m a mg «on Gun mo
H.e m MH «om «is mo
m.m a NH mum «is do

 

Hoonom mane um oocmwummxm muoofiwz mwmum muonEoz
mummy mo Hmnfisz unflummwowuumm mmmum
mmmuo>¢ .mucoocommom mo Hwofioz wo Hmnfisz

mucoodum Ho>oq moou
mo HwQEsz moouo Hoozom

 

.maoonom on» no mogumguouomumnouu.fl.m manna

60

 

ma ucmanHo>wn Hocowmmmmoum .Q.£m gouam mHmEom OH

 

h cofluouumwcflfiod auoucoEon .¢.z ouwnz onEmm mo
ommmucm>oomfia .
0H waamusuasu mcwnomme .<.z covaumfid cwofixoz mam: mo
cofipmuumflcweod musoc m

m.m mcgemom .«.z roman mHmEmm no

m.H coflumosom humucoEon + .¢.S muflnz mam: mo

ma coflumuumwcweoa .<.2 mamas onEom mo

ha cowumosom mumucoEon .m.z xomam onEom eo

OH cowumuumflcwsofl on + .¢.z opfisz mam: mo

NH coflumuumflcwfiod .<.z ouwnz can: No

m coflumooom wnmucosoam .¢.z ouwn3 can: Ho
mocofiuomxm

o>flumuumwcwso¢ coaumospm mo Ho>oq comm xom mammwocflum

mo mummy

 

.mammflocaum may mo mowumfluouomnmsOii.m.m magma

61

differences between them. Based on their extensive studies
of leadership, Hemphill and Coons (1950) developed the
Leader Behavior DescriptionQQpestionnaire (LBDQ) to compare
leader behavior. It was later refined by Halpin and Winer
(1952).

Halpin (1952) used the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire to compare the behaviors of flight crews as
part of a military leadership study. In the analysis two
dimensions of leadership, Consideration and Initiating
Structure, were the differentiating factors in leader
behaviors. Initiating structure accounted for 34 percent
of the variance and consideration accounted for 50 percent
of the variance. These two dimensions are defined as

follows:

Consideration includes behavior indicating mutual

trust, respect, and certain warmth and rapport between
the supervisor and his group. This does not mean that
this dimension reflects a superficial "pat-on-the-
back," "first name calling" kind of human relations
behavior. This dimension appears to emphasize a deeper
concern for group members needs and includes such behav-
ior as allowing subordinates more participation in
decision making and encouraging more two-way communica-
tion (Lowin et al., p. 238).

Initiating structure includes behavior in which the
supervisor organizes and defines group activities and
his relations to the group. Thus, he defines the roll
he expects each member to assume, assigns tasks, plans
ahead, establishes ways of getting things done, and
pushes for production. This dimension seems to empha-
size overt attempts to achieve organization goals
(Lowin et al., p. 238).

These two dimensions of leadership provide a typology for
studying leader behavior. The Leader Behavior Description

Questionnaire provided a means of identifying these two

62

types of behavior. For this study, the EQQQ was used to
determine whether perceptions of principals' leader behav-
iors were high or low on initiating structure or high or
low on consideration.

As suggested by the definitions of initiating struc-
ture and consideration, the "dimensions are relatively
independent of one another; the consideration and initiating
structure factors seem to be separate and distinct dimen-
sions, not opposite ends of the same continuum" (Hoy and
Miskel, 1978, p. 183).

If principal's leader behaviors are perceived by
teachers as initiating structure, it can be expected that
the principals define the goals of the schools and their
relationship with the teachers. Principals who initiate
structure define the roles that they expect teachers to
assume; they also assign tasks, establish ways of getting
things done and push for production (Owen, 1970). On the
other hand, leader behaviors perceived as consideration
indicate mutual trust, respect, and a certain warmth and
rapport. The principal so identified will also show concern
for teachers' needs, participation in decision-making and
encourage two-way communication (Owen, 1970).

From Halpin's perspective on leadership it can be
expected that if principals are going to be good leaders
they must contribute to the major objectives of the educa-

tional program (goal achievement) and provide an atmosphere

63

conducive to accomplishing tasks (maintenance). Halpin

contends that:

practical men know that the leader must lead, must
initiate action and get things done. But because
he must accomplish his purpose through other people,

and

without jeOpardizing the intactness or integrity

of the group, the skilled executive knows that he
also must maintain good "human relations" if he is
to succeed in furthering the purposes of the group

(P-

87).

Therefore, according to the constructs developed

by Halpin and Winer (1952), principals should be "strong"

in initiating structure and they should also show high

consideration for teachers.

divided
another

1.

2.

Interpretation of the LBQQ
Initiation of Structure and Consideration can be
into high and low groups and then combined with one
to make the following four dichotomies:

High Initiation of Structure,
Low Consideration

High Initiation of Structure,
High Consideration

Low Initiation of Structure,
High Consideration

Low Initiation of Structure,
Low Consideration

Once each LBDQ answer sheet had been scored on each

of the two dimensions, and the scores had been calculated

from the sixty-three respondents which had been averaged

separately by dimension, the two average scores were desig-

nated as the initiating structure and consideration index

scores .

Each principal was evaluated based on the position

64

of each dimension as compared with the other principals in
the sample.

The index score of leader behaviors determined
which set of dichotdmies a person's leadership reflected.
Those (persons) who scored above the mean on both dimen-
sions were in set two. Those below the mean on both
dimensions were in set four. Those who scored below the
mean in consideration, but above the mean in initiating
structure, were in set one. Those who scored below the
mean on initiating structure but scored above the mean
on consideration were in set three (Halpin, 1953). Because
these dimensions of leadership could be "cross-partitioned,"
by using the mean scores, the nature of a principal's
leader behavior was identified as being one of the four
sets of dichotomies.

Attached to the preceding questionnaire was a ques-
tionnaire developed by the researcher which was used to
survey the communication behaviors of principals and
teachers. The items on the questionnaire were designed to
measure the frequency and forms of instrumental and expres-
sive communication utilized by principals and teachers.

In an attempt to assess the instrumental and the
expressive communication behaviors in elementary schools
it was necessary to develop an instrument that would allow
the researcher to address the necessary inquiries. In order

to coincide with the conceptual framework of this study it

65

was imperative that the questions reflect the concepts of
instrumental and expressive communication.

Etzioni (1961) applied Parsons' instrumental and
expressive activities to communication. He contends that
communication in complex organizations is two-fold. One
form is instrumental and task related to disseminate infor—
mation and knowledge such as administrative directives,
policies and curriculum objectives.

Expressive, the other form, is communication to
integrate individuals into an organization. This type of
communication is person oriented, it changes or reinforces
attitudes, norms and values, and includes praise and
expressions of acceptance.

The development of the Communication Behavior Ques-
tionnaire was based on the concepts of instrumental and
expressive communication and the influence of the Downs and

Hazen (1977) Communication Satisfaction Survey. This survey

 

(CSS) was developed to determine how satisfied a person is
with the amount and quality of information in their organi-

zation. The Communication Satisfaction Survey consist of

 

forty items representing eight factors. The eight factors
are:

1. General Organization Perspective. Items in this
dimension reflect information relating to the
overall functioning of the organization.

2. Personal Feedback. This factor relates to personal
achievement and work and how they are recognized
by the organization.

66

3. Organizational Integration. This reflects the
individual's satisfaction with the information
that he receives about the organization and the
immediate work environment.

4. Communication with Superiors. These items refer to
two-way communication with superiors.

5. Communication Climate. This broad factor reflects
communication at the organizational and personal
levels or the extent to which communication moti-
vates and stimulates workers to meet goals.

