c _.: ’ ‘ fl 4. ‘2 H.1“vw . ‘ .. \ v ' ’ " ‘ < - ‘\ ’ ' r: ‘ .. \.. . '4"‘ .l .\—.<\' - :u‘ . .. .: :Z‘ifl :1 (5" ‘NR’ M £'--, " .a_, I ._ _,,~‘_ _q Isaak":- LIBRARY {"7 University 4’“ '1 This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Role of the Superintendent in Collective Bargaining: A Comparison of Perceptions Held By Superintendents and Teachers With Respect to Role Satisfaction, Situational Conditions- Factors, and Leader Behavior presented by Kenneth Lee Deal has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhoD 0 degree in Educ 0 Admin 0 Major professor / Dam December h, 1975 / 0-7639 / g llllllllllllllfllIlllllllllllllllllllllHIlHl/lll 3 10432 3534 THE ROLE OI“. EARGAD‘C? HELD 3“: W171: p AoJ SIEKL Int-“115 5 i2. '5 i f~36nts av; \ -~; ‘Y r DE if—l ‘COnizc In EL] 32: - aklrJh ) 1. ‘- -‘~~ 5394‘ . “at“ ‘A ,j ‘9: “it: ABSTRACT THE ROLE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: A COMPARISON OF PERCEPTIONS HELD BY SUPERINTENDENTS AND TEACHERS WITH RESPECT TO ROLE SATISFACTION, SITUATIONAL CONDITIONS-FACTORS, AND LEADER BEHAVIOR BY Kenneth Lee Deal In this study the author sought to compare perceptions of super- intendents and teacher chief negotiators to determine if superinten- dents who perform the role of chief negotiator for the board of educa- tion differ from superintendents who perform a non-negotiator role, with respect to behavior as the educational leader of the teaching staff. Secondly, an attempt was made to determine whether the answer to the primary objective of this study might be related to situational factors and conditions which prevailed during the collective bargaining process. In analyzing the supe rintendent's role and frequency of actual behavior, five Specific areas were examined. The areas studied were: 1. To determine the extent to which negotiating and non--~ negotiating superintendents differ in their self-described perceptions of role satisfaction with respect to the collective bargaining process; 2. To idea: . . - Q :.:egct:at:ng and : A. K t: A ‘ pnkptflns a mm: A . v .5, -' V i a‘dflpra~r. * ..-..........r,w:.1 - v--. n. ‘3' 4 , r - ‘ T“) 1“!va ,. . l.‘ -... ’I-I i . l ‘ J. To 0'7"". 'C‘ + “"L“ r 1. " .‘at\ rs (*‘t'.’ “‘Anf‘r :L 5,0 ' 4‘53? h ‘ - 14.t(1r‘,:‘hv‘+ 1“ TL 1‘ Va ND “P“ -‘ 6.5 “ Q l :\ "H‘z‘l t V“nLE‘ fin .,~p - I. 3.910 a d n 2 :,\ JV :SSQP'. . -lqtljn “ Q? _ V... The - a; Tplr 133‘ i ‘c‘ Kenneth Lee Deal 2. To identify and describe actual leader behavior perceptions of negotiating and non-negotiating superintendents. In obtaining these perceptions a modified version of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, with respect to the dimensions of Consideration and Initiating Structure, was used; 3. To compare the actual leader behavior perceptions held by superintendents with the perceptions held by their teacher chief nego- tiators; 4. To identify and iescribe selected situational factors and con- ditions associated with the collective bargaining process and 5. To determine the extent to which superintendents and teacher negotiators differ in their perceptions with respect to the role which the superintendent should perform in the collective bargaining process. This was a descriptive study in which data were secured from superintendents and teachers from a selected sampling of Michigan public school districts. This study included only superintendents who had a minimum Of two years tenure in position, and, in addition, in- cluded only K-lZ school districts which had a student enrollment be- tween 500 and 2500 and which engaged in bargaining a board-teacher association master contract for the 1973-74 school year. The samples consisted of 80 matched pairs of superintendents and teacher chief negotiators. The superintendents' sample was :wnedufiotup gr :tencents, deoend eaterassociatnu ~;--5~- ‘ - "firmed palrb’ (:y hisst.iy TWO instr'r‘ :Z‘V‘ql - ”‘h-qleh H’ . . . 0.4.1:. AA; A.‘ "v A .4“ _ um pe rCeDt‘kUr :SEd + - . l5?s. Kenneth Lee Deal divided into two groups, 40 negotiating and 40 non-negotiating super- intendents, depending on the role which was performed in the board— teacher association collective bargaining process. The data from 68 matched pairs, or 85 per cent of the questionnaires sent, were used in this study. Two instruments were used to obtain data with respect to these samples. One instrument was developed by the writer and used to obtain perceptions about the superintendents role, his satisfaction, and the situational conditions and factors associated with collective bargaining. A modified version of the 40-item Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) developed by the Personnel Research Board of The Ohio State University was used as a second data gathering instrument in obtaining perceptions about supe rintendents' leader behavior. Twenty hypotheses were developed for testing and the Control Data Corporation 6500 computer at Michigan State University was used in obtaining the statistical print-out data. The statistical anal- yses of the data included independent and dependent two-taileditests, and the chi-square test for homogeneity (X2). The . 05 level of significance was used for purposes of this study. In analyzing the remaining hypotheses, the proportion of matched pairs in agreement served as the method of measurement. When 75 per cent of the matched pairs were in agreement significant Kenneth Lee Deal consensus was considered attained. The following conclusions were made as a result of this study: (1) Superintendents who perform the role ”chief negotiator for H the board" do not differ from superintendents who perform a non- negotiator role" with respect to their perceptions of satisfaction with their role in board-teacher association collective bargaining. (2) Negotiating superintendents do not differ from non- negotiating superintendents with respect to their perceptions of fre- quency of actual leader behavior with their teaching staffs as measured by the LBDQ dimensions, Consideration and Initiating Structure. (3) Negotiating superintendents differ in their reported self- described perceptions as compared to the reported perceptions of their teacher chief negotiators with reSpect to the superintendents' actual leader behavior as measured by the LBDQ dimensions, Consideration and Initiating Structure. (4) Non-negotiating superintendents differ in their reported self-described perceptions as compared to the reported perceptions of their teacher chief negotiators with respect to the supe rintendents' actual leader behavior as measured by the LBDQ dimensions, Consid- eration and Initiating Structure. (5) Negotiating superintendents do not differ from non- negotiating superintendents with respect to their reported perceptions , , l , :::rec:encv or m, . W— . A. I ' I“. ’ sargainmg the l4 ,. Ixa-b- m. . “1:132 5‘43? 7‘. perceptions as e, perceptisns with ’\5 Which e511 ('3) As niat Kenneth Lee Deal of frequency of occurrance of situational conditions which existed in bargaining the 1973-74 master contract. (6) Negotiating superintendents do not differ from non— negotiating superintendents with respect to their reported perceptions of the situational factors which existed in bargaining the 1973—74 master contract. (7) Negotiating superintendents do not differ in their reported perceptions as compared to non-negotiating superintendents reported perceptions with respect to their satisfaction with the situational factors which existed in bargaining the 1973—74 master contract. (8) As matched pairs, negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators tend to agree in their reported perceptions with respect to the situational factors which existed in bargaining the 1973-74 master contract. (9) As matched pairs, negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators tend to agree in their reported perceptions with respect to their satisfaction with the situational factors which existed in bargaining the 1973-74 master contract. (10) As matched pairs, non-negotiating superintendents and fleir teacher chief negotiators tend to agree in their reported per- ceptions with reSpect to the situational factors which existed in bargaining the 1973-74 master contract. (11) As matt- tieir teache r chic V..- tin-:5 with respect Tiith existed in 1' (1’ a) AS nicllti teacher Chief 1'19 :3 Kenneth Lee Deal (11) As matched pairs, non-negotiatingsuperintendents and their teacher chief negotiators tend to agree in their reported percep- tions with respect to their satisfaction with the situational factors which existed in bargaining the 1973-74 master contract. (12) As matched pairs, negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators tend to disagree in their perceptions on the role (A) the superintendents should perform and (B) the role the teacher association prefers the superintendent perform in the collec- tive bargaining process. Negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators tend to agree in their perceptions on the role which the board of education prefers the superintendent perform in colle ctive bargaining. (13) As matched pairs, non-negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators tend to disagree in their perceptions on the role the superintendent should perform; the role the board of education prefers, and the role the teacher association prefers for the superintendent in collective bargaining. l THE ROLE CF BARGAINI.‘ HELD BY WlTEE R in? THE ROLE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: A COMPARISON OF PERCEPTIONS HEL‘D BY SUPERINTENDENTS AND TEACHERS WITH RESPECT TO ROLE SATISFACTION, SITUATIONAL CONDITIONS-FACTORS, AND LEADER BEHAVIOR BY Kenneth Lee Deal A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1975 Dedicated to Luisa, Pamela, Mark and Paula entire dcctoral ; The mater : 5: ' i - .0: Lne time Ins. A. acetic" 2f!- ‘ln ,- ‘ Jk rue I'I‘idfl‘. {10; or w ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer extends special appreciation to: Dr. Samuel A. Moore, II, for his willingness to serve as doctoral chairman and who gave freely the encouragement and professional guidance needed throughout the entire doctoral program. The writer also extends appreciation to the guidance committee for the time they expended and the counsel provided: Dr. Charles A. Blackman Dr. Walter W. Scott Dr. Christopher Sower In addition the writer wishes to acknowledge Mr. Robert Carr for the many hours he assisted with the design and statistical analysis of the data. Finally, appreciation is extended to the superintendents and teachers who willingly completed the instruments used in this study. ii E ml D RD nm S. ta TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. THE PROBLEM ............................... 1 Statement of the Problem .................... 1 Purpose of the Study ........................ 1 Need for the Study ........................... 2 Significance of the Problem .................. 5 Vignette .................................. 6 Conditions which Occurred in Bargaining the 1973-74 Master Agreement ........... 6 Implications ................................ 8 Sample . . .................................. 10 De limitations .............................. 10 Hypotheses ................................ 11 Definition of Terms ......................... 15 Organization of the Study .................... 20 Summary . ........ . ........................ 21 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................ 24 Introduction ................................ 24 Two Theoretical Frameworks in the Study of Leadership ...................... 27 The Trait Approach . ..................... 27 The Situational Approach. ................. 33 Leadership Behavior and Research Studies . . . . 35 The Superintendent-Board-Staff Relationships . ........................... 56 The Superintendent and Collective Bargaining .............................. 59 Negotiation Models .......................... 74 Selective Research. ......................... 81 Summary .................................. 86 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY ....................... 87 Procedure in Selecting the Sample ............ 88 Instruments Used in Data Collection .......... 92 iii Chapte A Chapter Page Leader Behavior De scription Questionnaire ............................ 94 Identification of Variables ................... 96 Procedure for Data Collection ................ 97 Procedure for Data Analysis ................. 99 Personal Data Information ................... 107 Summary ..... . ............................ 118 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ..................... 120 Instrument Administration ................... 120 Statistical Procedure ........................ 120 Presentation and Analysis of Data ............ 121 Hypothesis 1 . ........................... 121 Hypothesis 2 ............................ 123 Hypothesis 3 ............................ 124 Hypothesis 4 ............................ 125 Hypothesis 5 ............................ 127 Hypothesis 6 ............................ 128 Hypothesis 7 ............................ 130 Hypothesis 8 ........ . ................... 131 Hypothesis 9. ........................... 133 Hypothesis 10 ............................ 135 Hypothesis 11 ............................ 143 Hypothesis 12 ............................ 145 Hypothesis 13 ............................ 150 Hypothesis 14 . ........................... 152 Hypothesis 15 ............................ 157 Hypothesis 16 ............................ 159 Hypothesis l7 . ........................... 161 Hypothesis 18 . ........................... 163 Hypothesis 19 . ........................... 165 Hypothesis 20 . ............. . ............. 167 Summary . ............................... . . 169 V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 173 Summary .................................. 173 Findings .................................. 176 Conclusions ................................ 182 Recommendations ......................... 185 Recommendations for Further Research ...... 189 iv ElBllOGRAI APPEN D1 C E Appendix A. Cg: 8 LC C. 1.. D. p ['1 U) BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................... APPENDICES .......... . .................... Appendix A. Cover Letter and Preliminary Questionnaire Sent to Superintendents ..................... B. Letter to Superintendents ..................... C. Instruments Used in Data Collection ........... D. Follow-up Letter to Superintendents ............ E. Supplementary Tables ........................ Table A: Negotiating and Non-Negotiating Superintendents' Responses to the Level of Satisfaction Which Existed Between the Board and the Association Prior to Bargaining the 1973-74 Master Contract. . . Table B: Negotiating and Non-Negotiating Superintendents' Responses to The Method Used in Determining Their Role in Collective Bargaining ................... Table C: Negotiating Superintendents' Per- ceptions Contrasted With Their Teacher Chief Negotiators Perceptions of Leader Behavior Using Halpin's Leader Behavior Quadrants. . ............ . ............... Table D: Non-Negotiating Superintendents' Perceptions Contrasted With Their Teacher Chief Negotiators Perceptions of Leader Behavior Using Halpin's Leader Behavior Quadrants .............................. Table E: Negotiating and Non-Negotiating Superintendents' Responses to the Frequency of Grievances Filed and the Level of Settlement.. ..... ............ . Page 191 198 198 203 205 232 233 233 234 235 239 243 fable (\J O H (N . H 4- Xegota: by v Role pe COUe Comp; 5 Jpe Sam COITP silt)! Table LIST OF TABLES Negotiations roles assigned the superintendent by the board of education ........................ Role performed by 132 superintendents in the collective bargaining proces s .................... Compilation of personal data information on superintendents and teacher chief negotiators sampled--distribution by sex .................... Compilation of personal data information on superintendents sampled--distribution by age ...... Compilation of personal data information on teacher chief negotiators--distribution by age ..... Compilation of personal data information on superintendents sampled-~distribution by highest academic degree earned ................. . ....... Compilation of personal data information on teacher chief negotiators--distribution by highest academic degree earned ................. Compilation of personal data information on super- intendents sampled--distribution by years of service in educational positions .................. Compilation of personal data information on teacher chief negotiators sampled--distribution by years of service in teaching and in a collective bargaining role ................................ Compilation of personal data information on teacher chief negotiators sampled--distribution by level of teaching ............................... vi Page 71 90 108 109 110 111 111 112 113 114 Table Page 3. 9 Compilation of personal data information on teacher chief negotiators sampled-- distribution by prior experience as a school administrator . . ....... . . . .............. . ......... 114 3. 10 Compilation of personal data information on non-negotiating superintendents sampled-- distribution by title or person representing the board of education as chief negotiator ........... 115 3. 11 Compilation of personal data information on superintendents sampled--distribution by pupils enrolled in 68 school districts ............... 116 4. 1 Negotiating and non-negotiating superintendents perceptions of role satisfaction in collective bargaining ...... . . . . ............................. 122 4. 2 t_-test result between superintendent's group mean satisfaction scores ............................... 123 4. 3 L—test result between group mean scores on the consideration dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 124 4. 4 L-test result between group mean scores on the initiating structure dimension . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 125 4. 5 L-test result of group mean score difference between negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators on the leader behavior dimension of consideration . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 126 4. 6 t_-test result of group mean score difference between negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators on the leader behavior dimension of initiating structure . . . .......... . ..... 128 4. 7 _t_-test result of group mean score difference between non-negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators on the leader behavior dimension of consideration ......... 129 vii l able 4. 8 t-test re beers their ‘1'“) Chi-5:1 5.11 t‘tESt he; Ont mlz Prgpb fac an. ”13 t‘test a fie ct £1; E: 81 I1. 4.15 \‘tef S Q t. x15 Table Page 4. 8 L—test result of group mean score difference between non-negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators on the leader behavior dimension of initiating structure . . . . . ...... 131 4. 9 Chi-square results for negotiating and non- negotiating superintendents'--perceptions of frequency of actual occurrance of situational conditions which existed in bargaining the 1973-74 master contract . . . . . ..................... 132 4. 10 Chi-square results between negotiating and non- negotiating superintendents' perceptions on the situational factors which existed in the collective bargaining process ...................... 134 4. 11 _t_—test results between group mean scores for negotiating and non-negotiating superintendents on their satisfaction with the situational factors ..... 137 4. 12 Proportion in agreement--perceptions of situational factors reported by negotiating superintendents' and their teacher chief negotiators ...... . .......... 144 4. 13 _t_—test results between mean difference scores on satisfaction with the situational factors -- negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators . . ............................... 147 4. 14 Proportion in agreement--perceptions of situational factors reported by non—negotiating superintendents' and their teacher chief negotiators.................. .................... 151 4. 15 t_-test results between mean difference scores on satisfaction with the situational factors-- non-negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . ...... 154 4. l6 Proportion in agreement--negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators perceptions on the role the superintendent should perform in collective bargaining . . . . .......................... 158 viii ‘- p.“ L) t’ih (\J IN.) Proport inten perce shoui edge Preser' ‘ 1.:er Derc P } m n’ C) m U) U! ”i perQr lute per Sho prOpO inte per as Table Page 4. 17 Proportion in agreement--negotiating super- intendents and their teacher chief negotiators perceptions on the role the superintendent should perform as preferred by the board of education ........................................ 160 4. 18 Proportion in agreement-~negotiating super- intendents and their teacher chief negotiators perceptions on the role the superintendent should perform as preferred by the teacher association ...................................... 162 4. l9 Proportion in agreement--non-negotiating super- intendents and their teacher chief negotiators perceptions on the role the superintendent should perform in collective bargaining ............. 164 4. 20 Proportion in agreement--non-negotiating super- intendents and their teacher chief negotiators perceptions on the role of the superintendent as preferred by the board of education .............. 166 4. 21 Proportion in agreement--non-negotiating super- intendents and their teacher chief negotiators perceptions on the role the superintendent should perform in collective bargaining as preferred by the teacher association ......................... 168 4. 22 Compilation of data: variables, measurements, hypotheses accepted, not accepted ................. 170 4. 23 Compilation of data presented on the number of matched pair agreements for NS/TCN and NNS/TCN on the perceived role of the super- intendent in collective bargaining .................. 172 ix .8 _.-.nv- 3“ tzel: . «I. u LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. A quadrant scheme for describing leaders' behavior on the initiating structure and consideration dimensions ........................ 39 2. Getzels-Guba model showing dimensions of social behavior ................................ 51 3. Cooperative Administration ........................ 75 4. Negotiation ...................... . . . ............. 76 5. Geographic location of reSpondents in Michigan ...... 117 fer A 1 . tan d --.1 1‘9 5 {)0 b A 1%» t k i \q.. 35 um Lu p. _ mi. .1. T. h. S. Q .m . 1 n. . A .Q .81.. hfik .a E. T. . . ... a h . L t... . u L. av. 75 ‘ u y. «K» u k CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Statement of the Problem The problem researched was to compare the perceptions of superintendents and teacher negotiators to determine if superinten- dents who perform the role of chief negotiator for the board of edu- cation differ from superintendents who perform a non—negotiator role with respect to behavior as the educational leader of the teaching staff. Secondly, an attempt was made to determine whether the answer to the primary objective of this study might be related to situational factors and conditions which prevailed during the collective bargaining pro ces 5. Purpose Of the Study The writer's purpose was to analyze the role of the superinten- dent in board-teacher collective bargaining and to obtain and compare perceptions with respect to the frequency with which the superintendent acts as the educational leader of the teaching staff. In analyzing the superintendent's role and frequency of actual behavior, five specific 1:835. WE 1'8 €113.11”. l. '10 deli . we" f5,.,.a.ting Super ‘ n 3: role satisfacti Z. T0129 .5... -. ‘ ' .. .itgul‘.alll‘.2 a: k E: Ethic prOV'w (Q 1‘ 9‘ ":?'5\ . Sqlni 2 areas were examined. The areas studied were: 1. To determine the extent to which negotiating and non- negotiating superintendents differ in their self-described perceptions of role satisfaction with reSpect to the collective bargaining process; 2. To identify and describe actual leader behavior perceptions of negotiating and non-negotiating superintendents. In obtaining these perceptions, a modified version of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, with respect to the dimensions of Consideration and Initiating Structure, was used; 3. To compare the actual leader behavior perceptions held by superintendents with the perceptions held by their teacher chief negoti- ators; 4. To identify and describe selected situational factors and con- ditions associated with the collective bargaining process and 5. To determine the extent to which supe rintendents and teacher negotiators differ in their perceptions with respect to the role which the superintendent should perform in the collective bargaining process. Need for the Sttgiy In 1965 the Michigan State Legislature passed Public Act 379 which provided employees the rights of organization and of collective bargaining. Prior to this time, interaction between local teacher 3 associations and school boards took pace on a continuous basis in the form of consultation between the superintendent of schools and the teacher association leaders. Through the collective bargaining pro- cess, teachers found an avenue by which they could represent them- selves and their interests directly to the board of education. The advent of teacher collective bargaining with boards of edu- cation disrupted the traditional role of School administrators as being the Official spokesmen for the interests of teachers. As a result, superintendents were confronted with uncertainty and confusion as to their proper role in the collective bargaining process. The problem of role definition was further punctuated by the conflicting attitudes and policies of the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, as well as by policies and beliefs of the National School Board Association and the American Association of School Administrators. Whether the superintendent should be involved in the collective bargaining process and, if so, to what extent are subjects which have received considerable attention in the professional literature. A div- ergence of opinion exists as to the desirability of the superintendent being actively engaged in the collective bargaining process; however, there seems to be general agreement that the process of collective bargaining is of an adversarial nature. Lieberman, in an article in School Management, views collec- tive bargaining as an adversary process and states that the effectivenes tively he m V o;~ ‘11 ”3165. q‘.