6. Horizontal Communication. This factor relates to
informal communication among fellow employees.

7. Media Quality. This reflects the degree to which
employees perceive the major forms of communication
(memos, publications) as functioning effectively.
8. Communication with Subordinates. These items focus
on two-way communication with subordinates (Boy
and Miskel, 1978).
The response categories are:
1. very satisfied
2. satisfied
3. slightly satisfied
4. indifferent
5. slightly dissatisfied
6. dissatisfied
7. very dissatisfied
Categories on the CSS such as General Organizational
Perspective, Personal Feedback, Organizational Integration,
were somewhat related to the concepts of instrumental and
expressive communication. Thus, after discussing these
concepts, along with the concepts of instrumental and
expressive communication with principals and teachers, the

researcher used the Downs and Hazen Communication Satisfac-

tion Survey, as a guide in which to develop the Communica-

 

tion Behavior Questionnaire. The purpose of the Communi-

cation Behavior Questionnaire instrument was to determine

67

how frequently principals communicated with teachers and
how frequently teachers communicated with other teachers
using instrumental and expressive communication. The
instrument was also developed to determine which "forms"
instrumental and expressive communication occurred. Each
item addressed the concept of either instrumental or
expressive communication.

Instrumental communication was defined as communi-
cation necessary to perform a task. Thus, the following
items assessing the frequency of instrumental communication
were related to administrative directives, goals and

objectives, rules and regulations.

Instrumental Communication Questionnaire Items (Principals
to Teachers):
1. How often does your principal communicate about
school policies?
2. How often does your principal communicate about
the goals of the school?
3. How often does your principal communicate about
curriculum objectives?
4. How often does your principal communicate about
rules and regulations regarding attendance?
5. How often does your principal communicate about
district policies?
6. How often does your principal communicate adminis-

trative matters (i.e., finances, student population)?

68

7. How often does your principal communicate his/her
expectations of your job?
8. How often does your principal communicate the

goals of the district?

Instrumental Communication Questionnaire Items (Teachers
to Teachers):
1. How often do teachers communicate about curriculum
objectives?
2. How often do teachers communicate the rules and
regulations regarding attendance?
The estimated reliability scale revealed by the covariance
statistical technique for items pertaining to the principals
and teachers interaction (1-4, 10-13) was .87. The reli-
ability for the items pertaining to teacher interaction
(18 and 19) among each other was .66.
Expressive communication was defined as communica-
tion related to helping an individual integrate into the
organization. Therefore, the following items were related

to expressing rewards, praise and acceptance.

Expressive Communication Questionnaire Items (Principals
to Teachers):
1. How often does your principal communicate informa-
tion about your performance?
2. How often does your principal listen and pay

attention to you?

69

3. How often does your principal praise your efforts?

4. How often does your principal tell you that he/she
trusts you?

5. How often does your principal motivate you and/or
stimulate an enthusiasm for meeting educational
program goals?

6. How often does your principal let you know that
he/she is open to hearing your ideas?

7. How often does your principal communicate that
he/she understands the problems you face doing

your job?

Expressive Communication Questionnaire Items (Teachers to
Teachers):
1. How often do other teachers praise your efforts?
2. How often do teachers motivate and stimulate an
enthusiasm for meeting educational program goals?
3. How often do teachers make you feel you are a vital
part of the school?
The covariance statistical technique indicated that the
estimated reliability scale for items concerning the prin-
cipals and teachers interaction (5-9; 14-17) was .90. The
reliability for the items pertaining to teacher interaction
(20-22) among each other was .83.
The questionnaire items were randomly ordered on
the instrument. A copy of the combined instruments is in.

Appendix A.

70

The communication behavior instrument was also
designed to determine the forms in which communication
occurs. For instance, when a principal engaged in either
instrumental and expressive communication, it was the
researcher's intention to assess the form in which it
occurred. In other words, do principals hold staff meet-
ings or do they communicate with each teacher individually
(individual vs. group meeting)?; do principals use bulletins,
the intercom, or face-to-face communication (written vs.
verbal messages)?; do principals plan meetings or do they

have spontaneous meetings (scheduled vs. unscheduled)?;

and when principals interact with teachers do they give
feedback, ask questions or is the communication non-
reciprocal (one-way vs. two-way)? These same inquiries
were explored with communication among teachers.

The response to these questions on the sruvey ques—
tionnaire provided an indepth perspective on the nature
of instrumental and expressive communication in schools as
it related to initiating structure and consideration leader

behavior.

Analysis of the Data

 

Two statistical techniques were used to answer the
exploratory questions posed above.

In attempts to discover as well as clarify relation-
ships "the correlation coefficient is a precise way of

stating the extent to which one variable is related to

71

another" (Borg and Gall, 1971). Because the purpose of this
study was to identify and explore the relationship between
two sets of variables that produced interval data, the
Pearson product moment correlation was an appropriate
statistical technique.

A Pearson Product Moment correlation was used to
measure the strength and direction of relationships between
leader behaviors and the frequency of instrumental and
expressive communication. The correlation technique postu-
lates that the relationship between any two variables, say
X and Y, ranges between -1 and +1. The magnitude or
strength of the relationship is evidenced by the size of
the correlation coefficient--the index of association.

For example, a correlation coefficient falling between -1
and O (e.g., -.35) suggested that there was an inverse rela-
tionship between X and Y. If the correlation coefficient
was between .40 and .70 the relationship was moderate; and

a coefficient of over .70 represented a strong relation-
ship.

The purpose of the chi-square test is to measure
the differences between data in the form of frequency counts.
Further this test determines the differences between the
frequencies that occur and those frequencies that could be
expected to occur by chance. Because this study was
assessing the frequency of communication behaviors as
measured by the following dichotomies: individual vs. group

meetings; written vs. verbal messages; scheduled vs.

72

unscheduled meetings; and one-way vs. two-way communication,
the chi-square test was used.

This test determined the relationship between two
nominally scaled variables (high and low leader behaviors)
by measuring the observed and expected frequencies. To
determine whether systematic relationship exists, it was
necessary to ascertain whether the probability of obtaining
a value of chi-square was equal to or greater than the one
calculated from the sample. The significance level was set
at .05. Therefore the calculated chi-square value had to

be equal to or greater than 3.8.

Summary

To determine if principals' leader behavior influ-
ences communication behaviors in schools, the exploratory
questions outlined in this chapter served as the substance
of the study.

Teachers from ten elementary schools served as the
sample population. The teachers from these schools were
asked to complete two questionnaires. The first question-
naire, the Leader Behavior Description_Questionnaire was
used to assess the leader behaviors of principals as they
were perceived by teachers. The second survey instrument,
the Communication Behavior Questionnaire was used to
measure the perceived frequency of instrumental and
expressive communication, as well as the forms in which

these behaviors occur.

73

Two statistical techniques were used to answer the
exploratory questions. The Pearson Product Moment Corre-
lation was used to measure strength and direction of
relationships between leader behavior and instrumental and
expressive communication. The chi-square test of statis-
tical significance was used to determine the relationship
between leader behavior and the forms in which communication
occurred.

The analysis of the data collected from the afore-

mentioned population will appear in the next chapter.

Limitations of the Methodology

There are three methodological limitations to this
study. The first limitation is due to the fact that the
data were not gathered from a randomly selected sample.
The researcher used the study population of a current
research project entitled "Search for Effective Schools"
project. Secondly, not only is it a limitation because the
teachers volunteered, but fewer than half of the teachers
in all ten schools volunteered to participate (sixty-three
out of one hundred and seventy-three). The third limitation
is that the Communication Behavior Questionnaire, which
was developed by the researcher, was not pilot-tested.

In summary, because the population sample was not
randomly selected, fewer than half the teachers volunteered
to participate and the Communication Behavior instrument was

not pilot tested, the findings cannot be generalized beyond

74

this study population and any future research related to

this study must consider these limitations.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS

The procedures and methodology utilized in
study were discussed in Chapter III. This chapter
answers to the five exploratory research questions
in Chapters I and III regarding principals' leader

and communication behavior in ten urban elementary

this
seeks
posed
behavior

schools.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not

principals' leader behaviors are related to the communica-

tion behaviors in schools. Two statistical techniques were

used in the analysis. A bivariate correlation technique

was used to measure the strength and direction of relation-

ships between leader behavior (initiating structure and

consideration) and communication behaviors (instrumental

and expressive). The relationship between leader behavior

and the various forms of communication was assessed with

the chi-square test. The following exploratory questions

are addressed:

1. Do principals, who are perceived as demonstrating

high initiating structure leader behavior,

use

more instrumental communication than principals
perceived by teachers as demonstrating low initi-

ating structure?

75

76

2. Do principals who are perceived as demonstrating
high initiating structure leader behavior, use
more expressive communication than principals per-
ceived as demonstrating lg! initiating structure?

3. Do principals who are perceived by teachers as
demonstrating high consideration leader behavior
use more instrumental communication than principals
perceived by teachers as demonstrating 193 con-
sideration?

4. Do principals who are perceived by teachers as
demonstrating high consideration leader behavior,
use more expressive communication than principals
perceived by teachers as demonstrating 19! con-
sideration?

5. Is there a relationship between the perceived
instrumental and expressive communication patterns
of principals and the perceived instrumental and
expressive communication patterns of teachers?

Perceived Leader Behavior of Principals

 

While there are no set norms for mean scores per-
taining to initiating structure and consideration leader
behavior, Halpin's (1957) study of sixty-four educational
administrators was used as a bench mark with which to com-
pare the scores obtained in this study. In Halpin's study,
the mean score for initiating structure was 37.9 and 44.7
for consideration. The mean scores for the ten elementary
school principals surveyed in this study were 43.6 and 39.2,
respectively. The difference in the mean scores might be
attributed to the fact that, when scoring the QQQQ, very
low or very high individual raw scores tend to skew the
group mean.

As explained in Chapter III, because the dimensions

of leader behavior are independent they can be divided into

77

high and low groups. The results of this analysis indicated
that six of the ten principals were above the mean on both
dimensions (high initiating structure, high consideration);
two principals were below the mean on both dimensions (low
initiating structure, low consideration); one principal was
below the mean on initiating structure and above the mean
on consideration (low initiating structure, high considera-
tion); and one principal was above the mean on initiating
structure and below the mean on consideration (high initi-
ating structure, low consideration). The ideal principal
is one with high initiating structure and high considera-
tion leader behavior.

The number of years of administrative experience
varied considerably among the principals surveyed in this
study, ranging from 1 to 6.1 years. However, years of
experience appeared to be unrelated to the principals'
scores, as those with both the least and most experience
exemplified the ideal type, i.e., high initiating structure
and high consideration. On the other hand, there was a
notable pattern along race and sex lines; Black and female
principals also demonstrated high initiating structure and
high consideration leader behavior.

The correlation analysis revealed that there was a
statistically significant positive relationship between
initiating structure and the frequency of instrumental
communication (r = .57, p > .001; Table 4.1). Seven prin-

cipals who were perceived by teachers as strongly pushing

78

Table 4.1.--The Correlations Between Leader Behavior and

 

 

 

Communication.
Leader . . .
Behavior Communication Simple R
Consideration vs. Instrumental .42
Consideration vs. Expressive .69
Initiating Structure vs. Instrumental .57
Initiating Structure vs. Expressive .47
p > .001

for production, assigning tasks and defining their relation-
ships with teachers (high initiating structure), were also
perceived to discuss more information related to school
policies, curriculum objectives and the goals of the

schools (instrumental communication), than three principals
perceived by teachers as not so strongly pushing for pro-
duction, assigning tasks and defining their relationship
with teachers (low initiating structure).

The analysis indicates that there was also a sta-
tistically significant positive relationship between initi-
ating structure behavior and the frequency of expressive
communication (r = .47, p > .001; Table 4.1). The seven
principals who were perceived by teachers as strongly push-
ing for production, were perceived as expressing more

praise for teachers' efforts and showing greater acceptance

79

of teachers (expressive communication) than the three
principals perceived by teachers as not so strongly push-
ing for production.

Similarly, the analysis related to consideration
leader behavior and instrumental communication indicated
that there was a significant correlation (r = .42, p >
.001; Table 4.1). This positive relationship indicates
that as the ten principals strongly showed respect, warmth
and built a rapport with teachers (high consideration),
they also discussed district and school policies, curriculum
objectives and the goals of the schools more. Likewise,
the analysis revealed a statistically significant direct
association (r = .69, p > .001) between consideration leader
behavior and the frequency of expressive communication
(Table 4.1). Thus, seven principals who were perceived by
teachers as strongly demonstrating mutual respect and trust
were perceived as expressing praise to teachers for their
efforts more than the three principals who were perceived
as not so strongly building a rapport with teachers. In
contrast, the analysis further indicated that the associ-
ation between the perceived instrumental and expressive
communication patterns of principals and the perceived
instrumental and expressive communication of teachers was
not statistically significant (Table 4.2).

In summary, the results disclosed that there was a
statistically significant relationship between initiating

structure and consideration leader behaviors and the

80

Table 4.2.--The Correlations Between the Perceived Patterns
of Principals' and Teachers' Instrumental and
Expressive Communication.

 

 

CPrincipals' Teachers' Simple R
ommunication Communication

Instrumental vs. Instrumental .1562*
Instrumental vs. Expressive .0666*
Expressive vs. Expressive .0682*
Expressive vs. Instrumental .1227*

 

*Not statistically significant.

p < .001

frequencies of instrumental and expressive communication
behaviors (Table 4.1). However, the relationship between
initiating structure and the frequency of instrumental com-
munication is stronger than the relationship between initi-
ating structure and the frequency of expressive communica-
tion. Likewise, the association between consideration leader
behavior and the frequency of expressive communication is
stronger than that between consideration behavior and
instrumental communication (Table 4.1). The implications
are that principals demonstrating either type of leader
behavior, may use both types of communication. However,
the frequency of communication may differ depending on
whether the level of leader behavior is high or low.

This study further indicated that there was no

statistically significant relationship between the perceived

81

frequency of principals' communication patterns and the per-
ceived frequency of teachers' communication patterns. These
findings suggest that the frequency of which principals dis-
cussed curriculum objectives, district policies, school
rules and regulations, and expressed reward, praise and
acceptance was not related to how often (frequency) teachers
discussed curriculum objectives, district policies, rules
and regulations of the school; and express rewards, praise
and acceptance with each other.
Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs.
Instrumental and Expressive Communi-
cation Used by Principals

In this section, the chi-square test was used to
assess the relationship between leader behaviors and the
selected forms of communication. Leader behavior was
nominally classified as being either high or low and com-
munication was measured according to the following four
dichotomies: individual or group meetings; written or
verbal messages; scheduled or unscheduled meetings; and
one-way or two-way communication. The intent was to pro-
vide some insights into the forms in which principals and
teachers communicate with one another. Further, a compari-
son between instrumental and expressive communication
allows the researcher to determine if there are substantial
differences between these two types of communication, as

measured by the designated forms of communication. The

82

relationship between initiating structure leader behavior
and instrumental communication was assessed first.

The chi-square test revealed that there are no sta-
tistically significant differences between initiating
structure and instrumental communication, as measured by
individual vs. group meetings and written vs. verbal mes-
sages dichotomies. Most principals, irrespective of how
strongly they pushed for production or reassured teachers
of their roles and assigned tasks, tended to use group
meetings (Table 4.3) and verbal messages (Table 4.4) when
discussing information necessary for teachers to do their
jobs, i.e., curriculum objectives, district and school
policies and the school's goals. However, initiating
structure leader behavior crosstabulated with instrumental
communication as measured by scheduled vs. unscheduled
meetings and one-way vs. two-way communication, indicated
statistically significant differences (Table 4.5 and 4.6).
The differences occurred because it was expected statis-
tically that those principals strongly pushing for pro-
duction would use fewer scheduled and more unscheduled
meetings than they were perceived as using. It was also
statistically expected that those principals perceived as
pushing less strongly for production would use more
scheduled and fewer unscheduled meetings when discussing
curriculum objectives, rules and regulations of the school,

and district and school policies.

83

Table 4.3,—-Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs. Instru-
mental Communication as a Form of Individual vs.
Group Meetings Used Between Principal and Teachers.