‘ I: 3‘ :.t‘ 8“.ka :flFvlv-r ‘1!“ u... Ia_‘\_’igl. (JJ 4 superintendent's ability to administer his district "depends on his effectiveness as a negotiator and his job may depend upon how effec- tively he manages negotiations and on the kind of contract he nego- tiates. "1 In a study of how preparation programs in school administration are affected by collective negotiations, Scott makes the following ob- servations with respect to the superintendent's dual role: The role of the superintendent becomes confused as he is caught in the struggle of attempting to be the professional leader of the teachers as they engage in conflict with the board whom he serves as chief executive. 2 It is questioned if he can serve effec- tively as the executive officer of the board and pro- vide professional as well as administrative direction to the staff. 3 Ashby contends that if the superintendent and his administrative staff negotiate for the board, this tends to place the administrator in an adversarial position with the staff and ”adversarial relationships in bargaining may jeopardize the day-to-day working relationships of administrato rs and teachers'.' 4 1Myron Lieberman, "Avoid These Costly Mistakes, " School Management, XII (February, 1969), 42. 2Walter W. Scott, "A Study of Preparation Programs in School Administration as Affected by Collective Negotiations, " (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966), p. 48. 3Ibid., p. 7. 4Lloyd W. Ashby, James E. McGinnis, and Thomas E. Persing, "Who Should Do The Negotiating?, " Common Sense in Negotiations (Danville: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc. , 1972), p. 32. it. an at". 3:5 the suseri itperintenden 5a.”; cagacifv In an article by Skowneski, it was recommended that the Board and the superintendent not be at the bargaining table since it is the superintendent who loses a good deal if he is at the table in any adver- sary capacity. I Garver recommends that boards of education consider hiring a full-time negotiator to represent them during negotiations since "the demands that negotiations place on the superintendent are such that his time and effectiveness will be drastically reduced if he is going to remain the chief negotiator for the board of education. "2 Without much question, the advent of collective bargaining has had a significant impact on the role performed by the superintendent of schools. In fulfilling his role in the collective bargaining process, a superintendent's behavior may affect his working relationships and effectiveness as an educational leader. Significance of the Problem The significance of this research problem may be demonstrated by describing, through a single vignette, the events which occurred in lEdward Skowneski, "Board of Education: Negotiation, " Michigan School Board Journal, XVIII (April, 1971), 27. 2George G. Garver, "A Study of the Relationship Between Sel- ected Variables and the Attitudes of Public School Principals in Oak- land County, Michigan, Concerning Collective Bargaining for Public School Teachers, " (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967), p. 211. bargaining the sch-sol distric (3 (D a: K) (W ten ccmrne n CM 1 sif-\ qi' Of 1» “2.411" 1 ‘ l 13“}. \3 not C H. 51.9 6 bargaining the 1973-74 board-teacher master contract in one smaller school district in Michigan. Vignette Collective bargaining between the board and the teacher associa- tion commenced as early as 1966 and these parties entered into single year agreements for five consecutive years. Of the agreements each was settled by the process of collective bargaining prior to the opening day of school. Prior to the beginning of the 1970-71 school year, the board and association commenced collective bargaining and terminated their negotiations in mid-November with a two-year agreement cove ring the 1970-71, 1971-72 school years. This two-year contract called for re-openers on salary, extra duty salary, and the school calendar. Negotiations on the re-opened items in 1972 continued past the opening day of school in September and a settlement was finally reached in October. Conditions which Occurred in Bargaining the 1973-74 Master Agreement: Collective bargaining for the 1973—74 school year commenced in May Of 1973 and had not resulted in any significant progress prior to July 1. In mid-July, the board of education requested mediation which was not successful in ending this dispute. Negotiations continued past the opening day of school in September which has been unilaterally determined by the board of education in mid-August. In September, after a prolonged weekend of bargaining, the members of the associa— tion withheld their services. The board requested the circuit court to issue its injunction ordering the striking teachers back to wo rk. During this time, the teachers voluntarily returned to work with agreement by both parties to extend the 1972-73 contract providing the increments on the salary schedule were granted. Following a return to work in late September, both parties again engaged in collective bargaining but were unable to reach agreement on the issues in diSpute. In October, the board agreed to meet again only when the association was willing to make substantial changes in its position. These changes were not forthcoming and the board re- quested fact finding on its list of issues. The association filed a re- sponse to the request for fact finding and stated the issues it con- sidered to be in dispute. The association also stated that in its opinion mediation had not failed and that it could serve a useful pur- pose and objected to fact finding. The fact finding hearing was held in early December and in January, 1974. Each side presented exhibits supported by oral presentation and witnesses as well as cross- examination. In February, 1974, the state-appointed fact finder pre- sented his recommendations to both parties. Between mid-February and March, both parties continued to negotiate the outstanding issues. A tentative agreement was reached in late March and a single year contract was ratified by the board and the teacher association prior m April 1. 10 ' Hfisbehavie Hsu't in-da' the e) tiona outtl pern res: he e hw 1‘1 (.3 \V hen sel w hi to April 1, 1974. Implications If the public school superintendent is to be an effective ad- ministrator, it is important that his subordinates view his leader- ship behavior in a favorable light. How the administrator customarily responds to day- in-day-out requests for assistance from subordinates; the extent to which he renders intellectual and emo- tional support to members of his group in carrying out the educational problems; the degree to which he permits latitude to subordinates in performing their responsibilities; how frequently and how meaningfully he encourages subordinates to participate in planning; how available he is to the staff for solving problems; how sincere he is in getting feedback from individuals; how motivated he is in helping others to help them- selves--these are illustrative of the day-to-day events which create interaction between superior and sub- ordinate and out of which the quality of working re- lationships is fashioned. 1 The growing concern with accountability in education and par- ticularly in Michigan, not only portends serious implications for teachers but for administrators as well. In the booklet, The Common Goals of Michigan Education, ac- countability is depicted as an important means by which there might be an upgrading in the performance of teachers and administrators. 1William B. Castetter and Helen R. Burchell, Educational Administration and the Irnprovement of Instruction, Educational Research and Service Bureau (Danville: Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1967), p. 64. ThefoHouing Department oi Michiga: Sponsi‘ni for-man: must be ance of TE‘iaii l'q eeeee lnare Araerican A able f DD“??? gran: l e elem‘ t : ‘0 the 1‘0 9 The following statement reflects the vieWpoint of the Michigan State Department of Education: Michigan education must move toward establishing re- Sponsibility and accountability standards for the per- formance of administrators and teachers. Procedures must be established according to which the perform- ance of administrators and teachers would be evaluated relative to applicable job descriptions and to the cir- cumstances within which the individual functions. 1 In a resolution submitted to its membership in 1973, the American Association of School Administrators believe that: . . . all school personnel must be specifically answer- able for their performance. An indispensable com- ponent of any accountability process is an effective pro- gram of performance evaluation. In an article appearing in The Michigan Elementa rx Principal The Michigan Forum of Educational Organizations suggest that "the local school district should have the primary responsibility for the development and implementation of an accountability plan. "3 As boards of education undertake the responsibility of analyzing the elements of accountability, consideration will ultimately be given to the role performed by the superintendent in the collective 1Michigan State Department of Education, The Common Goals of Mich_igan Education, 1971, p. 9. ‘ 2American Association of School Administrators, The School Administrator, Resolution 23 (December, 1972), 16. 3Michigan Forum of Educational Organizations, "Crite ria for Developing an Educational Accountability Plan, " The Michigan Elementary Principal, L (April, 1974), 23. bargaining prom :o-day working ‘ gaining proces s intendent's role 10 bargaining process. If the superintendent is to develop an effective day- to-day working relationship with the staff, his role in the collective bar- gaining process needs to be clarified. The task of clarifying the super- intendent's role in the bargaining arena ought to be a prerequisite to adapting his leadership role to an accountability plan. Sample The sample for this study consisted of eighty K-12 public school districts in Michigan. The schools were selected from a larger random sampling of districts listed in Bulletin 1011 which was published by the Michigan State Department of Education. 1 The procedure used in sel- ecting the sample is discussed in Chapter III. Delimitations The data obtained for this study were the perceptions held by in- cumbents of two matched pair positions, the superintendent of schools and the teacher chief negotiator. This study included only superintendents who had a minimum of two years tenure in position. In addition, this study included only public school districts K-12, in Michigan which had a student enroll- ment between 500 and 2500 and which engaged in bargaining a board- teacher association master contract for the 1973-74 school year. In comparing the superintendents' leader behavior scores, this study included only two dimensions of the Leader Behavior Descrip- tion Questionnaire, CONSIDERATION AND INITIATING STRUCTURE. 1Michigan State Department of Education, "Grouping of Dis- tricts by Pupil Membership, " Anal sis of Michi an Public School Revenues and Expenditures, Bulletin 1011, 19'72-73, pp. 8-11. The fell-4 Y' . twenty-3:3 1; h“. hilt-ff: \\ 99mm? ”73332? DrXTS )- ,. - “a ‘ gait. 11 ijotheses The following hypotheses were examined in this study: Hypothesis 1: There will be no significant difference between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS with respect to ROLE SATISFACTION in collective bargaining. Hypothesis 2: There will be no significant difference between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIA TING SUPERINTEN- DENTS with respect to actual leader behavior as measured by the dimension of CONSIDERATION. Hypothesis 3: There will be no Significant difference between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS with respect to actual leader behavior as measured by the dimension of INITIATING STRUCTURE. Hypothesis 4: A significant difference will exist between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions held by their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS with respect to the superintendent's actual leader behavior as measured by the dimension of CON- SIDERATION. _ijothesis 5: A significant difference will exist between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions held by their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS with respect to the superintendent's actual leader behavior as measured by the dimension of INITIATING STRUCTURE. 12 Hypothesis 6: A significant difference will exist between the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions held by their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS with respect to the superintendent's actual leader behavior as measured by the dimension of CONSID- ERATION. Hypothesis 7: A significant difference will exist between the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING superintendents and the reported perceptions held by their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS with respect to the superintendent's actual leader behavior as measured by the dimension of INITIATING STRUCTURE. Hypothesis 8: There will be no significant difference between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS with respect to the actual occurrance of SITUATIONAL CONDITIONS in bargaining the 1973-74 master contract. Hypothesis 9: There will be no significant difference between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS with respect to SITUATIONAL FACTORS which existed in the collective bargaining process. Hypothesis 10: There will be no significant difference between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIA TING SUPERINTEN- DENTS with respect to SATISFACTION WITH THE SITUA- TIONAL FACTORS which existed in the collective bargaining process. Evacthesis ll: _n..~_—__ In a sign ceptions reporter IHTOR TIONAL a -5“ Ecnnng N \— 1- a . . i.‘. Effluesls l. There. Percep repOrtf TIAIT) MONA, Cept; ‘1 axle r 1 K, Dare 13 Hypothesis 11: In a significant percentage of cases, the reported per— ceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGO- TIATORS will tend TO AGREE with respect to the SITUA- TIONAL FACTORS which existed in the collective bar- gaining process. Hypothesis 12: There will be no significant difference between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGO- TIATORS with respect to SATISFACTION WITH THE SITUA- TIONAL FACTORS which existed in collective bargaining. Hypothesis 13: In a significant percentage of cases, the reported percep— tions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIA- TORS will tend TO AGREE with respect to the SITUATIONAL FACTORS which existed in the collective bargaining process. Hypothesis l4: There will be no significant difference in the reported per- ceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions held by their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS with respect to SATISFACTION WITH THE SITUATIONAL FACTORS which existed in the collective bargaining process. Hypothesis 15: In a significant percentage of cases, the reported percep- tions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the re- ported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIA- TORS will tend TO DIFFER with respect to the ROLE of the superintendent SHOULD PERFORM in collective bar- gaining. u . . a; ,V . :pcne5$ ls his sigr tons of ported ; IORSux tendent' BY THI l4 Hypothesis 16: In a significant percentage of cases, the reported percep- tions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the re- ported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIA- TORS will tend TO DIFFER with reSpect to the superin- tendent's ROLE in collective bargaining as PREFERRED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. Hyppthes is 17: In a significant percentage of cases, the reported percep- tions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the re- ported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIA- TORS will tend TO DIFFER with reSpect to the superin- tendent's ROLE in collective bargaining as PREFERRED BY THE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION. Hypothesis 18: In a significant percentage of cases, the reported percep- tions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIA- TORS will tend TO DIFFER with reSpect to the ROLE the superintendent SHOULD PERFORM in collective bargaining. Hypothesis l9: In a significant percentage of cases, the reported percep- tions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIA- TORS will tend TO DIFFER with respect to the superinten- dent's ROLE in collective bargaining as PREFERRED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. Hypothesis 20: In a significant percentage of cases, the reported percep- tions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIA- TORS will tend TO DIFFER with reSpect to the superinten- dent's ROLE in collective bargaining as PREFERRED BY THE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION. Bargainin the exclus ire r e catered by the 1' & grotgn dieir r3 ecucatkan, flirt) 15 Definitipn of Terms Bargaining Agent. -- An association or union that is named as the exclusive representative for all of the people covered or who will be covered by the Master Agreement. 1 Binding Arbitration. -- A method of settling disputes of the parties to a contract by having an outside third party hear the grievance and render a decision. 2 Collective Bargaining. -- The process by which teachers, through their designated representatives, negotiate with the board of education, through its designated representative(s), with reference to salary, working conditions, and other matters of interest to the nego- tiating parties. 3 In this study this definition also applies to Profes- sional Negotiations and Collective Negotiations. Fact Finding. -- A process of investigation of an impasse in negotiation for the purpose of ascertaining the relevant facts and analyzing the issues that underlie the dispute, so that a report may be filed with recommendations for settlement. 4 lMichigan Education Association, Negtiation Terms and Defini- tions, Office of Professional Negotiations (undated), p. l. 21bid. 3American Association of School Administrators, The School Administrator and Negotiation (Washington: AASA, 1968), p. 77. 41bid., p. 78. Cood-Fait Hflyandiorthr. oruiputobstacfl Grievance M V ‘ ‘ JV" Erie Barga~n v: A-cn.t 16 Good-Faith Negotiation. -- Negotiation that is conducted hon- estly and forthrightly and that avoids any attempt to subvert the process or to put obstacles in the path toward a satisfactory agreement. Grievance. -- A claim by any member of the bargaining unit or by the bargaining agent that there has been a misinterpretation or mis- application of the master agreement or any other rule, order, or policy 2 of the board. Grievance Procedure. -- The sequential steps through which aggravated complaints may go in being satisfactorily resolved, the progression being upward through the hierarchical ranks of the organiza- tion. Impasse. -- A point reached in the process of negotiation where both parties agree that they can go no further in the process of proposal and counter-proposal. Injunction. -- A court order restraining individuals or groups from committing acts which the court determines will do irreparable harm or where the health and welfare of the community may be im- periled. 5 ( r.\~ ‘4 \A o e L a \ q . . (a d e I Ma 1. . E C _ .. n. a a. S r. . 6 in S . . O “I e _l .. S I l. ‘1. . P a . r . Q~ a» C a .d PM .6 ‘ C a“ w _ Q .1 Y. n. a . . (AL 8 at . a . MW. W; \M I... e . u D S m “C Q“ .Hflx ) CC 5 Q .\. 1 . an $1.5. v. Us a“ .L C. S a . e F. .r. a. .. I P. a .3 r” v .. a .3 i. F. . mu 5 PA . la _. ..— «3| m .w :3 m m L... 3. c . n S s 17 Master Agreement. -- A document which contains the terms of the negotiated contract and which binds the parties to certain actions for a specified period of time. 1 In this study, this definition also re- fers to Master Contract. Mediation. -- Assistance by an impartial third party to re- concile an impasse through interpretation, suggestion and advice. Negotiation Teams. -- Individuals engaged in actual negotia- tions. One group representing teachers and the other representing the board of education. 3 Strike. -- The concerted failure to report for duty, for the pur- pose of inducting, influencing or coercing a change in the conditions, or compensation, or the rights, privileges or obligations of employment. 4 In this study, this definition also refers to the term Withholding of Services. Consideration. -- ". . . refers to behavior indicative of friend— ship, mutual trust, respect, and warmth in the relationship between 11bid. ZIbid. 3Ibid., p. 79. 4'Roger B. Tilles, A Study of Michigan Law relating to Public Emplpgment of Teachers, Michigan Association of School Administra- tors (undated), p. 4. the leader (599‘ Educator. urinal i'superin:= :c arrive at edul 7 aile.‘ initiating ' raiser-intendent members of the "'r-l - 'i ' ml de1.nec pa 18 the leader (superintendent) and the members of his staff (teachers). "' Educational Leadership Behavior. -- The behavior of an indi- vidual (superintendent) when he is helping a group of people (teachers) to arrive at educational goals which are increasingly mutually accept- able. 2 Initiating Structure. -- ". . . refers to the leader's behavior (superintendent) in delineating the relationship between himself and members of the work-group (teachers), and in endeavoring to establish well-defined patterns of organization, channels of communication, and 3 methods of procedure. " Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire. -- Designed to obtain descriptions of a leader (superintendent) by the members of the 4 In this study, this instrument is also re- group (teachers) he leads. ferred to as the LBDQ. LBDQ-Actual. -- The perceived frequency with which a leader actually engages in Specific forms of behavior. 1Andrew W. Halpin, ”How Leaders Behave, " in Opganization and Human Behavior by Fred D. Carver and Thomas J. Sergiovanni, editors, (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1969), p. 290. 2Harold W. Boles, "Educational Leadership, " Western Michigan University, Faculty Seminar, Mirneograph Report (undated), p. l. 3Halpin, op.cit., p. 290. 4Ralph M. Stogdill, Manual for the Leader Behavior Question- naire--Fo_r_m XII, An Expprimental Revision, Bureau of Business Re- search (Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1962), p. l. Leadersh arrive at goals L\C'1e. " .7 t.- the position. Role CC): \— 19 Leadership. -- The process of helping a group of people to arrive at goals which are increasingly mutually acceptable. Role. -- The behavior which is expected from any incumbent of . . 2 the posrtion. Role Conflict. -- Exists when significant contradictory expecta- tions are held for an occupant of a position. Role Consensus. -- Exists when similar expectations are held for an occupant of a position. Perception. -- Refers to the reSpondent's awareness of the ele- ments of his environment. Traditional Role of the Superintendent. -- Functions as the executive officer of the board and professional leader of the teaching staff. Negotiating Superintendent. -- The chief school administrator who represents the board of education as spokesman in collective bar- gaining. In this study, this definition also refers to the term Chief Negotiator for the board. Non-negotiating Syerintendent. -- The role performed by the chief school administrator in collective bargaining other than Chief Negotiator for the board. 1Boles, op.cit., p. 1. 2Christopher Sower, "How to Study an Organization, " Mimeo- graph Guide Sheets (November, 1967), p. 1. 