 

 

Individual Group Total
High (22.1)a (192.8)
18 197 p 215
Low (16.8) (146)
21 142 163
Total 39 339 N = 378
x2 = 1.99
p < .05
df = 1

 

a I 0
Numbers in parentheses are expected frequenCies.

Table 4.4.--Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs.
Instrumental Communication as a Form of Written
vs. Verbal Messages Used Between Principal and

 

 

Teacher.
Written Verbal Total
High (21.7)a (106.2)
20 108 128
Low (18.2) (88.7)
20 87 107
Total 40 195 N = 235
x2 = .363
p < .05
df = l

 

a I 0
Numbers in parentheses are expected frequenCies.

84

Table 4.5.--Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs.
Instrumental Communication as a Form of
Scheduled vs. Unscheduled Meetings Used
Between Principals and Teachers.

 

 

Scheduled Unscheduled Total
High (155.5)a (24.4)
163 17 . 180
Low (130.4) (20.5)
123 28 151
Total 286 45 N = 331
x2 — 5.76
p > .05
df = l

 

a O 0
Numbers in parentheses are expected frequenc1es.

Table 4.6.--Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs.
Instrumental Communication as a Form of One-
Way and Two-Way Communication Used Between
Principals and Teachers.

 

 

One-Way Two-Way Total
High , (74.8)a (130.0)
62 143 205
Low (56.1) (97.8)
69 85 154
Total 131 228 N = 359
x2 = 5.11
p > .05
df = l

 

a I 0
Numbers in parentheses are expected frequenc1es.

85

In reference to the type of communication, the chi
square test revealed that those principals perceived as
strongly pushing for production and assigning tasks, util-
ized less one-way communication and more two-way communica-
tion than anticipated when discussing curriculum objectives,
district policies and the like. On the other hand, those
principals perceived as pushing less strongly for produc-
tion, used more one-way and less two-way communication when
using instrumental communication.

As Table 4.7 shows, there was a statistically sig-
nificant difference between initiating structure leader
behavior and expressive communication as measured by individ-
ual vs. group meetings. The statistical difference between
initiating structure and individual and group meetings arose
because those principals perceived as strongly pushing for
production used fewer individual meetings and more group
meetings than expeCted when building friendships with
teachers and expressing concerns for their needs.

Secondly, those principals perceived as not so strongly
pushing for production and defining their relationships
with teachers used more individual meetings and fewer group
meetings than expected when giving teachers praise for their
efforts in their job. Therefore, it can be concluded that
regardless of the degree to which principals push for pro-
duction, they most often use individual meetings as a
medium for indicating trust, respect and building rapport

between themselves and teachers.

86

Table 4.7.--Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs.
Expressive Communication as a Form of Individual
vs. Group Meetings Used Between Principals and
Teachers.

 

 

Individual Group Total
High (122.3)a (53.6)
114 62 , 176
Low ”(80.6) (35.3)
89 27 116
Total 203 89 N = 292
x2 = 4.64
p > .05
df = 1

 

aNumbers in parentheses are expected frequencies.

Table 4.8.--Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs.
Expressive Communication as a Form of Written
vs. Verbal Messages Used Between Principal and

 

 

Teachers.
Written Verbal Total
High (13.5)a (94.4)
14 94 108
Low (7.4) (51.5)
7 52 59
Total 21 146 N = 167
x2 = .0465
p > .05
df = 1

 

aNumbers in parentheses are expected frequencies.

87

In contrast, the chi-square test indicated that
there was no statistically significant difference between
initiating structure leader behavior and expressive com-
munication as measured by the written vs. verbal messages
and scheduled vs. unscheduled meetings when principals
build rapport with teachers (Table 4.9).

However, initiating structure and type of communi-
cation revealed statistical differences because those
principals who strongly pushed for production were per-
ceived as using less one-way and more two-way communication
than was anticipated when building rapport with teachers.
Whereas, those principals who were perceived as not so
strongly pushing for production used more one-way and less
two-way communication than'expected when expressing praise
and giving teachers rewards for their efforts. These
findings suggest that two-way communication is used when
principals give praises and rewards, regardless of how
strongly they push for production.

Consideration Leader Behavior vs.
Instrumental and Expressive

Communication Used
by Principals

 

 

The following discussion is concerned with the
relationships between consideration leader behavior and
instrumental and expressive communication as measured by
individual vs. group meetings; written vs. verbal messages;
scheduled vs. unscheduled; and one-way vs. two-way forms

of communication.

Table 4.9.--Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs.
Expressive Communication as a Form of Scheduled
vs. Unscheduled Meetings Used Between Principal

and Teachers.

 

 

Scheduled Unscheduled Total
High (51.6) (133.3)
53 132 185
Low (29.3) (75.6)
28 77 105
Total 81 209 N = 290
x2 = .133
p > .05
df = 1

 

a . .
Numbers in parentheses are expected frequenc1es.

Table 4.10.--Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs.
Expressive Communication as a Form of One-
Way vs. Two-Way Communication Used Between
Principals and Teachers.

 

One-Way

 

Two-Way Total
High (54.7)a (167.2)
46 176 222
Low (35.2) (107.7)
44 99 143
Total 90 275 N = 365
x2 = 4.6
p > .05
df = l

 

a . .
Numbers in parentheses are expected frequenc1es.

89

The chi-square test indicated that there are no
statistically significant differences between principals
perceived as developing mutual trust and respect when they
discussed curriculum objectives, district and school policies
and the goals of the school (instrumental communication), as
measured by individual and group meetings; written and
verbal messages; and scheduled and unscheduled meetings.
The majority of principals who were perceived as develop-
ing mutual trust and respect with teachers tended to use
group meetings (Table 4.11), verbal messages (Table 4.12),
and scheduled meetings (Table 4.13) when they discussed
information that would help teachers integrate into the
organization or when giving praise and rewards.

In contrast, there was a statistical difference
between consideration leader behavior and instrumental
communication as measured by one-way vs. two-way types of
communication. The statistical difference was a result of
those principals who strongly built rapport, showed con-
cerns for teachers needs and were perceived as utilizing
less one-way communication and more two-way communication
than expected. Further, principals who were perceived as
not so strongly building a rapport and showing a concern
for teachers' needs, used more one-way and less two-way
communication than anticipated when discussing curriculum
objectives, district and school policies; and goals of the

school (Table 4.14).

90

Table 4.ll.--Consideration Leader Behavior vs. Instrumental
Communication as a Form of Individual vs. Group
Communication Between Principals and Teachers.

 

 

Individual Group Total
High (17.2)a (96.7)
20 94 114
Low (21.7) (122.2)
19 125 144
Total 39 219 N = 258
x2 = .705
p < .05
df = l

 

a . .
Numbers in parentheses are expected frequenc1es.

Table 4.12.--Consideration Leader Behavior vs. Instrumental
Communication as a Form of Written vs. Verbal
Communication Between Principals and Teachers.

 

 

Written Verbal Total
High (23.65)a (115.3)
22 117 139
Low (16.34) (79.6)
18 78 96
Total 40 195 N = 235
x2 = .342
p < .05
df = 1

 

aNumbers in parentheses are expected frequencies.

91

Table 4.13.--Consideration Leader Behavior vs. Instrumental
Communication as a Form of Scheduled vs.
Unscheduled Meetings Between Principals and

 

 

Teachers.
Scheduled Unscheduled Total
High (166.2)a (33.7)
160 40 , 200
Low (119.7) (24.27)
126 18 144
Total 286 58 N = 344
x2 = 3.3
p < .05
df = l

 

a O 0
Numbers in parentheses are expected frequenc1es.

Table 4.14.--Consideration Leader Behavior vs. Instrumental
Communication as a Form of One-Way vs. Two-Way
Communication Between Principals and Teachers.

 

 

One-Way Two-Way Total
High (80.2)a (139.7)
59 161 220
Low (50.7) - (88.2)
72 67 139
Total 131 228 N = 359
x2 = 22.83
p > .05
df = l

 

a . .
Numbers in parentheses are expected frequenc1es.

92

To summarize, the chi-square test indicated that
there are no statistical differences between principals
strongly pushing for production and information needed to
do a job (i.e., curriculum objectives, district and school
policies and goals of the school) as measured by individual
vs. group meetings; and written vs. verbal messages. Most
of the principals, whether or not they were perceived as
strongly pushing for production used scheduled meetings.
Principals perceived both ways also used two-way communi-
cation.

It was also the purpose of this analysis to deter-
mine if there was a statistical difference between considera-
tion leader behavior and expressive communication, as mea-
sured by the aforementioned forms of communication. The
chi-square test indicates that there were no statistically
significant differences between principals who expressed
rewards and praises as measured by individual vs. group
meetings. Most of the principals in this study, who
strongly and not so strongly developed mutual trust and
respect with teachers were perceived as using individual
meetings (Table 4.15).

However, the relationship between consideration
leader behavior and written vs. verbal messages as forms of
expressive communication was statistically significant.

The statistical difference was created by those principals
perceived as strongly developing mutual trust and respect

and rapport with teachers, who used fewer written and more

93

Table 4.15.--Consideration Leader Behavior vs. Expressive
Communication as Forms of Individual vs. Group
Between Teachers and Principals.

 

 

Individual Group Total
High (121.6)a (53.3)
124 51 175
Low (81.3) (35.6)
79 38 117
Total 203 89 N = 292
x2 = .371
p < .05
df = 1

 

aNumber in parentheses are expected frequencies.

Table 4.16.--Consideration Leader Behavior vs. Expressive
Communication as Forms of Written vs. Verbal
Messages Between Principals and Teachers.

 

 

Written Verbal Total
High (13.2)a (168.7)
9 173 182
Low (7.72) (98.2)
12 94 106
Total 21 267 N = 288
x2 = 3.97
p < .05
df = l

 

aNumbers in parentheses are expected frequencies.

94

verbal messages than expected, and from those principals
perceived as not so strongly developing a rapport with

teachers, who used more written and verbal messages than
anticipated when giving praises and rewards (Table 4.16).

In contrast, consideration leader behavior and
expressive communication via scheduled vs. unscheduled
meetings and one-way vs. two-way communication were not
statistically different. Principals perceived as strongly
or not so strongly developing a rapport with teachers
tended to be perceived as using unscheduled meetings
(Table 4.17) and two-way communication (Table 4.18).

To summarize, the chi-square test indicated that
there are no statistical differences between initiating
structure leader behavior and instrumental communication as
measured by individual vs. group meetings; and written vs.
verbal messages. The majority of principals used group
meetings and verbal messages when discussing district and
school policies, goals of the school and curriculum objec-
tives. Statistically significant was the finding that most
principals perceived as strongly pushing for production,
assigning task to teachers and defining their relationships
with teachers; and those perceived as not so strongly push-
ing production both used scheduled meetings when discussing
district and school policies, curriculum objectives and the
goals of the school. Both those principals perceived as
strongly and not so strongly pushing for production used

two-way communication when discussing school and district

95

Table 4.17.--Consideration Leader Behavior vs. Expressive
Communication as Forms of Scheduled vs.
Unscheduled Meetings Between Principals and

 

 

Teachers.
Scheduled Unscheduled Total
High (64.9)a (133.06)
59 139 , 198
Low (37.06) (75.9)
43 70 113
Total 102 209 N = 311
x2 = 2.1
p < .05
df = l

 

a . .
Numbers in parentheses are expected frequenc1es.

Table 4.18.--Consideration Leader Behavior vs. Expressive
Communication as Forms of One-Way vs. Two-Way
Communication Between Principals and Teachers.

 

 

One-Way Two-Way Total
High (57.6)a (180.3)
53 185 238
Low (30.3) (94.6)
35 90 125
Total 88 275 N = 363
x2 = 1.44
p < .05
df = 1

 

a . .
Numbers in parentheses are expected frequenc1es.

96

policies, curriculum objectives and the like. This leader
behavior crosstabulated with expressive communication
(written vs. verbal messages; scheduled vs. unscheduled)
revealed no statistical differences. Most principals per-
ceived by teachers as either strongly or not so strongly
pushing for production used verbal messages and unscheduled
meetings when giving praise and rewards for their job efforts.
The statistical difference between initiating structure
leader behavior and expressive communication (i.e., individ-
ual vs. group meetings; and one-way vs. two-way communica-
tion) indicates that those principals perceived as strongly
pushing for production used individual meetings, while
principals perceived as not so strongly pushing for pro-
duction used group meetings. Principals perceived as
strongly pushing for production used two-way communication;
likewise, those perceived as not so strongly pushing for
production also used two-way communication when expressing
praise and rewards to teachers.

In regard to consideration leader behavior, most
principals perceived as strongly and not so strongly
developing mutual trust and respect towards teachers used
group meetings, verbal messages, and scheduled meetings when
communicating information necessary for teachers to do their
jobs. Those principals perceived as not so strongly devel-
oping mutual trust and respect toward teachers used one-way
and two-way communication. On the other hand, considera-

tion leader behavior crosstabulated with expressive

97

communication (i.e., written vs. verbal messages) indicated
that principals perceived as strongly and not so strongly
developing mutual respect and trust with teachers used
verbal messages.

There were no statistical differences between prin-
cipals strongly and not so strongly developing mutual trust
and respect with teachers and expressing praise and accep-
tance to teachers (expressive communication) as measured by
the various forms of communication. The analysis indicated
that individual and unscheduled meetings, as well as two-
way communication, are the forms principals tended to use
in expressive communication and assessment of the leader
behavior of principals and the various forms of communica-
tion used among teachers comprises the following section.

Initiating Structure Leader Behavior vs.

Instrumental and Expressive Communi-
cation Used by Teachers

 

 

 

This part of the analysis focuses on the relation-
ship between initiating structure leader behavior and
instrumental and expressive communication as measured by
selected forms of communication (individual vs. group
meetings; written vs. verbal messages; scheduled vs.
unscheduled meetings; and one-way vs. two-way communication)
among teachers. This information should provide some idea
of how teachers communicate with each other based on the
leader behavior and communication behavior of their prin-

cipal.

98

The chi-square test revealed no statistically sig-
nificant difference between principals who pushed for pro-
duction, defined their relationship with teachers and
assigned tasks; and information discussing district and
school policies, the goals of the schools and curriculum
objectives measured via individual vs. group meetings;
written vs. verbal messages; and one-way vs. two-way com-
munication dichotomies used among teachers. The majority
of the teachers, irrespective of how strongly principals
pushed for production, defined relationships and assigned
task, used group meetings, verbal messages, and two-way
communication when discussing curriculum objectives, the
goals of the school district and school policies with each
other. On the other hand, there is a statistically signifi-
cant difference between initiating structure and instru-
mental communication measured on the scheduled vs. unsched-
uled meetings dichotomy. Those teachers who perceived their
principals as strongly pushing for production used more
scheduled and fewer unscheduled meetings than expected.
Further, those teachers who perceived their principals as
not so strongly pushing for production used fewer scheduled
and more unscheduled meetings than expected when discussing
the rules and regulations, school and district policies,
and curriculum objectives.

The chi-square test revealed no statistically sig-
nificant differences between initiating structure leader

behavior and expressive communication as measured by all the

99

forms of communication used among teachers. The majority
of the teachers, regardless of the perceived degree to
which principals pushed for production, used individual
meetings, verbal messages, unscheduled meetings, and two-
way forms of communication when giving praise and reward
for other teachers' efforts and making other teachers feel
accepted and a part of the group.

Consideration Leader Behavior vs.

Instrumental and Expressive

Communication Used
by Teachers

 

 

 

 

In this section the analysis of the relationship
between leader behavior and expressive communication used
by teacher is discussed.

The cross tabulation of consideration leader behav-
ior and instrumental communication as measured by individual
vs. group meetings; written vs. verbal messages; scheduled
vs. unscheduled meetings; and one-way vs. two-way communi-
cation dichotomies revealed no significant differences.

The majority of the teachers irrespective of whether their
principal strongly or not so strongly established mutual
trust and respect with teachers used group meetings, verbal
messages, both scheduled and unscheduled meetings, and two-
way communication forms when discussing goals of the school,
curriculum objectives and school district policies with
each other.