20 Satisfaction with Role. -- Refers to the superintendent's self— described feeling of rated contentment or gratification with respect to fulfilling his role responsibilities. Situational Conditions. -- Refers to the circumstances associ- ated with the collective bargaining process. In this study, these con- ditions refer to: the grievance procedure, teacher strike, mediation, fact finding, court injunction, and mass resignations. Perception of Situational Factors. -- Refers to the respondent's judgment about the nature of the situation. In this study, the situation- al factors refer to: the number of bargaining sessions, hours in- volved in sessions, number of proposals made, attitudes of negotia- tors, superintendent and board member attendance, use of media and bargaining atmoSphe re. Satisfaction with Situational Factors. -- Refers to the respon- dent's self—described feeling of rated contentment or gratification with reSpect to the extent of the situation. Small School District. -— A district with not less than 500 or more than 2500 pupils in enrollment. Organization of the Study In Chapter I, a discussion of the problem studied, the purposes, significance of the problem, need for the study, sample, delimitations, hypotheses and definition of terms were presented. Chapter II contains a review of leadership theory and selected researct sional 11‘ in collec sented. ! l- q. A“: 21 research studies of leadership behavior. In addition, the profes- sional literature pertinent to the superintendents' alternative roles in collective bargaining and selected research studies are pre- sented. The remaining chapters contain the design of the study and data analyses. The concluding chapter provides a summary of the findings, conclusions and re commendations . Summa ry In summarizing the events which occurred in this case, the board and teacher association commenced collective bargaining in May of 1973 and a contract was finally ratified in April of 19 74. Within this eleven month period, numberous meetings we re held at the bargaining table, the services of a state mendiator were ob- tained, the members of the teacher association withheld their ser- vices, the board of education sought a court injunction, and a state- appointed fact finder held a hearing on the issues in dispute and made recommendations to both parties. In reference to this single case, the following questions were generated and served as the initial framework for this study: 1. As viewed by the superintendent, what role did he actually perform in the collective bargaining process ? 2. How satisfied or dissatisfied was he with his actual role? ~\s At L it. 22 3. As be viewed it, what role should he have performed in the collective bargaining process? 4. What methods were used to determine his actual role? 5. What situational factors and conditions existed during the collective bargaining process, and how satisfied or dissatisfied was he with them? 6. With respect to his actual behavior, how frequently did the superintendent interact with the teaching staff as the educational leader? 7. With respect to the superintendent's actual leader behavior, how frequently did the teacher chief negotiator perceive the super- intendent fulfilling the role of educational leader of the teaching staff? Through the vignette, the writer has identified and described selected situational factors and conditions associated with the collec- tive bargaining process. The importance of including situational variables in a study of leader behavior is underscored by Hemphill: The majority of studies of leadership have focused on the personal characteristics of the leaders. The demands which the social situation makes upon the behavior of the individual in the leadership role have not been thoroughly or systematically investi- gated. 1 In addition, the writer's primary purpose in conducting this study was to obtain perceptions to determine if negotiating 7 1John K. Hemphill, Situational Factors in Leaderslgp (Colum- bus: The Ohio State University, 1949), p. 6. (h Z3 superintendents differ from non-negotiating superintendents with respect to leader behavior. According to Hemphill ". . . what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon the characteristics of the situation in which he func- tions. "1 lIbid., p. v. u.‘E t. . a ,. .V g pwi \ .nJ a. a u .. a 1U .ru 5“ K - \ . as .11 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Leadership has occupied the mind and imagination of man for a long time. Owens suggests that "if all the artistic, literary, and scholarly works which deal with leadership were brought together we would have a collection of mammoth proportions by any standard. "1 This concern with leadership has become considerably more acute during the past fifty years. Since 1925, hundreds of research studies on group characteristics, leader behavior, human relations, and formal and informal organization have been creating a new body of knowledge. 2 Fielder contends that ”we have yet to produce an acceptable theory" and believes that leadership research is plagued by a number of very difficult problems. 1Robert G. Owens, Orflnizational Behavior in Schools (Engle- wood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970), p. 118. zEdgar L. Morphet, Roe L. Johns, and Theodore L. Reller, Educational Organization and Administration: ConceLts, Practices, and Issues (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1974), p. 126. 24 E ' J. r» f‘ “yd fl. 25 One of these is that leadership phenomena turn out to be highly complex social processes, and that . . . leader- ship has not kept pace with empirical research. 1 Bennis contends that more has been written and less is known about leadership than any other topic in the behavioral sciences. He views the lack of concensus not on the reluctance by social scientists to engage in empirical research but that the evidence appears to be so contradictory while some of the theorists have radically modified their own points of view. 2 One major problem in the leadership field is that of definition. According to Morphet "there is no general agreement among re- searchers and writers on the meaning of the word 'leader'. "3 Fielder included in his book the following definitions which were taken from a publication by R. E. Andrews, Leadersh_ip and Super- vision. Leadership is the exercise of authority and the making of decisions (Dubin, 1951). Leadership is the initiation of acts which result in a con- sistent pattern of group interaction directed toward the solution of a mutual problem (Hemphill, 1954). lFred E. Fielder, A fIfheory of Leadership Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967), p. 4. 2Warren G. Bennis, ”Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior: The Problem of Authority, " Administrative Science Quar- terly, 4 (December, 1959), p. 259-60. 3Morphet, op.cit., p. 127. 26 The leader is the man who comes closest to realizing the norms the group values highest; this conformity gives him his right rank, which attracts people and implies the right to assume control of the group (Homans, 1950). Leadership is an ability to persuade or direct men without use of the prestige of power of formal office or external circumstance (Reuter, 1941). The leader is one who succeeds in getting others to follow him (Cowley, in Hemphill, 1954). The leader is the person who creates the most effective change in group performance (Cattell, 1953). The leader is one who initiates and facilitates member interaction (Bales and Strodtbeck, 1951). 1 Leadership, in group discussion, is the assumption of the tasks of initiating, organizing, clarifying, questioning, motivating, summarizing, and formulating conclusions; hence, the leader is the person who spends the most time talking to the group, since he carries out more of these verbal tasks (Bass, 1949). Leadership is the process of influencing group activities toward goal setting and goal achievement (Stogdill, 1950). The leader is the person identified and accepted as such by his followers (Sanford, 1949). 2 Fielder defines the leader ”as the individual in the group given the task of directing and coordinating task relevant group activities or who, in the absence of a designated leader, carries the primary re- sponsibility for performing these functions in the group. "3 lFielder, op.cit., pp. 7-8. 2Iloid. 31bid. ‘9‘; E ..=-——~'— — pr 27 Carter, in writing Chapter III of The Study of Leadership edited by Browne and Cohn, prefers that a definition of leadership be based more on pragmatic considerations than on theory. He states: I would define leadership in terms of leadership behaviors. Leadership behaviors are any behaviors the experimenter wishes to so designate or, more generally, any behaviors which eXperts in this area wish to consider as leadership behaviors. The point is that different kinds of behavior indicate leadership in different situations, and a behavioral definition of leadership can accommodate these differences. 1 In this research study, the term leadership is defined as ”the process of helping a group of people to arrive at goals which are mu- tually acceptable. "2 Two Theoretical Frameworks in the Study of Leadership The Trait Approach At one time, a popular concept of leaders was that they were people who were endowed with certain "traits or characteristics" that especially fitted them for their leadership roles. 3 It was generally believed that intelligence, imagination, perseverance and emotional stability were among the many personal traits which characterized the lLaunor F. Carter, The Studxof Leadership by C. G. Browne and T. S. Cohn, editors, (Danville: Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1958), p. 24. 2Boles, o .cit., p. 1. 3Owens, op.cit., p. 119. .. m ' “A “r I... 4C}. Uh... It. .‘ . "al . . h a \ pi». L l o t v ‘§ \ s I I k .illbu . 28 individual qualified to exercise leadership. 1 Owens emphasizes that "although long lists of traits that seem to be associated with leader- ship have been compiled by researchers, psychologists have been un- able to clarify which traits are most important in specific leadership positions. ”2 Prior to 1945, most of the studies of leadership were devoted primarily to the identification of the traits or qualities of leaders. 3 In 1948, Stogdill examined 124 studies on the relationship of person- ality factors to leadership. The following conclusions are supported by uniformly positive evidence from fifteen or more of the studies surveyed: The average person who occupies a position of leadership exceeds the average members of his group in the following respects: (1) intelligence, (2) scholarship, (3) depend- ability in exercising responsibilities, (4) activity and social participation, and (5) socioeconomic status. The qualities, characteristics, and skills required in a leader are determined to a large extent by the demands of the situation in which he is to function as a leader. The following conclusions are supported by uniformly positive evidence from ten or more of the studies surveyed: llbid. ZIbid. 3Morphet, op.cit., p. 130. 4Ralph M. Stogdill, "Personal Factors Associated with Leader- ship: A Survey of the Literature, " Journal of Psychology, 25 (1948), 63. w..- 29 The average person who occupies a position of leadership exceeds the average member of his group to some degree in the following respects: (1) sociability, (2) initiative, (3) persistence, (4) knowing how to get things done, (5) self-confidence, (6) alertness to and insight into situa- tions, (7) cooperativeness, (8) popularity, (9) adapt— ability, and (10) verbal facility. 1 Stogdill, however, after further study of the evidence, concluded: "A person does not become a leader by virtue of the posses- sion of some combination of traits, but the pattern of personal characteristics of the leader must bear some relevant relation- ship to the characteristics, activities, and goals of the followers. Thus, leadership must be conceived in terms of the interac- tions of variables which are in constant flux and change. "2 In their book Educational Organization and Administration, Mor- phet, e_t_.__a_:l_. , report the conclusions of a doctoral study by Myers. In summary, Myers analyzed more than two hundred studies of leadership that had been made between 1900 and 1954. His conclusions concerning the relationship of personality traits to leadership follow: 1. No physical characteristics are significantly related to leadership. 2. Although leaders tend to be slightly higher in intelligence than the group of which they are members, there is no significant relationship between superior intelligence and leadership. 3. Knowledge applicable to the problems faced by a group contributes significantly to leadership status. 1Ibid. 2 Ibid. termini 30 The following characteristics correlate signifi- cantly with leadership: insight, initiative, co- operation, originality, ambition, persistence, emotional stability, judgement, popularity, and communication skills. 1 In recent years, a number of generalizations and hypotheses con- cerning leadership and the relationship of leadership to the group have been proposed. Myers analyzed studies of leadership and proposed the following generalizations which are supported by two or more studies:2 1. Leadership is the product of interaction, not status or position. Leadership cannot be structured in advance. The uniqueness of each combination of persons, of varying interactional patterns and of varying goal and means, and of varying forces within and without impinging upon the group will bring forth different leaders. A leader in one situation will not automatically be a leader in another situation. Leadership does not result from a status position, but rather (from how a person behaves in the organization). Whether a person is a leader in a group depends upon the group's perception of him. The way a leader perceives his role determines his actions. Most groups have more than one person occupying the leadership role. lMorphet, op.cit., p. 131. 2 Robert B. Myers, "A Synthesis of Research in Leadership, " (unpublished paper presented to A. S. C. D. , March, 1957), pp. 4-9 in Educational Organizations and Administration: Concepts, Practices, and IssuesjayTIdgar NRerhet anW-s, 1516. , pp. F39-4LF. Y. e .l .w. ...-l 5‘44 Dru i v c l v i ll . 1.. a r ya? a N4. . Ni . ; .. u . ~ . i h. . i 1 hi e ...\ in. .1 10. ll. 12. 31 Leadership fosters positive sentiments toward the group activity and persons in the group. Leadership may be democratic or autocratic but never laissez-faire. Leadership protects the critical group norms. Leadership is authority rendered to some who are perceived by others as the proper persons to carry out the particular leadership role of the group. Program development that involves only persons of a single position (such as principals, or supervisors, or teachers) is not as comprehensive or lasting as that which involves people of various positions in the organization. Berelson and Steiner made an extensive survey of the scientific findings in the behavioral sciences and formulated the following pro— positions and hypotheses related to leadership in small groups:1 1. The closer an individual conforms to the accepted norms of the group, the better liked he will be; the better liked he is, the closer he conforms; the less he conforms, the more disliked he will be. The higher the rank of the member within the group, the more central he will be in the group's interaction and the more influential he will be. In general, the ”style" of the leader is determined more by the expectations of the membership and the requirements of the situation than by the personal traits of the leader himself. lBernard Berelson and Gary A. Steiner, Human Behavior: 35.3.1 Inventory of Scientific Findings (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. , 1964), pp. 341—44 in Educational Organizations and Administration: Concepts, practices and Issues by Edgar Morphet and others, Ibid., pp. 141-42. 32 The leadership of the group tends to be vested in the member who most closely conforms to the standards of the group on the matter in question, or who has the most information and skill related to the activities of the group. When groups have established norms, it is extreme- ly difficult for a new leader, however capable, to shift the group's activities. The longer the life of the leadership, the less open and free the communication within the group and probably the less efficient the group in the solution of new problems. The leader will be followed more faithfully the more he makes it possible for the members to achieve their private goals, along with the group's goals. Active leadership is characteristic of groups that determine their own activities, passive leadership of groups whose activities are externally imposed. In a small group, authoritarian leadership is less effective than democratic leadership in holding the group together and getting its work done. Bavelas indicates that the objection to the trait approach is not on the question or the validity of the assumptions made but upon the nature of the ”traits" themselves. Traits are statements about per- sonal characteristics. 1 His objection to this is that ”the degree to which an individual exhibits leadership depends not only on his char- acteristics, but also on the characteristics of the situation in which he finds himself. ”2 1Alex Bavelas, "Leadership: Man and Function, " in School Administration Selected Readings by Sherman H. Frey and Keith R. 2 Getschman, editors, (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1968), p.257. Ibid. .N‘. ”i .lal. V a :5 yo 3‘ (J) t 33 The Situational Approach At one time an approach was taken in the literature that because individual characteristics are crucial for the leadership function there exists a set of traits that leaders possess. According to Hall, this approach failed for two reasons: Common leadership traits could not be identified and there is no set of characteristics possessed by leaders and not by followers. 1 As a result of the second contributing factor, attention in- creasingly turned to the situation in which leadership was exhibited. In the situational approach the position is taken that the set of condi- tions of the moment-_the situation--defines by whom and in what manner leadership will be expressed. 2 In discussing this approach, Hall observes: . . . in one situation, one individual will emerge as the leader; in another situation, another individual. Leadership, therefore, depends on the congruence between the situation and the characteristics of the person who is appointed or elected, or who assumes leadership. 3 Stogdill suggests that leadership is not a matter of passive status or the mere possession of some combination of traits but that ”it appears to be a working relationship among members of a group, in 1Richard H. Hall, Organizations, Structure and Process (Engle-— wood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972), pp. 246-48. Zrbid. 3mm. to co: o;_ ‘ “Lina. ‘ . v- ‘7‘ six, 34 which the leader acquires status through active participation and demonstration of his capacity of carrying cooperative tasks through to completion. "1 Hemphill comments that "unless one is able to find some situa- tional characteristics which prove to be useful in predicting what be- havior may be required of a leader in a given situation, one is left with the sterile conclusion that "leadership is specific to the situa- “2 He suggests the following: tion'. 1. A view of leadership which stresses the situational nature of the leader's behavior gives a sound be- havioral foundation for practical programs in the selection and training of those who are to direct group activities. If we gain sufficient knowledge about the relation of leadership to the dimensions of the group, selection of leaders can be made with reference to the demands of the situation in which they are to lead. 2. From the situational viewpoint it would seem futile to search for a leadership trait that would distin- guish among individuals likely to be good or bad leaders in all situations. However, this would not imply that a leader could not be trained to be effective in a wide range of situations if he knew the leadership roles required of an individual in adapting to various situations. 3. In the area of training for leadership, the situational approach would furnish suggestions for the content of the curriculum. If one knew the variety in constella- tions of group characteristics which the leader in lStogdill, op.cit., p. 71. 2 Hemphill, 0p.cit., p. v. .1 Ill. _ 35 training may expect to encounter after completing his training, the curriculum could be pointed to training modes of behavior likely to result in ade- quate leadership. Before real progress can be made in either the selection or training of leaders, however, basic work must be done to specify more carefully how factors in the situation create de- mands on the leader's behavior. 1 Bavelas summarizes the status of trait and situational leader- ship research in this way: The unique characteristics of a particular organization make it necessary to analyze the situational factors that determine who is likely to become a leader in onejarticu- lar organization. When specific situational patterns are different from organization to organization, one cannot say what per- sonal traits will lead to acknowledge leadership. One must try to define the leadership functions that must be performed in those situations and regard as leadership those acts which perform them. This point of view suggests that almost any member of a group may become its leader under circumstances that enable him to perform the required functions of leadership and that different persons may contribute in different ways to the leadership of the group. 2 Leadership Behavior and Research Studies Campbell points out that leaders are persons who affect the be- havior of others. He states that "this is true whether or not they oc- cupy positions of status, belong to the power elite, make outstanding lIbid., p. 100. 2 Bavelas, op. cit., p. 258. . 'V C'C'ntl'lC as indi 36 contributions in their field of endeavor, or emerge within their groups as individuals whose insight and judgment command the respect of their peers. "1 According to Stogdill: It is primarily by virture of participating in group activi- ties and demonstrating his capacity for expediting the work of a group that a person becomes endowed with leadership status. Campbell reacts to this view by saying "it is what a person does, rather than who he is or what position he holds, that makes him a leader. "3 Hemphill identified fifteen measures of group characteristics or dimensions, and studied leadership in relation to these dimensions. Hemphill's dimensions are size, viscidity, homogeneity, flexibility, permeability, polarization, stability, intimacy, autonomy, control, position, potency, hedonic tone, participation, and dependence. Hemphill found that only two of these group dimensions had a significant positive correlation with leadership behavior. Those dimensions were lRoald F. Campbell, John E. Corbally, Jr., and John A. Ramseye r, Introduction to Educational Administration (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1966), p. 168. zStogdill, op.cit., p. 64. 3Campbell, op. cit., pp. 31-33. 4Hemphill, op. cit., pp. 51-57. 31C Q» 37 viscidity which refers to the cohesion that group members feel and hedonic tone which refers to the feeling of satisfaction that individuals receive from being members of a group. 1 Numerous studies involving careful observation of leadership behavior has been reported by various types of organizations; military, educational and business. These studies suggest that leadership be- havior falls into two general categories called dimensions. 2 Although no universally accepted labels for these two categories have yet ap- peared, the terms Structure and Consideration are widely used. 3 The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire was developed by John K. Hemphill and Alvin E. Coons at The Ohio State University. In its early stages of development it consisted of 150 items designed to measure nine dimensions of leader behavior (initiation, membership, representation, integration, organization, domination, communication, recognition, production).4 1 Ibid. szens, op.cit., p. 120. 31bid. 4John K. Hemphill and Alvin E. Coons, "Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, " in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement by Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons, editors, (Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research Monographs, No. 88, 1957), pp. 10-11. C i A ‘u o . n. ... .C . 5h ah . 38 A factor analysis of the intercorrelations among eight hypothesized dimensions of leader behavior resulted in the emergence of four fac- tors--Consideration, Initiating Structure, Production Emphasis, and Social Awareness. Two factors, Consideration and Initiating Structure accounted for 83 per cent of the total factor variance. Attempts to improve the contribution of the two remaining factors by increasing the number of items for their measurement proved unsuccessful. Efforts were then concentrated upon the task of developing the best possible short scales for describing Consideration and Initiating Structure. The next step taken was to construct an 80-item form of the lip—Q of which only 30 items were scored - fifteen items for Consideration and fifteen items for Initiating Structure. 2 In the final form of the w, the number of items was reduced to 40, with fifteen items for measuring Consideration, fifteen items for measuring Initiating Structure, and ten buffer items to maintain the "tone" of the instrument. 