The same leader behavior, crosstabulated with

expressive communication among teachers as measured by the

100

selected forms of communication, showed that there were no
statistically significant differences. The majority of
teachers, who perceived their principal as strongly and not
so strongly building mutual trust and respect with
teachers, used individual meetings, verbal messages,
unscheduled meetings and two-way communication as mediums

for expressing praise and rewarding each other's efforts.

Summary

In this chapter the relationship between principals'
leader behavior and communication behaviors was analysed
using data obtained via a survey questionnaire which was
administered to teachers in ten schools of a middle-sized
urban school district. A correlation statistical technique
was used to measure the strength and direction of relation-
ships between leader behavior and the frequency of instru-
mental and expressive communication. The chi-square test
was used to measure the association between the two types of
leader behavior and the various forms of instrumental and
expressive communication used between principals and teachers
and among teachers. A final summarization, conclusions and

recommendations are presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to determine whether
or not principals' leader behaviors are related to the com-
munication behaviors in schools. The nature of principals'
and teachers' communication behaviors were assessed to
determine whether they were related to principals' leader
behavior. Specifically, five exploratory questions regard-
ing the association between leader behavior and communica-
tion were examined. They were:

#1. Do principals, who are perceived by teachers as
demonstrating high Initiating Structure leader
behavior, use more Instrumental communication
than principals perceived by teachers as demon-
strating 123 Initiating Structure?

#2. Do principals, who are perceived by teachers as
demonstrating high Initiating Structure leader
behavior, use more Expressive communication
than principals perceived by teachers as demon-
strating 123 Initiating Structure?

#3. Do principals, who are perceived by teachers as
demonstrating high Consideration leader behavior,
use more Instrumental communication than principals
perceived by teachers as demonstrating igg Con-
sideration?

#4. Do principals, who are perceived by teachers as
demonstrating high Consideration leader behavior,
use more Expressive communication than principals
perceived by teachers as demonstrating $23 Con-
sideration?

101

102

#5. Is there a relationship between the perceived
instrumental and expressive communication pat-
terns of principals and the perceived instru-
mental and expressive communication patterns
of teachers?

Data for the study were obtained from teachers in
ten elementary schools in a middle sized, urban school dis-
trict. The teachers were asked to complete two question-
naires, the Leader Behavior Descriptionggestionnaire,
which was used to assess the perceived leader behaviors
of principals, and Communication Behavior Questionnaire,
which was used to measure the frequency of instrumental and
expressive communication.

Two statistical techniques were used to answer the
five exploratory questions. The Pearson product moment
correlation was used to measure strength and direction of
relationships between leader behavior and instrumental and
expressive communication. The chi-square test was used to

determine the relationship between leader behavior and the

various forms of communication.

Conclusions

 

The analyses revealed the following:

1. Principals who are perceived as demonstrating high
initiating structure used more instrumental com-
munication than those demonstrating low initiating
structure.

2. Principals who are perceived as demonstrating high

initiating structure used more expressive

103

communication than those demonstrating low initi-
ating structure.

Principals who are perceived by teachers as demon-
strating high consideration, used more instrumental
communication than those demonstrating low considera-
tion.

Principals who are perceived as demonstrating high
consideration, used more expressive communication
than those demonstrating low consideration.

There was no significant relationship between the
perceived instrumental and expressive communication
of principals and the perceived instrumental and
expressive communication patterns of teachers.
There was no statistically significant differences
between initiating structure and instrumental com-
munication as measured by individual vs. group
meetings, and written vs. verbal messages. The
majority of principals tended to use group meetings
and verbal messages with instrumental communication.
Principals perceived as showing both high and low
initiating structure used scheduled meetings and
two-way communication.

Principals perceived as demonstrating high initi-
ating structure used individual meetings and two-
way communication. Those perceived as low initi-
ating structure used group meetings and two-way

communication.

104

9. Most principals tended to use verbal messages and
unscheduled meetings when using expressive communi-
cation.

10. Principals perceived as demonstrating high considera-
tion used two-way communication and principals per-
ceived as low consideration used one-way communica-
tion.

11. Most principals, regardless of high or low con-
sideration leader behavior tended to use group meet-
ings, verbal messages and scheduled meetings.

12. There was a statistically significant difference
between consideration and expressive communication
as measured by verbal vs. written messages. Both
high and low consideration used verbal messages.

13. There was no statistically significant difference
between consideration leader behavior and expressive
communication as measured by individual vs. group
meetings; scheduled vs. unscheduled meetings; and
one-way vs. two-way communication. Regardless of
high or low consideration leader behavior principals
tended to use individual and unscheduled meetings
and two-way communication.

The next section is concerned with the relationship
between perceived leader behavior of principals and the
interaction among the teachers themselves. Generally stated,

the question is whether certain types of teacher/teacher

105

interaction are related to certain types of principal
leader behavior.

Regardless of the level of initiating structure
leader behavior, the teachers in these ten schools tended
to use group meetings, verbal messages and two-way communi-
cation among themselves when discussing curriculum objec-
tives, rules and regulations of the school, school and dis—
trict policies and administrative directives (instrumental
communication). Those teachers who perceived their prin-
cipals as both high and low on initiating structure used
scheduled as opposed to unscheduled meetings. Teachers
used individual meetings, verbal messages, unscheduled
meetings and two-way forms of expressive communication
(acceptance, rewards and praises of job efforts) among
each other.

Teachers who perceived their principals as demon-
strating consideration leader behavior, tended to use group
meetings, verbal messages, both scheduled and unscheduled
meetings and two-way forms of instrumental communication
among themselves. However, when using expressive communi-
cation among each other, teachers tended to use individual
meetings, verbal messages, unscheduled meetings and two-way
communication as mediums of communication. In summary, the
study did not detect any significant differences in type
or quantity of teacher/teacher interaction despite perceived

differences in leader behavior.

106

Discussion

 

The conceptual framework of this study was derived
largely from the work of Parsons (1951, 1953) who maintains
that every collectivity, organization or group, must address
four functional problems or imperatives. Of these, two are
instrumental activities: goal attainment and adaptions; and
two are expressive activities: pattern maintenance and inte-
gration.

The instrumental activities of goal attainment and
adaptation, serve two different functions. Goal attainment
serves the function of coordinating activities so that the
system moves toward attainment. Adaptation is obtaining the
means necessary to reach system goals.

The expressive activities of pattern maintenance
and integration also have distinctive functions. Pattern
maintenance reconciles the norms and demands of participa-
tion in one social with the demands of another social
system (i.e., the person as a system fitting into the
organization system). It is maintaining a level of motiva-
tion sufficient for the performance of tasks necessary to
achieve the stated goals. The fourth functional imperative,
integration, addresses relationships between members of an
organization. It establishes and maintains a level of
solidarity and cohesion among individuals.

According to Parsons, every organization must cope
with all four functional imperatives to maintain an ade-

quate operation. Attention to only one imperative could

107

cause disequilibrium within the organization. A system
moves toward dynamic equilibrium of the four functional
imperatives over time.

Because initiating structure and consideration
leader behavior and instrumental and expressive communica-
tion are conceptually synonymous with Parsons' four func-
tional imperatives, it was not surprising to find a positive
relationship between these two sets of variables (Table 4.1).
Further, it is possible that the concepts of leadership and
communication are so closely related that to question the
existence of this relationship is unwarranted by mere virtue
of their inherent form.g

As the following illustration shows each statistical
correlation between initiating structure and consideration
leader behavior and instrumental and expressive communica-

tion was positive.