3 According to Halpin ”the two scales are correlated to a moderate degree, but are sufficiently independent to permit the use of Consideration and Initiating Structure scales as 1Andrew W. Halpin and B. James Winer, ”A Factorial Study of the Leader Behavior Descriptions, " in Leader Behavior: Its Descrip- tion and Measurement by Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons, edi- tors, _Ib_i_d., p. 51. 2Ibid., p. 47. 3Ibid., p. 51. 0,..- “A Lee IT. 9 . Fl. i. . Ti 39 measures of different kinds of behavior. Different persons describing the same leader show Significant Similarity in their descriptions. " Halpin provides a quadrant scheme, Figure 1, for describing Leaders' behavior on the Initiating Structure and Consideration di- mensions. The ordinates are defined by the averages of the respec- tive dimensions, and the four quadrants are designed by Roman nu- merals. CONSIDERATION C- C+ INITIATING 5+ 5+ MEANS OF STRUCTURE (IV) (I) INITIATING STRUC- TURE SCORES C- C+ S- S— (III) (II) LEGEND MEANS OF (C: Consideration) CONSIDERATION (S:Initiating Structure SCORES Figure l -- A quadrant scheme for describing Leaders' be- havior on the Initiating Structure and Consideration Dimensions. (From Andrew W. . Halpin, ”The Superintendent's Effectiveness as a Leader," Administrator's Notebook, Vol. 7, No. 2, October, 1958). The leaders described in Quadrant I are evaluated as highly “effective. " The leaders in Quadrant II are evaluated as "ineffective." This behavior contributes little to effective performance unless the Ibid. beta beta 5; El‘ect 40 behavior is accompanied by a required minimum of Initiating Structure behavior. Those in Quadrant III, whose behavior is usually accom- panied by group chaos, are evaluated as most “ineffective. " The leaders in Quadrant IV are the disciplinarians and “cold fish" who are so intent upon getting a job done that they forget they are dealing with human beings. At a given point in time, a leader may exhibit a high degree of Consideration and a high degree of concern for Structure or he may demonstrate a high degree of Consideration and relatively low con- cern for Structure or vice—versa. It is also possible that he may simultaneously exhibit relatively low Consideration and relatively low concern for Structure. Where the leader behavior falls within the enclosed area depends upon the leader's assessment of the demands of the situation at the time. Halpin conducted a study dealing with the leader behavior and effectiveness of Aircraft Commanders. The Leader Behavior Descri - tion Questionnaire. an 80-itemlinstrument adapted for the Air Force investigation, was used. Only 30 of the items were scored on the di- mensions of Consideration and Initiating Structure. 3 1Ibid. 2 Ibid. 3Andrew W. Halpin, "The Leader Behavior and Effectiveness of Aircraft Commanders, " in Leader Behavior: Its Description and W by Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons, editors, I id., p. 54. .— 41 The sample consisted of 89 commanders of B-29 aircraft. Data were gathered based upon the responses of 662 crew members des- cribing their 89 respective aircraft commanders. The number of descriptions per commander ranged from four to ten. In addition, ratings of the commander's performance were secured from his squadron and wing administrative superiors. Ratings were obtained on 87 of the 89 aircraft commanders in the sample. Fourteen of these 87 were evaluated by one superior, 48 by two, and 25 by three. A 9-point scale was used by the raters in evaluating commanders on each of six performance characteristics. The following hypotheses were tested and supported: 1. We would expect squadron and wing superiors to rate favorably the performance of these com- manders who show high Initiating Structure be- havior. 2. That crews will prefer as aircraft commanders those leaders who are high in Consideration be- havior. 3. That commanders who are rated highest by their superiors on 'overall' effectiveness in combat are those who score above the mean on both leader be- havior dimensions, and that the commanders who are rated lowest by their superiors on this same criterion are those who will score below the mean on both dimensions. 2 11bid., p. 55. 2 Ibid. , pp. 53-54. 42 It was found that, in general, the ratings of the commanders by their superiors correlated significantly with the Initiating Structure scores, and that the ratings of commanders by crew members cor- related highest with Consideration scores. Both dimensions were seen as integral components of a leader's behavior. In evaluating the commander's behavior, superior's and crew members each perceived one dimension as more important than the other. However, in neither case was the second dimension viewed adversely. According to Halpin ". . . our findings suggest that to select a leader who is likely to satisfy both his crew and his super- iors, we do best by choosing an aircraft commander who is above average on both leader behavior dimensions. "2 Hemphill used the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire in a study of twenty-two departments in a Liberal Arts College. The purpose was to explore the relationship between the leader behavior of the departmental administrator and the reputation of his department for being well administered. The twenty-two department chairmen described their own behavior. Their behavior was also described by the faculty members of their departments. In addition, one-third of the members selected at random from each department used the ques- tionnaire to describe both the Actual and the Ideal behavior of the 1Ibid., p. 64. 2Ibid. 43 chairmen of their departments. The other instruments used were: a Background Information Questionnaire, Group Dimensions Question- naire and a Reputational Ranking Form. 1 One Conclusion was: 'Reputation' for being well administered is related to the leadership behavior of department chairmen as this be- havior is described by department members. Those de- partments with best 'reputations' for good administration have chairmen who are described as above the average on both Consideration and Initiating Structure and as more nearly meeting the behavior expected of an ideal chair- man. According to Halpin, this series of leader behavior studies can be summarized into five principal findings: 1. The evidence indicates that Initiating Structure and Consideration are fundamental dimensions of leader behavior, and that the LBDQ provides a practical and useful technique for measuring the behavior of leaders on those two dimensions. 2. Effective leader behavior is associated with high performance on both dimensions. 3. There is some tendency for superiors and subordi- nates to evaluate oppositely the contribution of the leader behavior dimensions to the effectiveness of leadership. Superiors are more concerned with the Initiating Structure aspects of the leader's behavior, whereas subordinates are more concerned with the Consideration the leader extends to them as group members. 1John K. Hemphill, "Leader Behavior Associated with the Ad— ministrative Reputations of College Departments" in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement by Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons, editors, Ibid., p. 74. 2 Ibid., pp. 84-85. fou. ,. C‘XT 'nn 1. ~‘ Cox CM 3le 44 4. High Initiating Structure combined with high Con- sideration is associated with favorable group attitudes and with favorable changes in group attitudes. 5. There is only a slight positive relationship be— tween the way leaders believe they should behave and the way in which their group members describe them as behaving. For this reason, those engaged in leadership training programs should be especially wary of accepting trainees' statements of how they should behave as evidence of parallel changes in their actual behavior. 1 From the studies and summary statements cited, it has been found that the most effective leaders are those who score high on both dimensions of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, Initiat- ing Structure and Consideration. 2 Christner and Hemphill studied the "Leader Behavior of B-29 Commanders and Changes in Crew Members' Attitudes Toward the Crew. " The researchers theorized that the development of desired attitudes among members of a new crew is in part a function of leader behavior. They found that leadership style did in fact influence the early group learning experience. Specifically, a high Considera- tion score was directly related to a more rapid development of mutual confidence and willingness to enter combat. A high Initiating Struc- ture score was closely related to the growth of friendship and lHalpin, "How Leaders Behave, ” op. cit. , p. 296. 2Ibid., p. 297. Tl 45 confidence among crew members. 1 Carl H. Rush, Jr. , studied ”Leader Behavior and Group Char- acteristics. ” He administered the LBDQ and Hemphill's Group D'- mensions Description Questionnaire to the members of 21 air crews. Fifty-two of these crews were newly formed, 70 were previously es- tablished crews, and 90 crews had been in a combat situation. In each instance, the crews displaying positive group descriptions rated their commander high in both Initiating Structure and Consideration. The new crews valued Consideration more than Initiating Structure; the older crews and combat crews emphasized Initiating Structure more than did the new crews. 2 The 1113329 has also been used in industrial situations Fleish- man was instrumental in the development of the Supervisory Behavior Description, or SBD. This scale, which is an adaptation of the £39 consists of a series of 136 short statements descriptive of supervisory behavior. Twenty-eight of these items are scored for the dimension of Consideration, and 20 are scored for the dimension of Initiating Structure. The SBD is regarded as a valid and reliable measure of lCharlotte A. Christner and John K. Hemphill, "Leader Be- havior of B-29 Commanders and Changes in Crew Members' Attitudes Toward the Crew, " Sociometry, XVIII (February, 1955), 82-87. 2Carl H. Rush, Jr. , ”Leader Behavior and Group Characteris- tics, " in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement by Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons, editors, op. cit. , pp. 69-73. lIECI s n.." .505? IF». Acne .\ .h )hh. um. a\.~ 46 frequency of specific supervisory behaviors. 1 Fleishman also used the LBDQ in an effort to measure leader- ship attitudes in industry. He administered the £1329 to fo remen, supervisors, and workmen, asking for their perceptions of ideal leader behavior. He found that the dimensions of Consideration and Initiating Structure appeared to be independent with intercorrelations clustering about zero. Fleishman decided that Consideration and Initiating Structure were meaningful dimensions in the attitudinal realm as well as the behavioral. Scores on one dimension did not predict scores on the other dimension. The results of Fleishman's study indicated that the higher the position of power, the lower the scores on Consideration, and the higher the scores on Initiating Structure. In addition, supervisors displayed higher Consideration in their dealings with foremen than with workmen. The supervisors displayed the same amount of Initi- ating Structure for both foremen and workmen. 2 In 1955, Halpin conducted a study to determine whether two groups of leaders, 64 educational administrators and 132 aircraft commanders, differed significantly in their leadership ideology and lEdwin A. Fleishman, "A Leader Behavior Description for Industry, " in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement by Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons, editors, Ibid. , pp. 103-19. 2Edwin A. Fleishman, "The Measurement of Leadership in Industry, " Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVII (June, 1953), 153-58. tnei (ifC U C E 0 a a u .{ll ad. \ P. l .rw - «In. and MW 46 . C U L lFUt Q.» I a) i rifle )lllllIlllllllllL 47 their leadership style. The 64 educational administrators consisted of Ohio principals, superintendents and supervisors. On the aver- age, 6. 7 descriptions were secured for each administrator and 8. 3 descriptions were secured for each commander. The Leader Be- havior Description Questionnaires were scored on the dimensions of Consideration and Initiating Structure. For each leader, and on each dimension, one score (the £B_D_C_2-Ideal) expressed his own ideology, and another (the I_.._B_DQ-Real) described his behavior as perceived by the members of his own group. 1 The following hypothesis was tested and supported: That educational administrators will demonstrate in both leader behavior and leadership ideology, more Consideration and less Initiation of Structure than aircraft commanders. 2 The findings indicate that the administrators showed greater Consideration and less Initiating of Structure than did the commanders. Halpin explained this result in terms of contrasting roles that are re- quired of two differing managers. Emphasizing the marked situational differences between the two positions, Halpin also believes that at least part of the difference could be attributed to the influence of the human lIbid. 2Andrew W. Halpin, "The Observed Leader Behavior and Ideal Leader Behavior of Aircraft Commanders and School Superintendents, " in Leader Behavior: Its Descript_ion and Measurement by Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons, editors, op. cit. , p. 68. 48 relations movement so current among superintendents of that time. In discussing the findings, Halpin observes: It may be said, in general, that a leader's beliefs about how he should behave as a leader are not highly associated with his behavior as described by his followers. In his study, The Leadership Behavior of School Superintendents, Halpin used the LBDQ. His sample consisted of 50 Ohio school super- intendents who were selected from a list of 100 volunteers. He ex— amined the following relationships: A. the relationships between the descriptions of the supe rintendents' behavior as perceived by his school board, his immediate staff, and himself, characterized as the LBDQ-Real. B. the relationships between the descriptions of ideal superintendent behavior as perceived by the board, the staff, and the superintendent, characterized as LBDQ-Ideal. C. the relationships between the real and ideal descriptions of superintendents behavior as perceived by the boards, the staffs, and the superintendents. These relationships were examined for each of the 50 superintendents individually, and also for the superintendents as a group. 2 The examination of LBDQ-Real scores for each superintendent revealed a high degree of within-group agreement for data received. lIbid. 2Andrew W. Halpin, The Leadership Behavior of School Super- intendents (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1956), pp. 74-86. from perce liltia their nific; tenc'e Tafll‘i 49 from the board and the staff. The board as a whole agreed on their perceptions of the superintendent's behavior on the dimensions of Initiating Structure and Consideration. The staff basically agreed in their perceptions. However, the between-group variances were sig- nificant for the dimension of Consideration. In general, the superin- tendents perceived themselves as more considerate than either their board or staff did, and the staff ratings were lower than the board ratings. I On the dimension Initiating Structure, the board rated the super- intendent higher than either the staff or the superintendent himself. Since the school board perceived the superintendent as rating higher in both dimensions, Halpin proposed that superintendents may possibly "play up" to their boards. 2 The LBDQ-Ideal scores for each of the superintendents revealed a basic agreement in leadership ideology between the boards, the staff and the superintendent. There was a difference in the emphasis given to each dimension, with boards generally stressing Initiating Struc- ture more heavily, and staffs expecting higher Consideration ratings. All three groups agreed that ideal leader behavior would be character- ized by high scores in both dimensions. libid. ZIbid. 3Ibid. concl theor Sett (I! p) :1 l” t l a f (“L ‘ "I ‘. fl, {N iii ex- 1' ‘ " v: / (I ._.I J 50 In summarizing the results of this study, Halpin drew several conclusions which have since become a part of educational leadership theory. A. The se conclusions include: Effective leader behavior is characterized by high scores on both Initiating Structure and Consideration. Ineffective leader behavior is characterized by low scores on both Initiating Structure and Con- sideration. Initiating Structure and Consideration are indepen- dent dimensions of leader behavior. Initiating Structure and Consideration are not in- compatible. For the Board Ideal Scores, the interdirnensional correlation was . 61 (significant at . 05). Therefore, both dimensions can and should be stressed. Superintendents tend to play different roles with their boards and their staff as revealed by the lack of relationship between staff and board. 1 Getzels and Guba studied administrative behavior in the social setting and have explained leader behavior (Figure 2) in much the same way as Halpin. 1 Ibid. 51 ORGANIZATIONAL (NOMOTHETIC) DIMENSION Institution----Role------- Role ExPectations Social Observed System Behavior Individual----Personality----Need Dispositions/ PERSONAL (IDIOGRAPHI C) DIMENSION Figure 2--Getzels-Guba model showing dimensions of social behavior. According to Getzels, the social system creates institutions to perform particular roles and with Specific expectations for those with- in the institution. In each institution there are individuals with unique personalities and unique needs. There often develops conflicts be- tween the expectations of the institution and the needs of the individual. The job of the leader is to mediate between the two dimensions of the model in such a way as to minimize conflict. In so doing, according to Getzels, the leader tends to make decisions either in favor of the institution (nomothetic style) or in favor of the individual (idiographic style). 1 Ideally, the leader uses the style most appropriate to the situa- tion in which case he is a "transactional" stylist. 1R. J. Hills, "A New Concept of Staff Relations, " Administra- tor's Notebook, Midwest Administration Center, The University of Chicago, VIII (March, 1960). r‘v- SUM 52 Getzels believes that most leaders tend to have a dominate style--one which they use more frequently than another. However it is implied that effectiveness in a leadership role requires that the leader be able to utilize a variety of styles and be able to use the ap- propriate style in a particular situation. 1 As Getzels and Guba have indicated, a knowledge or manipula- tion of the concepts as described will not automatically improve ad- minis trative practice. Hills suggests that these concepts can assist the practicing school administrator in the following ways. 1. It can provide the administrator with a framework within which he may systematize many seemingly unrelated experiences and observations. If can provide a reference point to which he may relate a wide range of knowledge. The clarity and precision with which these con- cepts are defined can enable the administrator to think about and discuss ideas which, while already intuitively known to him, were some- what vague and ambiguous. The administrator may find such concepts useful in revealing his blind sports--situations and fac- tors to which he might profitably devote more attention. As Getzels and Guba have pointed out, the relevance of this model for administration becomes apparent when it is seen that the ad- ministration process deals with the mediation between institutional lIbid. 2Ibid. 53 expectations and personality needs to achieve the goals of the school.1 Ideally the individual should be able to fulfill both the .expecta- tions held for him by the institution and the needs of his own per- igzfl ,5 " ,7 . sonality/Accof’ding to Hills, however, the model points to three pri- mary sources of conflict. He states: 1. Role-personality conflicts occur in situations in which there are discrepancies between the ex- pectations held for a given role and the person- ality needs of the role incumbent. 2. Role conflicts may arise as a consequence of dif- ferences of opinion among the members of a group which holds expectations for a given role. 3. Role conflict may exist when two or more roles are occupied by the same person at the same time. 2 Bobbitt, et. al. , suggest that in order to understand the concept of role, it is essential to investigate its component parts. They are as follows: Role exPectation ". . . the prescriptions for a particular position in a social system. Members of the group let the role incumbent know what is expected of him. Those who pre- scribe behavior are the role senders; the prescription is the sent expectations. ”3 3 H. Randolph Bobbitt, Jr. , et. a1. , Organizational Behavior (Englewood Cliffs; New Jersey: (Prentice-Hall, Inc. , 1974), p. 118. 54 Role interpretation ". . . individual's understanding of the group's or role sender's expectations of him. " Role conception ". . . refers to the incumbent's own ideas about the behavior appropriate to the role. ' 2 Role acceptance ". . . the willingness with which an incum- bent embraces the various aspects of both his role interpretation and his role concep- tion. ”3 Role behavior ". . . the actual behavior of the incumbent in his role, may or may not conform to the role expectation. " "In many cases this dif- ference in behavior will be caused by per- sonal factors or situational factors that re- strict the incumbent's behavior. "4 Observed role ". . . is the role sender's perscriptions behavior of the incumbent's behavior. " The writers continue by saying: In most cases, individuals will receive multiple role expectations and occupy multiple roles. Often this leads to an incongruence of fit among the role com- ponents and personal or interpersonal difficulties create tension for the role incumbents. When this occurs, we say the individual is experiencing role conflict--intrarole conflict or outer-role conflict. 1.12.19 211331- 313—13. 4931-1. 51bid., p. 119. \l’fil \ II. ‘I .‘L" M 55 Intra-role conflicts may occur "when the role senders send dif- ferent expectations simultaneously, making it impossible for the incum- bent to satisfy all. “1 roles tions. intra- Inter-role conflicts take place "when someone occupies many simultaneously and some of these present conflicting expecta- 2 Gross believes that the school superintendent frequently faces role conflict situations and states the following: The teachers, he feels, expect him to be their spokes- man and leader, to take their side on such matters as salary increases and institutional policy. On the other hand, he feels that the school board members expect him to represent them, to 'sell' their views to the staff because he is the executive officer and the administrator of school board policies. Since their incompatible ex- pectations devolve upon him as the occupant of a single position, it is an intra-role conflict situation. Gross, Mason and McEachern explored the role expectations for school superintendents of school board members in about 50 per cent of the school districts in Massachusetts. Using the chi-square criterion, no differences in distributions were found for 37 per cent of the items and significant differences on 63 per cent of the items. They lIbid. 21bid., p. 120. 3Neal Gross, Ward S. Mason and Alexander W. McEachern, Exploration in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superintendenpy Role (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1958), p. 81. conc‘. crea tor ( 56 conclude that in school organizations there are inherent forces which create conflicts between policy makers (the board) and the administra- . - 1 tor (superintendent). Gross concludes: “Three basic ideas which appear in most of the conceptualizations considered, if not in the definitions of role them- selves are the individuals: (1) in social locations, (2) behave, (3) with reference to expectations. "2 Hencley states this about the superintendent's role: The superintendent interacts with various reference groups and is seen functioning in various roles: as the chief execu- tive of the board of education, as the status leader of the school organization, as a member of the profession. It seems logical that reference groups would hold expectations relating to the behavior of superintendents in each of these role areas. The Superintendent - Board - Staff Relationships In this research study, the traditional role of the school super- intendent is viewed as the individual who functions as the executive officer of the board and professional leader of the teacher staff. In a recent search for superintendency candidates, the Independ- ence Public Schools brochure indicated the following: libid. , 249. 2Ibid., p. 17. 3Stephen P. Hencley, "The Conflict Pattern of School Superin- tendents, " Administrator's Notebook, Midwest Administration Cen- ter, The University of Chicago, VIII (May, 1960). _.___ . 57 The Superintendent is the Chief Executive Officer of the Board of Education and, in addition to the usual administrative duties, will be expected to indicate the accomplishment of the following: -- provide agressive and dynamic leadership. 1 The Goleta Union School District: The Superintendent will be expected to be an educational leader.2 The Neenah Joint School District: The primary qualification is an educational leader. 3 The Coldwater Community School District: A leader who demonstrates trust and . . . who has a calm, decisive and effective leadership style. 4 The Williamston School District: The candidates must understand their role as the edu- cational leader of the professional staff and as the pro- fessional advisor and educational statesman for the School Board. 5 1Board of Education Superintendent Brochure, Independence Public Schools, Independence, Missouri, (March, 1975). 2Board of Education Brochure, Goleta Union School District, Goleta, California, (1974). 3Board of Education Brochure, Neenah Joint School District, Neenah, Wisconsin, (July, 1974). 4Board of Education Brochure, Coldwater Community Schools, Coldwater, Michigan, (November, 1974). 5Board of Education Brochure, Williamston Public Schools, Williamston, Michigan, (March, 1972). Moor idem: Want more "that his 1- 58 The Ecorse Public School District: A candidate for the superintendency should possess the ability to develop efficient working relationships between the Board, as policy maker, and the Superintendent, as educational leader and Chief Executive Officer. 1 In an article appearing in the Michigan School Board Journal, Moore writes that "we must ask ourselves whether it is our intent to identify a superintendent who will provide leadership--or, do we really 9112 want someone who will administer well He continues: My guess is that we are more concerned with engaging a sound administrator than we are in employing an edu- cational leader. If the superintendent also turns out to have leadership abilities, we are that much ahead. 3 Moore suggests that the board-superintendent relationship is more important than the superintendent-staff relationship and reasoned ”that if the superintendent cannot work successfully with the board, his relationships with staff are of little consequence. "4 One aspect of the role of the superintendent that has changed is his relationships with the professional staff. Langer expresses an opinion about the changing role of the superintendent in relation to his teaching staff: 1Board of Education Brochure, Ecorse Public Schools, Ecorse, Michigan, (January, 1975). 28amuel A. Moore, II, "So We're Looking for a New Superin- tendent, " Michigan School Board Journal, XX (March, 1973), 12. 31bid. 41bid. We 59 The superintendent must . . . cast his lot with the school board. He can no longer play the role of benevolent father, asking the public (through its board of education) for sufficient funds to meet the next year's needs, and then going back to approving or disapproving requisitions, attending conferences and luncheons, keeping his board informed and putting out occasional notes of encouragement. Gessner's comment summarizes the change in relationships be- tween the teachers and the superintendent quite well when he writes: A few years ago the superintendent's role in the salaries and welfare of teachers was determined by custom and there seemed little need to question it. Today, that role is dubbed--with varying inferences--as 'paternalistic' and is probably quite properly in the past. Teachers groups have grown much less willing to accept 'father's advice. ‘ With this brief introduction concerning the role of the super- intendent in relation to the board of education and the professional staff, a review of the professional literature pertinent to the role of the superintendent in the collective bargaining process follows. The Superintendent and Collective Barflinirg In Michigan, the Hutchinson Act of 1947 set the guidelines, stat- utes and machinery for collective bargaining in the private sector and \ . 1John H. Langer, "The Emerging Elementary Principalship in Michigan, " Phi Delta Kappan, 48 (December, 1966), 161. 2W. A. Gessner and E. D. Williams, "Negotiations: Key to Agreement from the Viewpoint of Superintendents, " Minnesota wal of Education, 47 (October, 1966), 15. in D3 insc C“! ‘~ lZe tie: ii; ..a Id 1" e fi‘k r1" A ii” a 60 public utilities. Public Act 379, passed in 1965, amended the Hutch- inson Act and extended the rights of public employees to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining negotiations. (This act placed a mandate upon public employers to recognize employee bargaining units and to enter into collective negotiations at the request of a duly organized unit. 1 The result of Public Act 379 in Michigan was an immediate re- Sponse by public employees, particularly in public schools, to organ- ize. The Michigan Federation of Teachers, and the Michigan Educa- tion Association, were active in this drive, particularly in organizing professional employees. Other employee organizations, such as the Teamsters Union, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, and the United Mine Workers, were active in organizing non-professional employees, such as maintenance Workers, cafeteria employees, and other service employees. As a result, collective negotiations has brought about important Changes in the role definition of school administrators. These changes haVe restricted traditional unilateral decision-making and forced sch(3'01 administrators to deal with teachers through collective units \ G . 1Charles T. Schmidt, Jr., Hyman Parker and Bob Repas, _A__ :MEJO Collective Negotiations in Education, Social Science Re- eat-ch Bureau (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1967), PP. 17-18. 21bid. and den! and has Ct; i'l’g Um. «wk .0. m..\ 1 61 and organizations. 1 One of the most difficult problems confronting the superinten- dent of schools in the process of collective bargaining is that of role definition. According to Allen, "whichever role the superintendent assumes, his leadership . . . will continue to be just as necessary, and perhaps more so, in the process of collective negotiations as it has been in other issues related to school administration. "2 In 1961, four years prior to the adoption of the Michigan Stat- ute, the American Association of School Administrators indicated two extreme positions relative to the superintendent's role in negotia- tions: "(a) that he be completely bypassed and have no part in negotia- tions process, and (b) that he be the chief negotiator representing only the board of education in all of its dealings with the staff. 3 In this document it is also stated: lMyron Lieberman and Michael H. Moskow, Collective Negotia— Ejgns for Teachers (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1966), P- 369. 2Roy B. Allen, "Implications of Collective Negotiations for the Role of Superintendent, " Collective Negotiations and Educational whistration (Columbus, Ohio: The University Council for Edu- catlonal Administration, 1966), p. 126. 3American Association of School Administrators, School Ad- mtrators View Professional Negotiation (Washington: AASA, 1961). p. 54. 62 The association does not believe either of these positions will contribute to the long-term good of the school dis- trict or its educational program. . . He should be an independent third party in the negotiation process. In a 1963 publication of the AASA, Roles Responsibilities, Relationships of the School Board, Superintendent and Staff, a dual role concept for the superintendent is advocated. In this publication, the following statement provides additional insight into what is con- sidered to be an appropriate role for the superintendent in collective bargaining: Today, the superintendent of schools occupies a com- plex and demanding position. He is often torn between diverse alternatives, obligations, and responsibilities. Yet is seems clear that the superintendent has one al- legiance that transcends all other commitments. Al- though he is a devoted member of his professional group and deeply concerned with the success of his associates, his allegiance to the learner supersedes all other loyalties. This commitment need not and should not place him in conflict with his colleagues. Its very nature makes him seek assiduously and vig- orously to maintain environmental circumstances which his associates desire, need, and must have to work to best advantage. One of the major concerns of the super- intendent always has been and always should be to help provide those conditions which enable teachers and all other staff members to achieve their professionals goals. In 1965, the AASA adopted two resolutions with reference to the Superintendent's role in collective bargaining. The first resolu- tion Stated: \ lIbid. 2American Association of School Administrators, Roles Re- Wbilities, Relationships of the School Board, Superintendent, W(Washington: AASA, 1963), pp. 3-9. t0 the 63 We believe that teachers, school boards, and adminis- trators are all committed to the advancement of public education and that the goals and interests of these groups are highly interrelated. We believe strongly that the development of school policies and programs and the solu- tion of school problems can best be accomplished by these groups working in harmony and with respect for the roles of each. We believe that effective policy development is a professional concept requiring a unique professional ap- proach. We maintain that the superintendent of schools has a unique responsibility to provide leadership in these matters. 1 A second resolution provided the following guidelines: The superintendent of schools is the chief executive officer of the board of education. He is the profes- sional leader of the board, the leader of the staff, and the focal point of educational responsibility with- in the district. The superintendent occupies a unique position. He assists the board of education, the staff (singly and in groups), and the citizens of the community as they work through educational problems. He is the chief professional advisor to the board in policy develop- ment. He is responsible for developing appropriate edu- cational opportunities to meet the needs of all children. He is a professional educator and a professional school administrator. That which strengthens his effectiveness in any of these roles automatically strengthens the schools. By 1968, the position of the AASA had changed with reference to the superintendent's role in collective bargaining. The position 0f the AASA at that time was: 1American Association of School Administrators, Resolutions, Elafform, Constitution, BylaWS, Ethics (Washington: AASA'1965)' 21pm. , p. 11. -__.,_J' ('IQ 64 Perhaps the best that can be said is that the supe rinten- dent should be reSponsible for seeing that negotiation is conducted as an administrative function. His own role may be any of the following: 1. Chief negotiator, representing the board. 2. Member of the administrative negotiating team, but not its chief spokesman. 3. Consultant to board and administrative team. 4. Consultant to an "outside" negotiator designated to conduct negotiations for the board. When negotiation is conducted between teacher repre- sentatives and board members, the superintendent may function as a consultant for both groups. However, this role is more common in 'around-the—table' adminis- tratixie consultation than in 'across-the-table' negotia- tion. As a result of the superintendent's new role in collective bar- gaining, Grieder states: It is becomming apparent that the Superintendent's proper role is to represent management, i. e. , the board of edu- cation, and through it, the public. He cannot be a go- between-the man in the middle between teaching personnel, other employee groups, and the board of education. In many cases, teachers' groups have demanded and won the right to deal directly with the board, bypassing the board's chief executive. This is analogous to a labor union's insisting on collective bargaining with a company board of directors, which is rare, if indeed it is ever done. Unions bargain with company executives or their bargaining representatives, not with the board of directors. 1American Association of School Administrators, The School immatrator and Negotiation, op. cit. , p. 38. 2Calvin Grieder, "Superintendents Cannot Face Union Bar- ginning Teams Alone, " The Nation's Schools, 78 (July, 1966), 6. de to tea 65 Steffensen indicates that the AFT's position on the supe rinten- dent's role is that he should be part of the Board's negotiating team. He states: The proposals currently being made either state or imply that the two parties will be the teachers and their boards. As much as any other individual within a school community, or as much as any other group, the Superintendent is deeply involved in group, the Superintendent is deeply involved in discussions between the teachers and their boards. Both teacher organizations call for direct fact-to-face communica- tions with the board of education. The AFT, as a proponent of collective bargaining, regards the Super- intendent as the employer at the negotiation session. The superintendent's role needs to be define just as concisely and clearly for the board as 't is for the teachers - and for the Superintendent. In 1963, the National School Boards Association adopted a resolution about the superintendent's new role in collective bar- gaining. The NSBA stated that ". . . the superintendent as an ad- ministrative office can function as an interpreter of teacher concerns to the board and the board responsibilities and concerns to the teacher. " In addition, the NSBA policy states: . . . NSBA urges each local board to review its policies, procedures and activities and to give careful considera- tion to incorporating the following items if they are not included: (a) Procedures which will actively involve school boards administrative staff, and teachers in discussing total budget needs with particular emphasis on the deter- mination of salaries and the handling of grievances. l 4 James P. Steffensen, "Board-Staff Negotiation, " School Life, '7 (October, 1964), 2. 90: «Win 66 (b) Written policies concerning the above procedures that are widely disseminated, and presented in such a way that they are clearly understood by all parties concerned - the teachers, administrative staff, the board of education, and the general public. (c) Policies whereby the superintendent, as adminis- trative officer of the board, can function as a channel and interpreter of teacher concerns to the board and the board reSponsibilities and concerns to the teacher. Direct hearings with the board should be arranged through the superintendent if this provides inadequate. . . In 1965, the NSBA passed a resolution which amended their position taken two years earlier. School boards, subject to the requirements of an applic- able law, should refrain from compromise agreements based on negotiation or collective bargaining, and should not resort to mediation or arbitration, nor yield to threats or reprisal on all matters affecting local public schools, including the welfare of all personnel. They should also resist by all lawful means the enactment of laws which would compel them to surrender any part of their re- sponsibility. Z The National Education Associations' position in 1965 was that the superintendent should play a dual role in the negotiating process; that is, he should be the executive officer of the board and profes- sional leader of the teachers. Guidelines for Professional Negotia- tion, the principal organ for the NBA on negotiations, states: The superintendent of schools should seek ways to bring the local association and the school board together so that 1National School Board Association, "Beliefs and Practices, " (Washington: NASB, 1965). 2National Education Association, Guidelines for Professional Nefltiation (Washington: NBA, 1965), p. 9. 67 they can develop a professional negotiating agreement. In assuming his responsibilities as the executive officer of the board and as a member of the profession, he re- cognized that shared responsibility in policy determina- tion is a professional concept. He can be of great assist— ance by helping the board to recognize that the achieve- ment of educational goals requires this joint approach. 1 According to Ashby, McGinnis, and Persing, the superinten- dent's role in negotiations cannot be considered separate from such roles as that of (a) chief executive office of the board; (b) responsible educational leader; (c) decision maker, and (d) responsible fiscal agent. 2 Accordingly, they believe that the superintendent's role in formal negotiations is effected by the manner in which he carries out these roles. They suggest the following: 1. If the superintendent has the full confidence of the board as its chief executive in all - or most - other matters, then his negotiating role will be more effec- tive than if confidence is lacking in any significant degree. 2. If the superintendent has - in the eyes of the board, staff and community - established himself as a high- level, responsible educational leader, then his pos- ture at negotiation time can be one of strength. What he says or does will carry weight with all factions. 3. If the superintendent has organized the decision- making roles of the entire staff effectively to the end that employees generally feel a distinct and 1National Education Association, Guidelines for Professional Negotiation (Washington: NBA, 1965), p. 9. 2Ashby, McGinnis, Persing, op. cit., pp. 77-78. 68 genuine part of decision-making, then the negotia- tions road will be considerably smoother than would otherwise be the case. In this event, decision-making in connection with most problems will be on a board participatory base. 4. If the superintendent has established himself as a re- spons ible fiscal agent in terms of what is best for the educational program, then his influence will be greater than otherwise. To have established himself in this manner, the superintendent will at times have had to disagree with both board and staff. But unless he has done this as occasion demanded, there can be little reason for either board or staff to have great faith in his role in the negotiations process at a critical juncture. 1 van Zwoll, in his book, School Personnel Administration, sees the superintendent as the leader and spokesman of the certificated teaching staff. His reasoning for this is that the superintendent was Once a teacher, and therefore, is still part of the professional staff. Van Zwoll sees the teachers as part of the executive branch of school 0peration. He says: The two chief parties to possible collective agreement or joint action relative to school operation are the employer and the employee, 1. e. , the board of education on the one hand and the employed executive agents (all employees) on the other. In view of the essential unity of the executive group in the school situation, the role of the administrator is logically that of chief advocate for his executive family in terms of the needs voiced by its members. The superintendent, in this concept of the role in negotiation, Would be the chief spokesman for the teachers in joint discussion wit pri pal tea sci SiOr Cor / PU 69 with the board of education. 1 Dr. Harry Becker, former Superintendent of Schools in Norwalk, Connecticut, states, "that the superintendent is an agent and not the principal party in the negotiations process. " Further, "the princi- pal party is the board of education, and it is only natural for the teachers' organization to want to communicate directly with the s chool board. "2 As a result, the superintendent serves as a resource person to both the school board and the teacher group. In this dual role the superintendent (a) serves as a resource person who makes information available to both parties, (b) persuades both parties to reduce excessive demands, and (c) maintains discus- sion with both groups on an informal and formal basis. Reporting on the superintendent's role in The Journal of Edu- gational Research, Caldwell states that ”teachers are significantly rI‘lore satisfied when the superintendent is a non-participant to nego- tiations, less satisfied when the superintendent is in an advisory 1James a van Zwoll, School Personnel Administration (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1964), p. 218. 2Harry Becker, "The Role of School Administrators in Profes- 8ional Negotiations, " The American School Board Journal, 150 (May, 1965), 9-10. 3 Ibid. 70 role to the board of education, and dissatisfied when he acts as chief negotiator. l The direct implication of these findings suggest, as already stated by Becker, that ". . . it is only natural for the teachers' organization to want to communicate directly with the s chool boa rd. "2 The following Table indicates the negotiation roles of superin- tendents in the 272 school districts that Caldwell surveyed. 1William E. Caldwell, "The Superintendent's Negotiation Role, " The Journal of Educational Research, 64 (October, 1970), 73-77. 2Becker, op. cit., p. 9. 71 TABLE 1. l NEGOTIATIONS ROLES ASSIGNED THE SUPERINTENDENT BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATIONa Role Nu'rnber Per Cent Non-Participant 1 . 4 Adviser to Teachers' 0 0. 0 Organization Only Adviser to both the Teachers' 109 43. 4 Organization and the Board of Education Adviser to Board Only 48 19. 1 Negotiator for Board with 79 31. 5 Limited Authority Negotiator for Board with 14 5. 6 Full Authority Total 251 100. 0 2'Data compiled by William E. Caldwell and reported in The Journal of Educational Research, October, 1970. 72 Calvin Gross, a former New York City superintendent, in re- sponse to the question, "once the sole bargaining agent had been selected, what is the role of the superintendent?" offers the following advice: Get some good advice from a competent, professional labor relations expert, a man who has had experience in actual bargaining. I mean a guy who has conducted negotiations. Otherwise you're a babe in the woods, because the other side will certainly have their pro- fessional advice. 1 In response to another question asking whether the superinten- dent should be the representative of the teachers and professional leader of the staff, Gross states: . I think the superintendent can prevent role con- flict by the way he handles himself. I think that as teachers become more demanding, more militant, better organized, more powerful, then their organiza— tion begins to assume the role of professional leader- ship for salaries and working conditions, a role the superintendent has traditionally had. It couldn't develop in any other direction. This means that the superintendent will gravitate closer to the school board. He is mo re in that orbit and becomes the chief negotiator there. 2 Lieberman and Moskow state their position as follows: The superintendent's role must be clearly defined and commonly understood. This will be virtually impossible lCalvin Gross, "Ways to Deal with Teacher Militancy, " Phi Delta Kappan, 46, (December, 1964), 147-48. 2Ibid. 73 if he tries to serve as the representative of the school board in some communities. . . the teachers others . and as a neutral advisor in others. . . many super- intendents who sincerely proclaim their identification with the teachers eventually find it necessary to oppose policies supported by their teachers in order to keep their own jobs. Charles Wilson, writing in Phi Delta Kappan, recommends a "middle of the road" approach for the superintendent. He states the following: The superintendent cannot abrogate his function as an educational leader of his professional staff, nor can he renounce his role as professional advisor to his board of education. Unless he performs this extremely dif- ficult dual role, he is powerless to provide the type of leadership that is demanded in these dynamic times. The superintendent must be his own man, not just an 'owned' man. He must maintain a posture of true objectivity. He must be a man of intelligence, in- tegrity, and conviction; and he must operate within the confines. 2 Geisert reacts to the "middle of the road" approach by saying: No one is interested in listening to a go -between. A superintendent following the 'man in the middle' line in collective negotiations will find that he will not be accepted by either side. He will become a non- participant, A Mr. Nobody, unable to exert the execu- tive leadership required to improve and strengthen the educational program of his district. 1Lieberman and Moskow, op. cit. , p. 377. 2Charles Wilson, "Whose Man is the Superintendent?, " Phi @ta Kapm, 48 (December, 1966), 156-57. 3 Ibid., p. 158. 74 Negotiation Models The professional literature describes two contrasting approaches for making educational determinations. The first approach is termed ' 'Cooperative administration, " and can be described as "around the table consultation. " The second approach is termed "across the table negotiation. " Around the table consulting is an informal process in which the cooperative participation of all parties to the discussion i s stressed. The latter approach, across the table negotiation, is more of an adversary-type process which moves from divergence to <2 onsensus or impasse if agreement cannot be reached. The ”around the table" approach avoids many problems that must be resolved in he gotiation, e. g. , defining the role of the superintendent. Both of these approaches are visually depicted in Figures 3 and 4. Metzler and Knade indicate that cooperative administration has be en sucessfully used in school systems across the country; however, the rate at which formalized negotiation has become the accepted 1T1ethod of decision making in school systems is rapidly accelerating. The American Association of School Administrators has detailed r11odels that clarify role definition in the negotiation process. \ 1American Association of School Administrators, The School id‘ministrator and Nggotiation, op. cit. , p. 29. . 