Leader Behavior

 

 

Initiating Structure Consideration
Communication
Instrumental +.57 +.42
Expressive +.47 +.69

 

 

 

 

Each type of leader behavior prompted both types of communi-
cation behavior.“This implies that no matter what type of
leader behavior is used, some type of communication behavior

will be necessary. In light of these consistent positive

108

relationships, one could conclude that leadership cannot
exist without communication; they are synonymous concepts
within this context. When principals project leader behav-
ior it is through a type of communication behavior.¢~

Several researchers support the notion of leader-
ship and communication as being tautological. Thayer (1961)
contends that "the administration (leadership) of any organi-
zation can be accomplished only through communication"

(p. 3); Merrihue (1960) maintains that communication pro-
jects leadership, and Gerloff and Cummins (1977) view leader-
ship as dependent on communication. However,*the stronger
relationships between principals who push for production,
assign tasks and defined their role with teachers; and the
type of communication needed to do a job are worthy of recog-
nition. This finding can be attributed to the fact that
these types of leader behavior strongly motivate correspond-
ing types of communication behaviors.

This study also revealed a positive relationship
between principals perceived as demonstrating high considera-
tion and initiating structure leader behaviors and instru-
mental communication than principals perceived as low con-
-sideration and initiating structure. Yet, the findings
also indicated a positive relationship between principals
demonstrating low consideration and initiating structure
and expressive communication. A collectivity or group
requires both types of interactions, just as it calls for

both types of leader behavior. Further, these findings not

109

only substantiate the notion that leader behavior is multi-
dimensional, but also provide strong evidence that communi-
cation behaviors are multi-dimensional. Thus, Tannenbaum's
(1966) assertion that leadership style influences communi-
cation style appears to be correct for the leaders them-
selves. However, there are indications from the analysis
that the frequency of teachers' communication patterns are
not consistent with principals' communication patterns.
This disputes an earlier contention that principals' com-
munication behaviors will be reflected in the communication
behaviors of teachers (Chapter 1, p. 6). This exploratory
hypothesis was derived from Halpin's (1950) conclusion

that changes in the attitude of group members toward each
other and group characteristics such as harmony, intimacy
and procedural clarity are significantly associated with
the leadership style of the leaders. Strongly pushing for
production, assigning task and defining relationships with
staff (teachers) combined with strongly developing mutual
trust and respect and friendship with teachers are associ-
ated with favorable changes in group attitudes.

Since principals' leadership styles can affect the
attitude, morale and climate of a school, the natural order
of logic was to infer that teachers' communication behav-
iors would, likewise, be associated with principals' com-
munication behaviors. While this study suggests that this

is not the case, it must be left to future research to

110

determine the actual relationship between principal and
teacher communication behaviors.

The various forms of communication as defined in
this study appear to reflect the organizational structure
of a school.

The forms of instrumental and expressive communica-
tion used between principals and teachers and among
teachers were basically consistent. There are several
reasons for this consistency. Given the nature of instru-
mental communication (information necessary to do a job)
it is not unusual that it occurs most often in scheduled
group meetings; this definitely is the standard procedure
in public schools. On the other hand, the finding that
instrumental communication is conveyed by verbal messages
more often than written messages is surprising. Verbal
messages are expected in staff meetings, but written mes-
sages are so frequently viewed as the appropriate medium
for disseminating information (McCleary, 1968) pertaining
to school rules and regulations, district goals and policies
and curriculum objectives (instrumental communication).

Because initiating structure leader behavior denotes
pushing for production and giving directives, the finding
that two-way interaction was the most frequent form of
instrumental communication used by principals demonstrating
both high and low initiating structure leader behavior was
unanticipated. Consideration, as the type leader behavior

that establishes rapport, mutual trust, and friendship would

111

seem most likely to occur in two-way communication. Yet,
the findings indicated that those principals perceived as
demonstrating low consideration used one-way communication.
Given the differences between the characteristics of these
two leader behaviors it was ironic that both high and low
initiating structure leader behavior were associated with
two-way instrumental and expressive communication.

This brings us to the notion that leader behavior

can be situational. As Fiedler (1967) contended, leadership

is contingent upon nonleadership variables. He found that

if relationships between the members and the leader are bad,

tasks and the position of the leader not clearly established,

then attention to interpersonal leadership or something
close to consideration is critical. This suggests that
while two-way communication may be natural or even more
palatable, it is not always appropriate.

The findings regarding expressive communication are
not far from predictable. Since expressive communication
encompasses information giving praise and helping people
integrate into a system, it was appropriate that this type
of "semi-personal" communication would take place in
unscheduled and individual meetings. These situations are
conducive to spontaneous conversations and planned personal
conferences held before and after school in the classrooms
and corridors or in the principal's office.

Another characteristic of expressive communication

is its two-way nature; thus it was expected that this type

 

A A Jr

112

of communication would be reciprocal. As it is frequently
casual rather than planned, verbal messages instead of
written messages seem likely and the study confirmed this
expectation.

In summary, the findings of this study indicate that
leadership and communication are indeed related and that
there is a relationship between principals' leader behav-
iors and their communication behaviors. Further, not only
is leader behavior multi-dimensional, but communication
within the organization appears also to be multi-
dimensional; according to Parsons (1951, 1953), the
equilibrium of an organization can be maintained if both
dimensions are functional. Lastly, Fiedler contends that
leadership (and this researcher maintains that the same
holds for communication) is situational. Thus, it is
possible that much of principals' behavior leadership or
communicative behaviors takes place in an interpersonal
situation and thus may represent initiative action or

reaction to communication from others.

Implications for Future Research

 

To begin, the Communication Behavior Questionnaire
was developed by the researcher. While a test of internal
consistency established the fact that this instrument is
reliable, there is no doubt that more elaborate testing

could be done to refine the instrument.

113

Secondly, the study sample for this population was
limited to ten elementary schools. While this study pro-
vided some insights into the relationship between leader-
ship and communication in elementary schools, it would be
interesting to compare these findings to other elementary,
junior high and secondary schools in different parts of the
countryy/ Thirdly, as noted in Chapter IV it appears that
those principals with the most and the least years of experi-
ence demonstrated both high initiating structure and con-
sideration leader behavior, which is theoretically ideal.
Given the complexity of urban schools, further research
should compare leader behaviors between principals in urban,
suburban, and rural schools, and according to the sex and
race of principals. In this study, the Blacks who happened
to be female were perceived as demonstrating high considera-
tion and high initiating structure behavior.

Lastly, it would be worthwhile to compare the find—
ings with student achievement scores and the morale of the
teachers. Once this is done perhaps some conclusions about
the impact of principals' leader and communication behavior

on schools can be drawn.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bales, Robert. "In Conference" in Amitai Etzioni (Ed.),
Readings on Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1969.

Barnard, C. I. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1938.

Becker, Gerald et al. Issues and Patterns in Elementary
School Administration. Corvallis: Center Univer-
sity, 1970.

Borg, Walter, and Gall, Meredith D. Educational Research:
An Introduction. New York: David McKay Company,
Inc., 1971.

 

 

Bowers, David, and Seashore, Stanley. "Predicting Organi-
zational Effectiveness with a Four-Factor Theory of
Leadership." Administrative Science Quarterly 11,
1966.

Brown, Alan. "Reactions to Leadership." Educational
Administrative Quarterly 3, 1967.

 

. "Research in Organizational Dynamics: Implications
for School Administrators." The Journal of Educa-
tional Administration 5, 1967.

 

Cartwright, Dorwin, and Zander, Alvin. Group Dynamics
Research Theory. Evanston, 111.: Row Peterson,
1953.

 

 

Chesler, Mark; Schmuck, Richard; and Lippitt, Ronald. "The
Principal's Role in Facilitating Innovation."
Theory Into Practice, 1963.

 

Crooke, Henry. "The Supervisor and Staff Morale." National
Association of Secondary School Principal Bulletin.

Downs, Cal, and Hazen, Michael D. "A Factor Analytic Study
of Communication Satisfaction." Journal of Business
Communication 14, 1977.

 

 

114

 

115

Dror, Rachel Elboim. "The Management System in Education
and Staff Relations: Part I." Journal of Educa-
tional Administration and History 4, 1972.

Etzioni, A. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organiza-
tions. New York: Free Press, 1961.

Fiedler, Fred E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness.
New York: McGraw Hill, 1967.

 

Frederiksen, John R. "Models for Determining School Effec-
tiveness." Presented at the American Education
Research Association, April, 1980.