2John H. Metzler and Oscar Knade, "A Tranquilizer for Nego- tlla-tions, " American School Board Journal, 155 (December, 1967), 2-13. F4 r-i (\J LA) - 75 COOPERA TIVE ADMINISTRA TIONI 1Ame rican Association of School Administrators, The School winistrator and Negotiation, op. cit. , p. 30. T T T T AROUND THE TABLE CONSULTATION T T Z or: O (n O T T H :> [-1 C so '4: *U U N tr] '1‘ T H no 0 Z H .41 <: 2 T T O r-l 1'11 m H D O 2 C T T U 0 m ['11 11> L11 2 '-l T T :1: "3 5 U 2 Q '1‘ T [11 E-' T T 'I‘ T (I) Teacher @ Administrator 6) Supervisor 1 - Identification of problems 4. Peer-level participation and issues 2 - Presentation of evidence 5. Reaching consensus 3 - Give -and-take discussion 6. Formulation of recom- mendations \ Figure 3 -- Cooperative Administration \ 76 NEGO TIA TION1 TEACHER NEGOTIATION ACROSS THE TABLE NEGOTIATION ORG. TEACHER TEAM 'DflCIEI .:IO CIHVOH WVIEIJ. HALL VHLSINIWCI V Ibid. Presentation of proposals 5. Employment of tactics (demands) and strategies Submission of counter pro- 6. Reaching consensus or posals impasse Pro-and-con arguments 7. Signing an agreement and supportive data (contract or resolving an impasse) Figure 4 - - Negotiation l 77 Model I Teacher Association €--§ Ratifiers ‘—_9 Board of Education Negotiating Team é___, Negotiators (______; Superintendent Model I. This is a simple format for negotiation wherein the superintendent and teacher team do the negotiating while the teacher association and board of education are the ratifying bodies. The characteristics of this model are that it (a) places the superintendent on the management team; (b) puts the superintendent in a position of having to do the negotiating; (c) creates an adversary relationship between the teacher team and superintendent, and (d) presumes that the superintendent has the knowledge, skill, and temperament to be a negotiator. 1 Ibid. 78 Model 11 Teacher Association HRatifiers (_____~, Board of Education Superintendent t Negotiating Team H Negotiators (.__.; Professional Negotiator Model II. The main difference between Models 1 and II is that in Model II a professional negotiator is employed by the board. The superintendent assumes the position of liaison representative between the board and the professional negotiator. The characteristics of this model are that it (a) has a reasonably simple format; (b) places the superintendent in close proximity to the process but does not force him into the role of chief negotiator, (the superintendent pro- vides the educational expertise that the professional negotiator needs); (c) places the superintendent on the management team, and (d) assumes that there are an ample supply of "professional negotiators. "1 Ibid., p. 34. 79 Mo del III Teacher Association HRatifiers {__) Board of Education I Teacher Team ‘__) Negotiators 4___§ Administrative Team Supe rintendent (chairman) Central Office A dministrato r s Principals Model III. Model III resembles Model I except that the super- intendent forms an administrative team to negotiate with the teacher team. The characteristics of Model III are that (a) role relationships are clear-cut; (b) the team concept introduces the involvement of other administrators wherein the superintendent gains assistance and support; (c) it provides balance between the teacher team and the administrative team, and (d) it provides the superintendent with enough flexibility to perform in the team capacity best suited to his desires and capabilities. I 1 Ibid., pp. 34-35. 80 Model IV Teacher AssociationH Ratifiers 6—-) Board of Education I Superintendent Teacher Team H Negotiators <_____’ Administrative Teim A S sistant Supe rintendent (Chairman) Central Office Administrators Principals Model IV. The difference between this model and Model III is that the superintendent designates one of his assistant superinten- dents as chief negotiator. The characteristics of Model IV are that (a) it releases the superintendent from the time requirement to con- duct negotiation; (b) it removes the superintendent from a role in which he may or may not wish to perform, and (c) it maintains the administrative team approach in the process of negotiation. 1 Model V Teacher AssociationH Ratifiers (______.) Board of Education Supe rintendent .. - .. Teacher Team ‘______., Negotiators ‘______) dministrative Team 1Ibid. , pp. 35-36. 81 Model V. This model places the superintendent in the role of consultant to the board and administrative team. As such, a de sig- nated representation from the Superintendent's staff is the chief negotiator with other members serving in a team capacity. The characteristics of this model are that (1) it enables the superinten- dent to be very close to the policy-makers and negotiators; (b) it does not oblige the superintendent to be committed in terms of time and effort; (c) it places the superintendent in the role of "coach" and the chief Spokesman in the role of "captain, " and (d) it maintains the administrative team approach to negotiation. 1 The superintendent's role, as described in the previous five models may be any of the following: 1. Chief negotiator, representing the board. 2. Member of the administrative negotiating team, but not its chief spokesman. 3. Consultant to the board and administrative team. 4. Consultant to an "outside" negotiator representing the board. 5. Consultant to both the teacher team and the board. 2 Selective Research In his doctoral study, Scott hypothesized that: (l) the tradi- tional role of the school superintendent had changed as a result of lIbid. 2Ibid., p. 38. 82 the collective negotiation movement, and (2) graduate preparation programs offered by selected universities generally failed to reflect the new and different social and political conditions which prevailed in the school and community environment. Professors of educational administration in eleven midwestern universities were interviewed, and 98 public school superintendents from districts that had experi- ence in collective negotiations were interviewed by a structured telephone interview. Scott's summary of the findings of the professors of educational administration were: All of the professors of educational administration agreed that the superintendent should be knowledgeable in the area of collective bargaining. They did not agree on whether or not the superintendent should negotiate for the board. There were as many who felt that he should be the board's negotia- tor as there were those who felt that he should not negotiate for the board under any circumstances. Another group felt that he should serve in that capacity under some conditions and still others felt that only in small school systems should the superintendent represent the board as negotiator. Scott's summary of the findings of what the School superintendents said were: Eighty-five of the ninety-eight superintendents claimed their traditional role had been changed as a result of the negotiation movement. A variety of responses described the new role, the most frequent being as negotiator for the board of education. 1Scott, 0 .cit., p. 158. zIbid. , p. 159. 3ibid., p. 161. 83 In the section of his study entitled ”Crucial Issues to Affect Future Decisions, " Scott cites the following issues which he believes "will have future significance to preparation programs for school ad- "1 He states: ministration as they relate to collective negotiations. "The role of the school administrative official in public educa- tion today is uncertain and confused. Such importunate questions as these arise:" (a) Is the superintendent an educational leader because of the status position he holds? (b) Is the superintendent an educational leader because of his persuasive influence with citizens and organized groups in the community who give him sources of power through their support and backing? (c) Is the superintendent conceded the role of leadership because of his extensive knowledge in education and personal influence with teachers? (d) Is the superintendent in a position to evaluate the teachers or is his role solely that of being the execu- tive officer of the board. 2 Heim conducted a study to determine what selected school super- intendents, board of education presidents, and teacher representatives (chairmen of negotiating committees or association presidents) think the role of the superintendent should be in the negotiating process. This study was limited to selected school districts in the nineteen states which were members of the North Central Association of lIbid. , p. 169. 2Ibid. 84 Colleges and Secondary Schools. From the total of 1227 school dis- tricts with K-lZ school enrollment of 2000 or more students, 490 districts were selected on a random basis. From the 490 districts surveyed, 270 districts returned usable questionnaires (three from each district) making a 56 per cent return. 1 The major findings of the study follows: 1. The role that selected superintendents, board presidents, and teachers indicated they thought the superintendent should play in the negotiating process is a dual one. The dual role item re- ceived 65. 8 per cent of the 810 responses. 2. The managerial role received the second highest number of selections, 20. 3 per cent, from the three groups of respondents. Z 3. The pragmatic role was the third choice of the respondents. Twelve per cent of the super- intendents, 5. 9 per cent of the board presidents, and 14. 9 per cent of the teachers felt the prag- matic role for the superintendent was desirable. 4. Only 14 or 1. 8 per cent, of the 810 respondents selected the no role concept. 5. The professional staff leader role received only 1. 0 per cent support from the 810 respondents who participated in the study. 3 \ lMax Otto Heim, "A Study of what Selected Respondents Think the Role of the Superintendent should be in the Negotiating Process, " l1Iipublished Ed. D. dissertation, University of Kansas, 1967), DD. 110-11. zIbid. 3Ibid. . pp. 112-16. 85 In concluding this section of selected research studies, Cave identified ten Michigan school districts in which there was conflict be- tween school administrators and the teachers' union. School board members, teachers' union representatives, and the school administra- tor himself were asked to describe the leader behavior of an Lie-3i ad- ministrator by means of a Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (Form XII). They were also asked to respond again to the question- naire to describe the type of leader behavior practiced by their ad- ministrator. The major objective of this research study was to identify those leader behavior dimensions which contribute to the presence of Conflict. 1 The conclusions reached in this study were: School administrators, school board members, and teachers' union representatives similarly described the ideal leader behavior an administrator should practice. . . . at the present time the leader behavior of ad- ministrators is in fact contributing to the presence 0f conflict with teachers' unions. Those leader behavior dimensions. . . contributing the most to conflict were (1) consideration, (2) initiation of structure (3) integration, (4) demand reconcilation, (5) tolerance of freedom, and (6) production emphasis. Cave concluded the study by saying: "Mprovement in these \ 1David Raymond Cave, "A Critical Study of the Leader Behavior $.f School Administrators in Conflict with Teachers' Unions, " (unpub- 18hed Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967), p. 73. 86 behavior dimensions is essential before conflict can be satisfactorily resolved. "1 Summa ry In this chapter the author has presented an overview of the litera- ture pertinent to the study of leadership and leadership behavior. Par— ti cular attention was focused upon leadership behavior studies and the development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. In addition, the literature relative to the role of the public school super- intendent in the collective bargaining process as advocated by boards 01' education, administrators, and teachers' associations was pre- sented. Finally, a series of negotiation models and a review of sel- ected research studies pertinent to the role and leadership behavior of the superintendent in collective bargaining were discussed. Ibid., p. 3. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Best describes descriptive research as being concerned with practices that prevail, attitudes that are held, points of View, or 1 He continues by stating that "knowledge trends that are developing. 2 of present status is a necessary first step in problem solving." This was a descriptive study in which data were secured from Supe rintendents and. teachers from a small sampling of Michigan public sChool districts. The writer's primary objective in this study was to Compare perceptions and to determine if superintendents who perform the role of chief negotiator for the board of education differ from sup- erititendents who perform a non-negotiator role with respect to fre- quEncy of behavior as the educational leader of the teaching staff. Se c(Dridly, it was a descriptive study since an attempt was made to dete rmine whether the primary objective might be related to certain sltuational conditions and factors associated with the collective \ 1John W. Best, Research in Education (New Jersey: Prentice- H"all. Inc., 1970), p. 116. zIbid. , p. 137. 87 88 bargaining proces 5. Procedure in Selectingthe Sample At the time this research problem was identified (July, 1973) there were 602 public school districts in Michigan. Since the writer was concerned with comparing perceptions held by negotiating super— intendents with perceptions held by non-negotiating superintendents, it was necessary to conduct a preliminary survey to determine the actual role superintendents were performing in bargaining the 1973-74 board-teacher master agreement. In the collective bargaining process, a superintendent may per- form either an active or an inactive role. He may serve as the chief negotiator for the board, consultant to the board, or he may be com- pletely by-passed in the collective bargaining process. In the handbook, Helping Administrators Negotiate, a study was conducted by the University of Oregon and it was found that superin- tendents employed in school districts with a student population of 2500 l and below tend to perform the management-employee relations tasks. One of the findings of the study revealed that "as size of system in- creases the tasks tend to be delegated to assistants and associates. " 1American Association of School Administrators, "The Uni- Ye Psity of Oregon Study, ”Helping Administrators Negotiate (Wash- 1ngton: AASA, 1974), pp. 5-6. 2Ibid., p. 6. 89 In a doctoral study conducted by Scott, four possible roles the superintendent could assume in the negotiation process were set forth: 1) the superintendent as an independent professional, 2) the superin- tendent as a mediator between teachers and the board of education, 3) the superintendent as negotiator, and 4) the superintendent and the development of policy. 1 In an attempt to determine which role a superintendent was per- forming in the collective bargaining process, the writer secured a copy of Bulletin 1011, 1972-73, from the Michigan State Department of Education. 2 The Bulletin contained the name of each school dis- trict in Michigan and the number of pupils enrolled. Although there were 602. school districts in Michigan, 281 districts had a pupil en- rollment between 500 and 2500. A questionnaire was devised by the researcher and mailed to a random sampling of 200 superintendents who we re selected from the 281 listed school districts. The questionnaire was designed to elicit Superintendents' normative data and to obtain information about their actual role in collective bargaining, the status of the 1973-74 master Contract, and titles of members on the board negotiating team. The questionnaire (Appendix A) was accompanied by a cover lettier and each superintendent also was asked to indicate whether he lScott, op.cit., pp. 164-65. 2Michigan State Department of Education, op. cit. , pp. 8-11. 90 would be willing to take part in this study by completing a second questionnaire in the future. In July, 1973, a total of 200 question- naires were rrailed and a return of 132 or 66 per cent was realized. The role chosen by the sampled superintendents and the fre- quency of reSponses is shown in Table 2.1. TABLE 2.1 ROLE PERFORMED BY 132 SUPERINTENDENTS IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS “ Role Choice Number Per cent Chief negotiator representing the 57 43. 2 Board at the bargaining table Member of the Board negotiating 33 25. 0 team at the bargaining table Consultant to the Board negotiating 13 9. 8 team but not present at table Consultant to ”outside" negotiator 8 6. 1 Member of Board team at the table 15 11.4 but using "outsidé'negotiator Consultant to Board/Teacher teams 6 4. 5 Totals 132 100. 0 Preliminary data further revealed that of the 57 negotiating s . . . L1PErintendents who completed and returned a questionnaire, two were unvwilling to be a part of the study; five had a multi -year agreement 91 with the teacher association and would not be bargaining a 1973—74 'master agreement; two indicated that salary and fringe benefits were the only bargainable issues, and three superintendents were newly employed and had received limited exposure in bargaining the new master agreement. An analysis of the data from the 75 non-negotiating superinten- dents revealed circumstances which were similar to those described by the negotiating superintendents. Due to these circumstances, the number of participating school districts was limited to 80 which in- cluded 40 negotiating superintendents and 40 non-negotiating superin- tendents. The researcher was concerned with comparing perceptions held by superintendents, and it was believed that these perceptions should be contrasted with the perceptions held by the teacher who served as the chief negotiator for the teacher association in bargaining the 1 973—74 master contract. In this study, both the superintendent of Schools and the teacher chief negotiator were asked to complete a Clue stionnaire. In conducting this study, it was essential that both re- spondents complete a questionnaire since perceptions were to be com- pared on a matched-pair basis. In March, 1974, a letter (Appendix B) was sent to the selected 40 negotiating and 40 non-negotiating superintendents indicating that a (1‘16 ationnaire would soon be forthcoming and requested that they assist in obtaining the cooperation of their teacher chief negotiator. 92 One non-negotiating superintendent contacted the writer and requested his name be removed from participation in the study. From the re- maining list of 75 non-negotiating superintendents who qualified for participation in the study, another name was selected at random. The superintendent was then contacted and agreed to take part in the study. In May, 1974, questionnaires were mailed to 80 public school super- intendents in Michigan. Instruments used in Data Collection Two instruments were used to gather the data in this study. One instrument was developed by the writer and used to obtain perceptions about the superintendent's role, satisfaction, and situational condi- tions and factors associated with collective bargaining. A modified version of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire was used as a second data gathering instrument in obtaining perceptions about Superintendents' leader behavior. The questions and statements contained in the instrument which Was designed by the writer were generated both from a review of the pro fessional literature and from the writer's personal experience in CoIlective bargaining. Prior to submitting the instrument to the sel- ected sample, six elementary and secondary public school principals and three public school teachers (all with experience in the collective bargaining process) reviewed the items in the instrument and made t ~ . he 1 1‘ recommendations . 93 Each superintendent and each teacher negotiator responded to identical questions and statements. The respondents indicated their perceptions of which role the superintendent should perform in collec— tive bargaining, and which role they believed the board of education and the teacher association preferred. In addition, each respondent indicated his perception of the situation as it existed during the collec- tive bargaining process and further indicated his degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each situation. Each respondent reacted to twelve situational factors by selecting one of two possible choices. Depending on the situation in this section of the questionnaire (Appendix C), the respondent selected only one of the following combinations: "Frequent" or "Infrequent;" "Excessive" or "Limited;" "Positive" or "Negative;" "Relaxed" or "Tense. " The perceptions obtained from each matched pair, superintendent-teacher negotiator, were compared for agreement-disagreement analysis. The superintendents in the study were asked to indicate their Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their role in collective bargaining; their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the overall position of super- intendent; the methods used in determining their role in collective b"“--‘l‘gé‘a.ining; the status of board-association collective bargaining prior to 1 973-74, and if selected situational conditions existed prior to and during the 1973-74 school year. In addition, the normative data obtained from the respondents Include age, sex, highest degree held, tenure as a superintendent, de xi P6 \I'r a B0 den 94 years as a classroom teacher, number of subordinate administrators in the school system, and years as a teacher chief negotiator. Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire The instrument used in obtaining perceptions about supe rinten- dents' leader behavior was a modified version of the Leader Behavior De scriLtion Questionnaire (LBDQ). The $32.29 is a product of The Ohio State Leadership Studies, a research program started in 1946, and conducted by the staff of the Personnel Research Board of The Ohio State University. The £299 was developed originally by the staff of the Personnel Research Board, particularly by Hemphill and Coons. 1 In its early stages of development it consisted of 150 items designed to measure nine dimen- sions of leader behavior. In subsequent use of the questionnaire, (Appendix C) Halpin and Winer identified Initiating Structure and Con- sideration as two fundamental dimensions of leader behavior. 2 These dimensions were identified on the basis of a factor analysis of the re- sponses of 300 B-29 crew members who described the leader behavior of their 52 aircraft commanders. Initiating Structure and Considera- tion accounted for 49. 6 and 33. 6 per cent, respectively, of the common 1Hemphill and Coons, "Development of the Leader Behavior De scription Questionnaire, ” op. cit. , p. 35. . 2Andrew W. Halpin, Manual for the Leader Behavior Descrip- t£31LQuestionnaire (Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of “Siness Research, 1957), p. l. va r e m“ n: S P .1 2 DA 1L .éfid YA 1a . o . 1'» e 0 a10 95 variance. As these two factors accounted for 83. 2 per cent of the com— mon variance, the original 150 item $29 was revised to a 30 item form, with fifteen items appearing for each category. The estimated reliabilities for Consideration and Initiating Structure are . 93 and . 86 respectively. 1 The LEDQ is a forty-item questionnaire. Fifteen items are used for measuring Consideration, and fifteen items are used for measuring Initiating Structure. The additional ten items are included for the pur- pose of maintaining instrument tone. 2 The respondent answers the LBDQ by indicating the frequency with which the leader behaves in the fashion described by each item. The respondent's task is to check the frequency with which a given leader displays each kind of behavior: ”always, " "often, " "occasionally, " "seldom, ” or ”never. " Weights of zero to four are assigned to item alternatives, and a simple sum over items will yield a score on each dimension which will range from a low of zero to a high of 60. Items 12, 18 and 20 are scored in re- verse.3 Stogdill points out that the subscales, Consideration and Initia- tion of Structure, have been widely used in empirical research, 1Halpin, "How Leaders Behave, " op. cit. , pp. 290-91. zHalpin and Winer, "A Factorial Study of the Leader Behavior Descriptions, " op. cit. , p. 41. 3Halpin, Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Question- naire, pp.cit., p. l. 96 particularly in military organizations, industry and education. 1 He continues by stating that "the questionnaire can be administered indi- vidually or in groups, and with proper changes in instructions, the questionnaire can also be used by a leader to describe his own be- havio r. "2 In this study, each item of the L_B£Q_was modified. For example, a superintendent in describing his own behavior reSponded to the state- ment, "I put suggestions made by the teachers into operation, " whereas the teacher chief negotiator responded to the statement, "He puts sug- gestions made by the teachers on this staff into operation. " According to Halpin: "The LBDQ technique provides one method for evaluation certain a3pects of the superintendent's effectiveness as a leader. ”3 Identification of Variable s The perceptions of superintendents and teacher chief negotiators were compared for significant differences with respect to the variables outlined below. The hypotheses which are stated in testable form can be found in Chapter I. lStogdill, op. cit., p. l. 2 Ibid., p. 12. 3Andrew W. Halpin, "The Superintendent's Effectiveness as a Leader, " Administrator's Notebook, VII, No. 2 (October, 1958). 97 Variable Role Satisfaction Consideration Initiating Structure Consideration Initiating Structure Consideration Initiating Structure Situational Conditions Situational Factors Satisfaction with Situational Factors Situational Factors Satisfaction with Situational Factors Situational Factors Satisfaction with Situational Factors Role Superintendent Should Perform Role Preferred by Board of Education Role Preferred by Teacher Association Role Superintendent Should Perform Role Preferred by Board of Education Role Preferred by Teacher Association Respondentsak NS - NNS NS - NNS NS - NNS NS - TCN NS - TCN NNS - TCN NNS - TCN NS - NNS NS - NNS NS - NNS NS - TCN NS - TCN NNS - TCN NNS - TCN NS - TCN NS - TCN NS - TCN NNS - TCN NNS - TCN NNS - TCN *NS - Negotiating Superintendents NNS - Non-negotiating Superintendents TCN - Teacher Chief Negotiators Procedure for Data Collection Stated as Hypothesis 1 U1 0" 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Questionnaires were mailed on May 26, 1974, to 80 selected public school superintendents in Michigan. Each of the superintendents 98 received a packet of materials. The superintendent's packet included the following: 1. A cover letter describing the purpose of the study and the procedure to be followed in returning the completed questionnaires. 2. A superintendent questionnaire form. 3. A small manila envelope on which was printed the words, "Superintendent Questionnaire Form, " and a requested return date and specific instructions were also imprinted on the front of the envelope. The teacher chief negotiator's packet included the following: 1. A cover letter describing the purpose of the study and the procedure to be followed in returning the completed questionnaire to his school superintendent. 2. A teacher chief negotiator questionnaire form. 3. A small manila envelope on which was printed the words, "Teacher Negotiator Questionnaire Form, " and a requested return date and specific instructions were also detailed. In addition, the writer included in the packet of materials a large, self-addressed, postage-paid, envelope which was used by the super- intendent to return Msealed manila envelopes containing the re- spondents' completed questionnaires. On June 3, 1974, superintendents who had not complied with the requested questionnaire return date (May 28, 29, 30) was sent a follow-up letter (Appendix D) indicating that their assistance was nec- essary in order to complete the study. In this letter, the 99 superintendents were encouraged to return _bpfl questionnaires within two or three days shown at the time of mailing. By June 14, 1974, of the 80 questionnaires sent, a return of 73 was realized. The following outline indicates the responses and the number of usable returns included in this study. Matched Pair Usable Per cent Respondents Potential Returned Returns Usable Negotiating Superintendents/TCN 4O 36 34 85. 0 Non—negotiating Supe rintendents/TCN 40 37 34 85. 0 Totals 80 73 68 85. 0 Procedure for Data Analysis After discussing the design of the study with a consultant at the Michigan State University Office of Research Consultation, it was decided that in order to facilitate the ease and accuracy of computa- tions the Control Data Corporation 6500 computer at Michigan State University would be used. The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire items were scored manually by the researcher and a total score for each reSpon- dent was determined. The researcher and consultant also developed a numerical coding scheme for each item included in the Superintendent 100 and Teacher Chief Motiator Questionnaire Forms. The code num- bers were assigned to the sections of the questionnaires and the results were placed on a Computer Laboratory Data Coding Form. These forms were taken to a commercial data processing service where the information was keypunched and verified on IBM 29 cards. In addition, the consultant at Michigan State University prepared the computer pro- grams which were used in obtaining the statistical printout data. Hypothesis 1 was tested by using an INDEPENDENT TWO- TAILED_t test. Best observes: ". . . that two tailed test estimates the probability that a sample mean will depart in either direction from its predicted value. "1 Role satisfaction scores in collective bargaining were determined by each superintendent checking one of six possible categories designated: Very Satisfied; Satisfied; Fairly Satisfied; Fairly Dissatisfied; Dissatisfied; and Very Dissatisfied. The cate- gories were assigned numerical quantities six through one beginning with the Very Satisfied Category. The mean scores, standard devia- tions, and an F Statistic were obtained from the computer printout. From the F Statistic given, the researcher manually calculated the it_value. The calculated _t_was compared with Table F, Distribution 2 ofg, in W. James Popham's book, Educational Statistics, and, when- ever possible, the exact number of degrees of freedom were used. The 1Best, op. cit., p. 273. 2W. James Popham, Educational Statistics (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1967), p. 398. 101 results of the statistical tests used in this study were deemed signifi- cant if the . 05 level of confidence was attained. According to Turney and Robb: When an observed difference between means is reported to be significant at the 5 per cent level of significance we are saying that such a difference should occur by chance only 5 times out of 100. 1 Hypotheses 2, 3, and 10 were tested by using INDEPENDENT TWO-TAILED t_tests. For hypotheses 2 and 3, group mean scores, standard deviations, and an F Statistic were obtained from the com- puter printout. The researcher manually calculated the it_value to determine whether the two groups (negotiating superintendents and non-negotiating superintendents) differed in their self-described per- ceptions of leader behavior as measured by the dimensions of CON- SIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE. With respect to the LBDQ data, numerical scores were derived for each respondent for the dimensions of CONSIDERATION AND INITIATING STRUCTURE. These scores were generated from the following scale developed by the Personnel Research Board of The Ohio State University: lBilly Turney and George Robb, Research in Education (Hins- dale, Illinois: The Dryden Press, Inc., 1971), p. 93. 102 four points for each "Always" response; three points for each "Often" reSponse; two points for each "Occasionally" response; one point for each "Seldom" response; zero points for each "Never" response. Thirty items on the £11.19 (15 for Consideration and 15 for Initiating Structure) were scored on the basis of this point scale. The ten buffer items were retained in the I;B_D_Q_ to maintain instrument tone and were not scored. The possible range of scores for each of the two dimensions extends from zero to 60. With respect to hypothesis 10, the superintendents' sample re- sponded to twelve separate situational factors by selecting one of two possible choices. Depending on the situation given, the respondent sel- ected only one of the following combinations: "Frequent" or "Infre- quent;" "Excessive" or "Limited;" "Positive" or "Negative;” "Relaxed" or "Tense. " Satisfaction scores were determined by each superintendent checking one of six possible categories on a satisfaction scale. The six categories were designated: Very Satisfied; Satisfied; Fairly Satisfied; Fairly Dissatisfied; Dissatisfied, and Very Dissatisfied. The categories were assigned numerical quantities six through one beginning with the Very Satisfied category. A group mean satisfaction score was determined for those super- intendents who reSponded to the situational factor as "Frequent. " The 103 same procedure was used in determining a satisfaction score for the group of non-negotiating superintendents. An INDEPENDENT TWO- TAILED; test value was calculated from the computer printout F Statistic to determine whether the two groups differed in satisfaction on a particular situational factor. The procedure described above was followed in determining differences between groups of superintendents who responded to the situational factor as "Infrequent. " The re— maining portion of this section of the instrument was analyzed as dis- cussed above. Hypotheses 4, 5, 6, and 7 were tested by using DEPENDENT TWO-TAILEDLtests. With respect to the Leader Behavior Descrip- tion Questionnaire data, the self-described negotiating and non- negotiating group mean scores we re compared with their respective teacher chief negotiators' group mean scores. The group mean scores, mean differences, and standard deviations were obtained from the com- puter printout. The researcher manually calculated the -_l-__t_value for each matched group by taking the square root of N times the mean dif- ference score and dividing by the standard deviation. Whenever pos— sible, the exact number of degrees of freedom was used in obtaining the tabled i_t_va1ue to determine significance at the . 05 level. The procedure outlined above was used in measuring group mean differences for the matched pairs of negotiating superintendents - teacher chief negotiators, and the non-negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators on the leader behavior dimensions of 104 CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE. Hypotheses 8 and 9 were analyzed by using the chi square (X2) test for homogeneity. The calculated values were obtained from the computer program printouts and the tabled values were determined. Elzey comments that "a statistical technique appropriate for data ”1 He con- in the form of frequencies is called the chi square tests. tinues by saying: Chi square tests can be employed with frequencies that are divided into a number of categories. The only re- quirement for the appropriate use of the chi square test is that the frequencies be independent of each other. 2 With respect to hypothesis 8, each superintendent indicated whether the condition stated did occur during the 1973-74 school year. The respondent checked either "Yes” or "No. " Each superintendent was asked the following: whether he had been unable to open school in August/September without a master agreement with the teachers; had services withheld; used mediation; used fact finding; sought a court injunction; obtained a court injunction, or had mass teacher resigna- tions. The reported perceptions of the negotiating group of supe rinten- dents were compared with the reported perceptions of the non lFreeman F. Elzey, Statistics (Belmont, California: Brooks- Cole Publishing Company, Inc., 1967), p. 64. 2Ibid., p. 66. 105 negotiating group of superintendents with reSpect to the frequency of actual occurrances. Hypothesis 9 compared the reported perceptions of negotiating superintendents with the reported perceptions of non-negotiating super- intendents with respect to twelve selected situational factors which exists in the collective bargaining. The superintendents' responded to each situational factor by indi- cating whether they perceived the situation as Frequent or Infrequent; Excessive or Limited; Positive or Negative; Relaxed or Tense. The chi square calculations were obtained from the computer printout and were checked with tabled values to determine significant differences at the . 05 level. Hypotheses 12 and 14 were tested by using DEPENDENT TWO- TAILEDLtests. Initially, each superintendent and his teacher chief negotiator responded to twelve separate situational factors. Each in turn, responded by indicating the degree of satisfaction or dissatisfac- tion with the particular situation. The six categories were designated: Very Satisfied; Satisfied; Fairly Satisfied; Fairly Dissatisfied; Dis- satisfied, and Very Dissatisfied. The categories were assigned num- erical quantities six through one beginning with the Very Satisfied category. For those matched pairs who responded to the situational factor as "Frequent, " a mean difference satisfaction score was computed. The frequency of matched pair agreements, satisfaction mean 106 difference scores, and standard deviations were obtained from the computer printout sheets. The researcher manually calculated the it_ value and compared the calculated values with tabled values to deter- mine whether the stated hypotheses should be retained or not retained. The procedure outlined above was also followed in calculating :t_values for the matched pairs who agreed that the situation was perceived to be ”Infrequent. " The remaining portion of this section (satisfaction with the situational factors) was analyzed as discussed above. Hypotheses ll, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 were analyzed by comparing the percentage of matched pair reSponses for agreement or disagreement. Seventy five per cent was used as a cutting point in determining whether significant consensus for the matched pairs of superintendents and teacher chief negotiators was attained. The ra— tionale for selecting a '75 per cent criterion for consensus was based on the criterion used by Cross in his study of Massachusetts superinten- dents and school board members. Gross comments: Whether or not we say that superintendents or school board members tend to agree among themselves on an issue depends, of course, on the criterion of agreement we establish. We could set up an extremely high criterion, for example, that 90 per cent of the respondents must view the practice as desirable or undersirable, or we could set up a relatively low one, for example 60 per cent. This is, of course, an arbitrary matter. We have decided to use a cutting point of 75 per cent. This is, if 75 per cent of more of the superintendents view the practice as desirable or un- desirable, we will say they tend to agree among themselves. Anything lower than this we will view as disagreement. 1Neal Gross, Who Runs Our Schools (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958, p. IFS. 107 In this study, when 75 per cent of the matched pair respondents were in agreement on a given item, significant consensus was con— side red to be attained. Personal Ihta Info rmation The personal data section of the superintendents' and teacher chief negotiators questionnaires was designed to collect certain norma- tive data on the respondents. These demographic data are shown in tabular form and reported as frequency distributions, means and simple percentages. The data reported included sex, age, highest academic degree earned, years of service in educational positions, years of service in teaching and in collective bargaining role, level of teaching position held, experience as a former school administrator, titles of individuals who served as chief negotiator for the board of edu- cation and pupils enrolled for the school districts sampled. The com- pilation of these data follow in Tables 3. 1 through 3. 11. Figure 5 shows the geographic locations of the school districts sampled in this study. (108 TABLE 3.1 COMPILATION OF PERSONAL DATA INFORMATION ON SUPERINTENDENTS AND TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS SAMPLED-- DISTRIBUTION BY SEX Sex Group Number Per cent of Total Male NS 34 100. 0 TCN 30 88. 2 NNS 34 100. 0 TCN 29 85. 3 Female NS 0 ..... TCN 4 11. 8 NNS O ..... TCN 5 l4. 7 NS - Negotiating Superintendents (N: 34) TCN - Teacher Chief Negotiators (N=34) NNS - Non-negotiating Superintendents (N: 34) TCN - Teacher Chief Negotiators (N=34) 109 TABLE 3. 2 COMPILATION OF PERSONAL DATA INFORMATION ON SUPERINTENDENTS SAMPLED--DISTRIBUTION BY AGE NS NNS Age (N=34) Per cent (N=34) Per cent 29 and below 0 ---- 0 ---— 3O - 35 3 8. 8 2 5. 9 36 -41 12 35.3 5 14.7 42 - 47 8 23. 5 9 26. 5 48 - 53 4 11.8 12 35.3 54 - 59 6 l7. 7 3 8. 8 60 and above 1 2. 9 3 8. 8 NS Group mean age = 44. 9 years NNS Group mean age = 47. 5 years 110 TABLE 3. 3 COMPILATION OF PERSONAL DATA INFORMATION ON TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS--DISTRIBUTION BY AGE Age TCNa Per cent TCNb Per cent 29 and ' below 12 36.4 8 24. 3 3O - 35 9 27. 3 11 33 3 36 - 41 7 21. 2 6 18.2 42 - 47 2 6. 0 4 12.1 48 - 53 3 9.1 3 9.1 54 - 59 O ---- 1 3. 0 60 and above 0 ---- 0 -_-- a--TCN (paired with his NS) group mean age = 34. 1 years b--TCN (paired with his NNS) group mean age = 35. 6 years 111 TABLE 3. 4 COMPILATION OF PERSONAL DA TA INFORMATION ON SUPERINTENDENTS SAMPLED--DISTRIBU'II ON BY HIGHEST ACADEMIC DEGREE EARNED NS NNS Degree (N=34) Per cent (N=34) Per cent Master's 22 64. 7 28 82. 3 Specialist 9 26. 5 4 11.8 Doctorate 3 8. 8 2 5. 9 TABLE 3. 5 COMPILATION OF PERSONAL DATA INFORMATION ON TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS--DISTRIBUTION BY HIGHEST ACADEMIC DEGREE EARNED TCN Paired TCN Paired with NS with NNS Degree (N=34) Per cent (N=34) Per cent Bachelor's 16 47.1 18 52. 9 Master's 17 50. 0 15 44. 2 No Response 1 2. 9 1 2. 9 m 112 TABLE 3. 6 COMPILATION OF PERSONAL DATA INFORMATION ON SUPERINTENDENTS SAMPLED--DISTRIBUTION BY YEARS OF SERVICE IN EDUCATIONAL POSITIONS Negotiating Non-negotiating superintendents Superintendents (N=34) (N=34) Position Mean No. of Years Mean No. of Years Superintendent in this district 8. 0 7. 6 Superintendent in other Michigan districts 1. 8 3. 1 Classroom teacher 7. 5 7. 9 Administrator below superintendency level 4. 7 4.6 113 TABLE 3. 7 COMPILATION OF PERSONAL DATA INFORMATION ON TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS SAMPLED-- DISTRIBUTION BY YEARS OF SERVICE IN TEACHING AND IN A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ROLE Teache r Chief Negotiato r Paired with Paired with NS NNS (N=34) (N=34) Mean No. of Years Mean No. of Years Classroom teacher in this district 7. 1 8. 2 Classroom teacher in other Michigan districts 1. 5 2. 6 Member of teacher association bargaining . team 3. 7 4. 1 Chief negotiator for teacher association 2. 2 2. 2 114 TABLE 3. 8 COMPILATION OF PERSONAL DATA INFORMATION ON TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS SAMPLED-- DISTRIBUTION BY LEVEL OF TEACHING TCN Paired TCN Paired Level of with NS with NNS Position (N=34) Per cent (N=34) Per cent Elementary 4 11 . 8 3 8. 8 Middle School 6 17. 6 3 8. 8 High School 23* 67. 7 27 79. 5 No ReSponse 1 2. 9 l 2. 9 *Includes instrumental music and vocal music TABLE 3. 9 COMPILATION OF PERSONAL DATA INFORMATION ON TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS SAMPLED-- DISTRIBUTION BY PRIOR EXPERIENCE AS A SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR Experience as a TCN Paired TCN Paired former school with NS with NNS administrator (N=34) Per cent (N= 34) Per cent Yes 4* 11.8 4* 11.8 No 30 88. 2 30 88. 2 M *Includes such positions as Title I Director, Assistant Principal, and Principal 115 TABLE 3.10 COMPILATION OF PERSONAL DATA INFORMATION ON NON- NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS SAMPLED--DIS- TRIBUTION BY TITLE OF PERSON REPRESENTING THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AS CHIEF NEGOTIATOR Title of person representing Number of Respondents Per cent the board as chief negotiator (N: 34) of total Board President 4 11. 8 Board Secretary 1 2. 9 Board Treasurer 2 5. 8 Board Trustee 9 26. 5 Assistant Superintendent 4 11. 8 Administrative Assistant 1 2. 9 Director of Elementary Education 1 2. 9 Outside Negotiator -- Attorney 7 20. 7 Outside Negotiator -- Consultant 4 11. 8 Michigan Association School Board -- Consultant 1 2. 9 116 TABLE 3.11 COMPILATION OF PERSONAL DATA INFORMATION ON SUPERINTENDENTS SAMPLED--DISTRIBUTION BY PUPILS ENROLLED IN 68 SCHOOL DISTRICTS Number NS NNS of Pupils (N=34) Per cent (N=34) Per cent Between 500 and 1000 7 20.6 5 14.7 1001 - 1500 8 23.5 8 23.5 1501 - 2000 10 29.4 10 29.4 2001 - 2500 9 26. 5 11 32.4 117 + + - - - + + - + + + + - + + - + + + + .. - + - + - + - _ + - + + + + .- + + .. _ + + + - .. - - - + - _ + + + v '— Figure 5 -- GBOgraphic Location of Respondents in Michigan. + I '- 34 Negotiating Superintendents 34 Non-negotiating Superintendents 118 Summa ry In this study, the samples consisted of 80 matched pairs of super- intendents and teacher chief negotiators selected from K-12 public school districts in Michigan. The superintendents' sample was divided into two groups, 40 negotiating and 40 non-negotiating superintendents, de- pending on the role which was performed in the board-teacher associa- tion collective bargaining process. Two instruments were used to obtain data with respect to these samples. One instrument was developed by the writer and used to ob- tain perceptions about the superintendent's role, his satisfaction, and the situational conditions and factors associated with collective bar— gaining. A modified version of the 40-item Leader Behavior Descrip- tion Questionnaire (LBDQ) developed by the Personnel Research Board of The Ohio State University was used as a second data gathering instru- ment in obtaining perceptions about superintendents' leader behavior. Twenty hypotheses were developed for testing and the Control Data Corporation 6500 computer at Michigan State University was used in obtaining the statistical print-out data. The statistical analyses of the data included independent and dependent t tests, and the chi square test for homogeneity (12). The .05 level of significance was used for purposes of this study. In analyzing the remaining hypotheses, the proportion of matched pairs in agreement served as the method of measurement. When 75 119 per cent of the matched pairs were in agreement significant consensus was considered attained. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Instrument Administration The questionnaires used to collect the data for this study were administered during the month of May, 1974. Eighty public school superintendents and 80 teacher chief negotiators were selected to par- ticipate in the study. Of the 80 questionnaires sent to the matched pairs, a return of 73 was realized. Five returns were spoiled (super- intendents and/or teacher chief negotiators), so the data from 68 matched pairs, or 85 per cent usable, were placed on IBM cards and processed through the Michigan State University 6500 computer. Statistical Procedure In this chapter, the hypotheses were analyzed with respect to the data collected. Independent TWO-TAILEDt_tests (negotiating superintendents' and non-negotiating superintendents' group mean scores were compared); Dependent TWO- TAILED itests (superinten- dents' group mean scores were compared with their teacher chief negotiators' group mean scores) and the chi square test for 120 121 homogeneity (22) (superintendents' perceptions with respect to fre- quency of occurances) were used as the measures of significance testing. In addition, the remaining hypotheses were analyzed by using an arbitrary cutting point of 75 per cent in determining whether sig- nificant consensus between the matched pairs existed. In testing the hypotheses, a significance level of . 05 was chosen. Whenever pos- sible, the exact number of degrees of freedom was used in obtaining the tabled t_value. Presentation and Analysis of Data Eypothesis 1: There will be no significant difference in the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS with respect to ROLE SA TISFAC- TION in collective bargaining. The data from Table 4. 1 show the tabulated responses of super- intendents with reSpect to role satisfaction in collective bargaining. The negotiating superintendents' group mean satisfaction score of 4. 88 per cent was only slightly higher than the group mean satisfac- tion score for the non-negotiating supe rintendents, 4. 73 per cent. The data from Table 4. 2 show the calculated Ltest value of . 537 is Well below the 2. 00 level required for significance. Therefore, it is Qoncluded that there is no difference in the reported perceptions of negotiating superintendents and the reported perceptions of 122 non-negotiating superintendents with reSpect to role satisfaction in collective bargaining. Consequently, the hypothesis is accepted. TABLE 4.1 NEGOTIATING AND NON-NEGOTIA TING SUPERINTENDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF ROLE SATISFACTION IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Response Assigned NS Per NNS Per Chosen Value (N=34) cent N=34 cent Very Satisfied 6 10 29. 4 9 26. 5 Satisfied 5 14 41. 2 14 41. 2 Fairly Satisfied 4 8 23. 6 7 20. 6 Fairly Dissatisfied 3 l 2. 9 2 5. 9 Dissatisfied 2 O 0. 0 1 2. 9 Very Dissatisfied 1 l 2. 9 1 2. 9 Group Mean Scores (4. 88) (4. 73) 123 TABLE 4. 2 t_TEST RESULT BETWEEN SUPERINTENDENTS' GROUP MEAN SATISFACTION SCORES Standard Mean Group Number Deviation Score _2 Negotiating Superintendents 34 1. 