Getzels, Jacob, and Guba, Ezon. "Social Behavior and the
Administrative Process.“ School Review 65, 1957.

Gross, Neal, and Herriott, Robert. Staff Leadership in
Public Schools: A Sociological Inquiry. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965.

 

Halpin, Andrew. Administrative Theory in Education. New
York: Macmillan, 1967.

. "The Leadership Behavior and Combat Performance
of Airplane Commanders," in A. W. Halpin (Ed.),
Administrative Theory in Education. New York:
Macmillan, 1967.

. "Studies in Aircrew Composition: III," in A. W.
Halpin (Ed.), Administrative Theory in Education.
New York: Macmillan, 1967.

Halpin, Andrew, and Winer, James B. "The Leadership Behav-
ior of the Airplane Commander," in A. W. Halpin
(Ed.), Administrative Theory in Education. New
York: Macmillan, 1967.

 

Hearns, James. "Alienation: Another Administrative Agony,"
Contemporary Education 45 (2), Winter 1974.

a. I... .a I" iwmrn nfi

 

 

i '15 ".

Helwig, Carl. "Organizational Climate and Frequency of
Principal-Teacher Communication in Selected Ohio
Elementary Schools."

Hemphill, John K., and Coons, Alvin E. Leader Behavior
Description. Columbus, Ohio: Personnel Research
Board, the Ohio State University, 1950, in A. W.
Halpin (Ed.), Administrative Theory in Education.
New York: Macmillan, 1967.

116

Hemphill, John K. et a1. Administrative Performance and
Personality. New York: Teachers College, Bureau of
Publications, Columbia University, 1962.

 

Hersey, P., and Blanchard, K. H. Management of Organiza-
tional Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. Engle-
wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972.'

 

 

Hoy, W. K., and Miskel, D. G. Educational Administration:
Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Random
House, 1978.

 

 

Kahn, Robert L. "The Prediction of Productivity." Journal
of Social Issues 12, 1956.

 

Leader Behavior Descruption Questionnaire - Manual.
Copyright, 1957.

 

Lindgren, H. C. Effective Leadership in Human Relations.
New York: Hermitage House, 1954.

 

Lowin, Aaron; Hrapchak, William J.; and Kavanagh,
Michael J. "Consideration and Initiating Structure:
An Experimental Investigation of Leadership Traits."
Administrative Science Quarterly 14, 1964.

 

Lucietto, Lena. "Speech Patterns of Administrators."
Administrator's Notebook 18, 1970.

 

McCleary, Lloyd. "Communications in Large Secondary
Schools: A Nationwide Study of Practices and
Problems." National Association of Secondary
School Bulletin 52, 1968.

 

 

Null, Eldon. "The Hierarchy of Personal Needs: Is Signifi-
cance to School Principals." Peabody Journal of
Education 47, 1970.

 

 

Owen, Robert G. Organizational Behavior in Schools.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1970.

 

Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. New York: The Free
Press of Glencoe, 1951.

 

Parsons, Talcott; Bales, Robert; and Shils, Edward.
"Phase Movement in Relation to Motivation,
Symbol Formation, and Role Structure." Working
Papers in the Theory of Action. The Free Press
of Glencoe, 1953.

 

117

Simon, Herbert. Administrative Behavior. New York:
Macmillan, 1976.

Spain, Charles; Drummond, Harold; and Goodland, John I.
Educational Leadership in the Elementary School.
New York: Rinehart and Company, 1956.

Stogdill, Ralph. Manual for the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire. Form XII. Columbus: Bureau of
Business Research, Ohio State University, 1963.

 

"Personal Factors Associated with Leadership:
A Survey of the Literature." Journal of Psychology,
1948, in R. G. Omen,(Ed.), Organizational Behavior
in Schools. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1970.

 

Tannenbaum, R.; Weschler, I. R.; and Massarik, F. Leader-
ship and Organization: A Behavioral Science Approach.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961.

Thayer, Lee 0. Administrative Communication. Homewood,
Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1961.

Valentine, Jerry; Tate, Bradford; Seagren, Alan; and Lammel,
John. ”Administrative Verbal Behavior: What You
Say Does Make a Difference." National Association
Secondary School Principal Bulletin 59, 1975.

Washington, Roosevelt, and Watson, Hoyt. "Positive Teacher
Morale--The Principal's Responsibility." NASSP
Bulletin 60 (399), April 1976.

Watkins, Foster. "An Inquiry Into the Principal-Staff
Relationship." Journal of Educational Research 63,

1969.

Woffard, J. C. "Factor Analysis of Managerial Behavior
Variables." Journal of Applied Psychology 54,
1970.

Woffard, Jerry; Gerloff, Edwin; and Cummins, Robert.
Organizational Communication: The Keystone to
Managerial Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1977.

 

APPENDIX

 

0.0050 0.0 .0 0000 .8.»
000000> .00. 05080000088808.0005... .2
.0100 000800 100.8000 00.00000 00. 08.000000
00 80.00....- 000 800.0000 000.0000. 00 000.0 000.. .3
208:0 50> 00.000 00000000 0050 00 08.0 0.0.... .8
.00. 50> 00.000000 80.00.0000 000
00.00 0.: 88.00.0008 000.0000. 00 00.00 0.0... .2
.8061? 05.8.08
000.1 88.00.0050 0000008 00 08.0 000... .0.
0.8.0. 20 0o :3 .0...
0 .08 00>080. 3000.00 50> 0000 0800 .00: .3
3000.028. 00.008
.0 0000 00.8 10.00.00 50> 0000 08.0 8.. d.
.00. 50> 00.00 80. 00> 000.0000 0.: 00000000000
£00 00.0 88.00.0008 10.00.00 50> 0000 08.0 0.0: .m—
08. 50> 00 0000 0. 00000..
2804;: .00.00.0050>000008.081 .3
20.0.0.0 00.0 .0 0.000
05 88.50008 10.00.00 50> .000 08.0 000.. .9
.00. 50> .0 000.00.000.00
02$... 88.00.00.000 10.00.00 50> 0000 08.0 30... .m—
i.00.~0.0000 000080 68000.. ..0.. .0800... 00.080.00.000
88.00.0008 30.00.00 009,800 08.030: .3
.8008 00.00...
00000 88.00.0050 10.00.00 50> 0000 0800 8... d.
.3000 000800 00.000000000000000 00. 000.5500 .00
000.000.000.881: 30.050052000008008... .0
50> 830
838.0003! .00.00.0050>80000£08.. .o
~8888>30001085008>800800051 .s
50> 8 00.00800
>00 000 080.. 30.00.00 50> .000 08.0 8: .0
08.00.000.000 50> 5000 00.000020.
88.500008 10.00.00 50> 0000 08.0 000... .n
30. 50> 00.000000 80.00.0000 000 00.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

08.083.253.00
58558882538050.0301 .n
.86. 2003.80
05005688830380.0858... .N
53.8.86.
060088.508 10.050028008000801 .—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80 .0008 0000000000 .800823000
.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

.810030800500E8.0x000£800.000000;0000>:

.0000000 8 00508 005:0

000 00508 00 00.000800. 088.000.0000 30.00.00 2: ”00.000.020.000 8000.000. >030; 00000000 00 00808 000 30:0 000 .000 0.00 00.008 0.00 00 00.00.0020.

88.00.00.000 10.00.00 0.... 08000800000. >808 800.08.500.08 000 0. 0.00 00.000.000.00 00.00080 ”0. 0008000 00 00.00000 0.0 000 00 0000003 000 00000000
.30! .0088... SE03 .808... 080 .808... .3200... u0... 0. 5.8.5.508 20 0. 88.0... 88.0 .025: .030... $00800. $003800 .0: .23... 30. = .0
.008. 0.: >0 08.00000 00 0000 000.00 .0 0000.00 .n $000000: .N .2558: >000 .0 ”0.0.0.. 00.0000. meowa .0
08.203002805108803810350080800800aixgxb .0
$3.008 .00. .08 0(00 .0

620.8230

08888000008108.000538008081 .0 .

118

"I111111111111“