066 4. 88 . 537 NS Non-negotiating Superintendents 34 l. 188 4. 73 . 05 significance level is approximately _+_ 2. 00 with 66 degrees of freedom. Hypothe sis 2: There will be no significant difference in the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPER- INTENDENTS with respect to actual leader behavior as measured by the dimension of CONSIDERATION. The data presented in Table 4. 3 reveal that, as a group, nego- tiating superintendents' group mean Consideration score of 41. 00 is just . 33 per cent higher than the non-negotiating superintendents' group mean Consideration score of 40. 67. The calculated _t_value of . 250 is well below the required 2. 00 value required for significance at the . 05 level. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no difference in the reported perceptions of negotiating superintendents and the 124 reported perceptions of non-negotiating superintendents with respect to actual leader behavior as measured by the dimension of Consideration. Consequently, the hypothesis is accepted. TABLE 4. 3 t_TEST RESULT BETWEEN GROUP MEAN SCORES ON THE CONSIDERATION DIMENSION Standard Mean Group Number Deviation Score _t_ Negotiating Superintendents 34 5. 134 41. 00 . 250 NS Non-negotiating Superintendents 34 5. 525 40. 67 . 05 significance level is approximately 1; 2. 00 with 66 degrees of freedom. Hypothesis 3: There Will be no significant difference between the re- ported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS and the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTI- ATING SUPERINTENDENTS with respect to actual leader behavior as measured by the dimension of INITIATING STRUCTURE. The data presented in Table 4. 4 reveal that non-negotiating superintendents' mean behavior score for the dimension Initiating Structure (35. 20) is slightly higher than negotiating superintendents' 33. 26. The calculated t_value of —1. 39 is below the value of 2. 00 125 significance required for between group mean scores. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no significant difference between the re- ported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the re- ported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS with respect to actual leader behavior as measured by the dimension of INITIATING STRUCTURE. Consequently, the hypothesis is accepted. TABLE 4. 4 _t_ TEST RESULT BETWEEN GROUP MEAN SCORES ON THE INITIATING STRUCTURE DINIENSION Standard Mean Group Number Deviation Score 3 Negotiating Superintendents 34 5. 177 33. 26 - 1. 39 NS Non -ne go tiatin g Superintendents 34 6. 260 35. 20 . 05 significance level is approximately 1 2. 00 with 66 degrees of freedom. fiypothesis 4: A significant difference will exist between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions held by their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS with respect to the superintendents' actual leader behavior as measured by the dimension of CON- SIDERATION. 126 The data presented in Table 4. 5 reveal that a difference of 6. 24 points exist between group mean scores for the leader behavior dimen- sion of Consideration. The calculatedi value of 4. 08 is significant at the . 05 level. Therefore, it is concluded that a significant difference exists be— tween the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions held by their TEACHER CHIEF NEGO- TIATORS with respect to the supe rintendents' actual leader behavior as measured by the dimension of CONSIDERATION. Consequently, the hypothesis is accepted. TABLE 4. 5 _t TEST RESULT OF GROUP MEAN SCORE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS AND THEIR TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS ON THE LEADER BEHAVIOR DIMENSION OF CONSIDERATION Matched Standard Mean Mean Pair Number Deviation Difference Score _t_ Negotiating Superintendents 34 8. 981 6. 24 41 . 00 4.08*** Teacher Chief Negotiators 34. 76 \ *Value required for significance at . 05 level is approximately i 2- 04 with 33 degrees of freedom **. 01 level is 2. 75 ***. 001 level is 3. 64 127 Hypothesis 5: A significant difference will exist between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions held by their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS with respect to the superintendents' actual leader behavior as measured by the dimension of INITI- ATING STRUCTURE. The data in Table 4. 6 show the negotiating superintendents' group mean score of 33. 26 on the dimension Initiating Structure is higher than the teacher chief negotiators group mean score for the superintendents. A _t_value of 2. 43 between calculated group mean scores reveal a significant difference in perceptions at the . 05 level Therefore, it is concluded that a significant difference exists between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions held by their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS with respect to the superintendents' actual leader behavior as mea- sured by the dimension of INITIATING STRUCTURE. Consequently the hypothesis is accepted. 128 TABLE 4. 6 t_TEST RESULT OF GROUP MEAN SCORE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS AND THEIR TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS ON THE LEADER BEHAVIOR DIMENSION OF INITIATING STRUCTURE Matched Standard Mean Pair Number Deviation Difference Score i Negotiating Superintendents 34 7. 556 3. 14 33. 26 2.43* Teacher Chief Negotiators 30. 12 *Value required for significance at the . 05 level is approximately i 2. 04 with 33 degrees of freedom Hypothesis 6: A significant difference will exist between the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions held by their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS with respect to the superintendents' actual leader behavior as measured by the dimension of CONSIDERATION. The data in Table 4. 7 reveal that the non-negotiating superinten- dents' group mean score of 40. 67 is much higher than the group mean score of 31. 65 for the superintendents as reported by their teacher chief negotiators. The t_value calculated between group mean scores is 5.41 which is significant at the . 05 level. Therefore, it is 129 concluded that a significant difference exists between the reported per- ceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions held by their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS with re- Spect to the superintendents' actual leader behavior as measured by the dimension of CONSIDERATION. Consequently, the hypothesis is accepted. TABLE 4. 7 LTEST RESULT OF GROUP MEAN SCORE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS AND THEIR TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS ON THE LEADER BEHAVIOR DIMENSION OF CONSIDERATION Matched Standard Mean Mean Pair Number Deviation Difference Score _t_ Non-negotiating Superintendents 34 9. 371 9. 02 40. 67 5.41*** Teacher Chief Negotiators 31. 65 _— *Va1ue required for significance at the . 05 level is approximately i 2. 04 with 33 degrees of freedom **. 01 level is 2. 75 ***. 001 level is 3. 64 130 Hypothesis 7: A significance difference will exist between the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions held by their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS with respect to the superinten- dents' actual leader behavior as measured by the dimen- sion of INITIATING STRUCTURE. The data in Table 4. 8 reveal that non—negotiating superintendents' perceptions and their teacher chief negotiators perceptions on the fre- quency of Initiating Structure differs. The ivalue calculated between group mean scores is 2. 30 which is significant at the . 05 level. There- fore, it is concluded that a significant difference exists between the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions held by their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIA- TORS with respect to the superintendents' actual leader behavior as measured by the dimension of INITIATING STRUCTURE. Consequ- ently, the hypothesis is accepted. 131 TABLE 4. 8 _t TEST RESULT OF GROUP MEAN SCORE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS AND THEIR TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS ON THE LEADER BEHAVIOR DIMENSION OF INITIATING STRUCTURE Matched Standard Mean Mean Pair Number Deviation Difference Score L Non-negotiating Superintendents 34 12. 279 4. 85 35. 20 2. 30":< Teacher Chief Negotiators 30. 35 *Value required for significance at the . 05 level is approximately i 2. 04 with 33 degrees of freedom Hypothesis 8: There will be no significant difference between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIA TING SUPERINTEN- DENTS with respect to the actual occurrance of SITUA- TIONAL CONDITIONS in bargaining the 1973-74 master contract. The data in Table 4. 9 reveal that the situational conditions which existed in bargaining the 1973-74 master contract were similar for the school districts sampled. There was a tendency for the non-negotiating superintendents to obtain State mediation services more frequently than did the negotiating superintendents sample. Therefore, it is 132 concluded that no significant difference exists between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN DENTS and the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS with respect to the actual occurrance of SITUATIONAL CONDITIONS in bargaining the 1973-74 master contract. Consequently, the hypothesis is accepted. TABLE 4. 9 CH1 SQUARE RESULTS FOR NEGOTIATING AND NON- NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS'--PERCEPTIONS OF FREQUENCY OF ACTUAL OCCURRANCE OF SITUATIONAL CONDITIONS WHICH EXISTED IN BARGAINING THE 1973-74 MASTER CONTRACT Superintendents NS= 34 NNS=34 (x 2) Reference Situational Condition Yes Yes Unable to Open School 1 O 1. 015 NS Services Withheld (Strike) 2 2 -.._ Used Mediation 6 9 . 770 NS Used Fact Finding 1 2 . 349 NS Sought Court Injunction O 0 --— Obtained Court Injunction O 0 --- Had Mass Teacher Resignations 0 O --- . 05 significance level is 3. 841 with 1 degree of freedom 133 Hymthesis 9: There will be no significant difference between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS with respect to SITUA TIONAL FACTORS which ex- isted in the collective bargaining process. The data in Table 4. 10 reveal that the two groups, negotiating and non-negotiating superintendents tend to perceive the situational factors which existed in much the same way. With respect to the frequency of face—to-face meetings, six of the thirty-four negotiating superintendents responded by checking "Infrequent, " and nine of the thirty four non-negotiating superintendents reSponded by checking "Infrequent. " With respect to this situation, the calculated chi square (12) value of . 770 does not meet the level of 3. 84 which is required for significance. A significant chi square value was obtained with respect to the superintendents' perception of how frequently they attend bargaining sessions. None of the negotiating superintendents perceived their attendance to be "Infrequent" while eight non—negotiating superinten- dents perceived their attendance as "Infrequent. " This was not an unexpected finding since negotiating superintendents do represent the board as chief Spokesman in board-teacher bargaining sessions. Therefore, it is concluded that no significant differences exist be- tween the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN DENTS and the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING 134 SUPERINTENDENTS with reSpect to SITUATIONAL FACTORS which existed in the collective bargaining process. pothe sis is accepted. TABLE 4.10 CHI SQUARE RESULTS BETWEEN NEGOTIATING AND NON-NEGOTIA TING SUPERINTENDENTS' PERCEPTIONS ON THE SITUATIONAL FACTORS WHICH EXISTED IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS Consequently, the hy- Supe rintende nts NS NNS Situational N=34 N= 34 Factor Perception Response (12) Face-to-face meetings Infrequent 6 9 . 770 NS Hours involved Limited 22 23 . 066 NS Number of proposals presented by assoc. Limited 24 26 . 302 NS Number of proposals presented by Board Limited 30 33 l. 943 NS Good faith attitude pro- jected by teacher associa- tion spokesman Negative 4 5 . 128 NS Good faith attitude pro- jected by Board spokes- man Negative 0 1 1. 015 NS Superintendent attendance at bargaining sessions Infrequent O 8 9. 067** *. 05 significance level = 3. 841 with 1 degree of freedom **. 01 level = 6.635. 135 TABLE 4.10 - CONTINUED Superintendents NS NNS N=34 N=34 2 Situational Perception Response (7L ) Factor Board member attend- ance at bargaining sessions Infrequent 10 13 . 591 NS Use of mass media by teacher association Infrequent 33 30 1. 943 NS Use of mass media by Board of Education Infrequent 34 31 3. 138 NS Use of joint news releases Infrequent 33 31 l. 063 NS Bargaining table atmosphere Tense 3 6 1.153 NS . 05 significance level = 3. 841 with 1 degree of freedom Hypothesis 10: There will be no significant difference between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN DENTS and the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS with respect to SATISFACTION WITH THE SITUA- TIONAL FACTORS which existed in the collective bargaining process. The data in Table 4. 11 show that of the twenty-eight negotiating superintendents who perceived the face-to-face meetings as "Frequent, " the group mean satisfaction score of 4.82 was only slightly higher than 136 the group mean satisfaction score of 4. 68 reported for the twenty five non-negotiating superintendents who perceived their situation as "Fre- quent. " As a result, the calculated t_value of . 492 between group mean scores was lower than the i 2. 00 value required at the . 05 significance level. The remaining six negotiating superintendents and the remaining nine non-negotiating superintendents perceived their situation as ”In- frequent" and show a group mean satisfaction score for the situational factor as 5. 00 and 4. 66 respectively. The calculated t_value between group mean scores was .486 and is lower than the_t_ value of + 2.16 re- quired for significance at the . 05 level. Independent_t_ tests were cal- culated between group mean satisfaction scores for the remaining situa- tional factors. The data in Table 4. 11 show that the calculatedi values were lower than the _t_values required for significance. Therefore, it is concluded that no significant differences exist between the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN DENTS and the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS with respect to SATISFACTION WITH THE SITUATIONAL FACTORS which existed in the collective bargaining process. Consequently, the hypothesis is accepted. 137 .mp me fits. me .N H Emumgwxouaam mm ~95. musmommcmmm mo . .ep 3 fit... so .N E 3?: 853:ch mo. 2 .m wow . mm mZZ mZ hmemo . 3 .m 0:. . NN poflefid mZ vm .N mam A : mZZ wsmcmmmumn o>$oo200 mZ emu .H 3‘ .m T: A NH o>mmmmoxm m2 5 pee/~02: mssom up 2 £3 2 .NH 2 ~23: puceeeeems mo. .wmu Hm fiumkr 00 .N H kndmudgmunocnnwmd Mw ~w>0~ OUCNUmmmGMmm m0 . 3 .e :3 4 o mzz m2 3:. co .m N8. e “533:5 mz me .e e8 .H mm mzz mz New. mm .4 omo 4 mm “533m mz eczema soapstone .w. ouoow .Q .m .02 comaaoouonm mucopcmusmuomsm youodh dmnoflmsfim coresmspm cmoz mmOHUo~ oucmumfinwmm mo . mm. .v o: 4 mm mZZ m2 3... . em .e woo .H om 3385 m2 8 .N 88. a mzz 583.6% cos mZ wmo .H mm. .m wnmo . v o>mmmouxm mZ leospm .«o pumom can. condom loam mfmmoaoua mo umfiEoZ dc me new? do .N H Eousemeummm mm 3:: oocmowwswmm mo . up A: fit.» NH .N H mm 323 898$?me mo . miml came... om mZZ mZ mmo .. mm .v come . vm pofigmd m2 8 .N 3.3. w mzz ceEmpxoae mz mew. S. .N 8:. S 383er m2 somspmooge .3 sesame loam Edmoaoua mo amassz I» whoom .Q .m .oZ somuamouom mucopseusmummsm neuumm Emsoflmsfim cofioflmfism same/H QHDZHHZOU .. : .v Mdm<9 139 .26 me new? oo .N H Emumcbxonaam me oosmoflwsmmm mo :52 mo . :mpe 07: a mzz o 8:332 m2 m2 e84- 8s u 83.. mm mzz co .m 33 . em pisses mz :eEmpxose venom 3 p88.“ loud 36333 :33 @000 .3 e fits on .m +I3 22,3 pocpumaems mo . .2. 3. £3 8 .N H rosefimxoemae 2 29,3 possesses; mo. 8 .N l o: .H m mzz mz owe .. 8 .N r: .a v 03332 m2 so .m £5. . em mzz mz e8 . S .m 22.. on 9.38m mz Sampson... nomusmoogm >9 @300“ long opsfiuum 4:3 @000 M mHOUm .Q .m .02 GOmuQQUHwnH muGOVGMquHOQSM HOuUduH ddflOmudSu—mm 85358 CNN; QHDZHBZOU .. 2 .w Hdmawh. 140 as 3 .33 mo .N H 3 :32 Seascapes mo. .26 me 333 No .N H Emumemxouaas 3 ~63: mocmowmsmmm mo . op .v 2.5m .H m“ mZZ mz owe .H om .m :2. 2 Senate: mz mo .m- vao .H Hm mZZ m2 0: .7 E .e SQ. 3 E83; mz 233% sausages up mosspcwuus avenues pumom .3 we new? 00 .N H Ewumgmxosamm me 153 oocdoumsmmm mo . mZZ Seek. 07$ useswouwcu m2 m2 3m; oo.¢ comm; om mZZ Na .m Slow . em acooweuh mZ meowmmom wswcmsmusn us mosspcofis «newsman? oasm l». whoom .Q .m .02 somamounonm musopcoucms masm Hopesh dmsofissfim somuoflmfimm 5.52 amazfizou - 2 .v @435. 14.1 up 8 f3 8 .N H speefiaxoeaap 2 pucpouacmsm so :32 mo . . mm .m mvvw . Hm mZZ Z fl 1 m 2. mo .m 33. we. 283:5 mz m mZZ fimmH 07: o “Goodman m2 cotsosvnm mo vudom two. 3me means we omD .up 3 :33 00 .N H Eon—dewxoumam mm meadowficmmm mo 3:: mo . up n as? m: .m fit 8532:»; up 32: mo. . om .m ooem . om mZZ m2 of 7. so .m XE . mm 288:5 ‘ mz . mm .N omow J v mZZ mZ com I. . . oo a oooo a usosvmnh mZ cofismoofwm accuse» two. «FEE mode mo omD «a. 0.80m .Q .m .02 sofiaounom mucopseunmuomsm neuush Lmsomussfim cofloflmfism smog QMDEEZOQ . 2 .w Mamvg 142 up e fies em .N H 2 possesses; no 22;: 3. .mp em 9:3 00 .N H Emumawxoummd mm mannerisms mo _o>3 mo . mm .N flew; o mZZ m2 oew . .I 00 .N ooo .H m emcee m2 3 .m meme . mm mZZ mZ NNo . .I co .m meme . Hm pmxflom mZ eumnamogum 30.3 msmcfismumm .wp we at? ca .N H Eoumfimxouaam musmuflwcwmm me 153 mo . as N fit? on .eH es 858$qu so 3:: mo . Na .m demo . am mZZ mz :o. E .m 33 . mm 283:5 m2 m2 oom . I mm .m meem . m mZZ co .m oooo . d usmowouh mZ mended?“ meson «50%. .«o omD H muoom .D .m .02 :oBaoouonH munmpsofihhomsm Heuomh Emsofimsfim somuusmmflmw smog QNDZHHZOU .. 21¢ Hdm<8 143 Hypothesis 11: In a significant percentage of cases, the reported per- ceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS will tend to agree with respect to the SITUATIONAL FACTORS which existed in the collec- tive bargaining process. The data in Table 4. 12 reveal that negotiating supe rintendents' and their teacher chief negotiators perceptions of the situations which occurred in the collective bargaining process tend to agree. With the exception of three situational factors (percentage of matched pair agreements were 52. 9, 70. 6, and 67. 6), the proportion of matched pair agreements for the remaining nine situations exceeded the 75 per cent cutting point which was established as the criterion for sig- nificant consensus for this study. Therefore, it is concluded that in a significant percentage of cases, the reported perceptions of NEGO- TIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS tend to agree with respect to the SITUA TIONAL FACTORS which existed in the collective bargaining Process. Consequently, the hypothesis is accepted. 144 TABLE 4.12 PROPORTION IN AGREEMENT -- PERCEPTIONS OF SITUATIONAL FACTORS REPORTED BY NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS AND THEIR TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS Matched Pair Total Situational Agreements Per Per Factor Perception (N: 34) 'cent cent Face-to-face meetings Frequent 27 79. 4 88. 2* Infrequent 3 8. 8 Actual hours in collec- Excessive 15 14. 7 52 9 tive bargaining Limited 13 38. 2 ' Number of proposals presented by teacher Excessive 4 _11. 8 70 6 assoc. spokesman Limited 20 58. 8 . Number of proposals presented by board Excessive 1 2. 9 67 6 Spokesman Limited 22 64. 7 . Good faith attitude projected by teacher Positive 30 88. 2 . 88. 2* assoc. spokesman Negative 0 --- Good fcaith attitude Positive 26 76. 4 76 4* projected by board Negative 0 --- ' of education spokesman Superintendent attend- ance at bargaining Frequent 34 100 100* sessions Infrequent 0 --- Board member attend- ance at bargaining Frequent 19 55. 8 85 2* sessions Infrequent 10 29. 4 ° *seventy-five per cent proportion of matched pairs in agreement is required for significant consensus. 145 TABLE 4.12 - CONTINUED Matched Pair Total Situational Agreements Per Per Factor Perception (N: 34) cent cent Use of mass media by Frequent 1 2. 9 100 0* teacher association Infrequent 33 97. 1 Use of mass media by Frequent 0 -—- 100. 0* board of education Infrequent 34 100. 0 Use of joint news Frequent 0 --- 97_ 1* releases Infrequent 33 97. 1 Bargaining table Relaxed 25 73. 5 79 4* atmOSphere Tense 2 5. 9 ' m *seventy-five per cent proportion of matched pairs in agreement is required for significant consensus. ijpothesis 12: There will be no significant difference in the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS with respect to satisfaction with the SITUATIONAL FACTORS which existed in the collective bargaining pro ce 3 s. 'The data in Table 4. 13 reveal that of the twenty seven matched Pairs of negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators Who perceived the situation, face-to-face meetings, as "Frequent, ” only . 11 difference existed in mean satisfaction scores between the two groups. As a result, a dependent}; test value of . 549 is lower 146 than the i 2. 0613 value required for significance between mean satis- faction scores for the matched pairs. The data further show that three of the matched pairs agree that the face-to-face meetings were "Infrequent. " The :t_value required (4. 30) for significance between mean satisfaction scores is higher than the calculated_t of l. 73. The data further show that none of the calculatedi values be- tween group mean satisfaction scores are significant at the . 05 level. Therefore, it is concluded that no significant difference exists in the perceived perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS with respect to SATISFACTION WITH THE SITUATIONAL FACTORS which existed in the collective bargaining process. Consequently, the hypo- thesis is accepted. 147 ~N\mo .N mZ ¢m~ . mm . wooe J wouwgwd MN 3me 073 ill m>wmmoufim H ZUH . mZ :mEmoxomm pence. en. pmusomoum Edmomoum mo “63.52 @200 .N mZ :w .H mo . OVMN .H pmfigmd 0N M\wH .m mZ wem .1 me .N l vemo . o>wmmmounm w ZUH. l mZ nmEmoxomm somuswoommm Heaven» en. pousomvua Bsmomoum .«o $5832 Nzea .N mZ «em .a mm . ooom .H pmfiflhd mH w\ee .N mZ gem . ow; eevm . m>mmmo0unmm m ZUH. .. m2 .Wsmfimwusfi 6336200 5 mason _mouoen Q34. mz nee; oo.~ oooo.~ agents m £30 .N mz 3m. 2 . Smog 883nm 2. Zoe - mz mwsfloofi modulouumuah H mo . .I a were. l poise um monoumfia d .m Gomumooumnm munwgoouwmw 3%qu lmh wUGdUC macaw MO 62 mhmdnm Umsoumz imam: o3m> sofioflmfism 2.82 . mmoe Seoomz mmamo mmmofime Emma. oz< mezmozmezammmom ozaefieoomz -- 20993 13.20:. «Seam m5. mess zoEoFmfle «.m 20 @58an mozmmmmho z$dmoz o memw. ozummonw cm 209 .. m2 smgmmxoqm pusofi hm pouoofloum 063$? €33 U000 i..- o>3dwoz o vvvo . o>mfimonw om ZOE 1 m2 smEmoxomm cowusmoOmmm genome“. No. pmuufldnm opsumuum £me @000. H 3. a a I up}, .. noise a wosmuowfifl ion condom ouoom -3an p32, someonensnn 534 .Q .m Gofimmoumnw mucoflfiomuma Awmnzv mo .02 9:an posoumg 1! Qmozfizou .. 2 .v Named. 149 :2. .N~ mZ com .I oo 4 - wwmw .N @388 N ¢N\oo .N mZ 2N . mm . max. . vmxflmm mm ZOE .. mz on mammoeud 05.3 mcmcmmmnmm Sweat oZV mmmmodmu mBmc “Eon mo 3D .I... mo . I 9 .ul .Q .m cofimmoumm mquEmmnmw 31:.qu 3?? .. ~5qu 950.335 mo .02 mummnm vmsoumz .9“ 02.50% whoom .mammm m2m> 530833 :32 \ amazuhzoo .. 2 .w mama 150 Hypothesis 13: In a significant percentage of cases, the reported percep- tions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIA- TORS will tend to agree with respect to the SITUATIONAL FACTORS which existed in the collective bargaining process. The data in Table 4. 14 reveal that non-negotiating superinten- dents' perceptions of the situational factors which existed in the col- lective bargaining process genera'ly agreed with the perceptions held by their teacher chief negotiators. The 75 percentage cutting point, Which was established as the criterion for significant consensus for His study, was attained with the following exceptions: Proportion of matched pairs in agreement with respect to face-to-face meetings, 61- 7 per cent; actual hours involved in collective bargaining, 50 per cent; good faith attitude projected by the board of education spokesman, 64° 7 per cent; board member attendance at bargaining sessions, 70. 6 per cent, and bargaining table atmosphere, 64. 7 per cent. The data further show that one-half of the situational factors perceived by the mate hed pairs exceeded the 75 per cent criteria for consensus; there- fore . it is concluded that in a significant percentage of cases, the re- P°rted perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS tend to agree with respect to the SITUATIONAL FACTORS which e“Plated in the collective bargaining process. Consequently the hy- Pothesis is accepted. 151 TABLE 4. l4 PROPORTION IN AGR EEMENT--PERCEPTIONS OF SITUATIONAL FACTORS REPORTED BY NON- NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS AND THEIR TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS Matched Pair Per Total Agreements cent Per cent Situational Factor Perception (N: 34) Face -to-face meetings Frequent 13 52- 9 61 7 Infrequent 3 8. 8 . Actual hours involved in Excessive 5 14° 7 50 0 col 1 e ctive bargaining Limited 12 35. 3 ° Number of proposals pre Sented by Teacher Excessive 5 l4. 7 79 4* 3880 ciation spokesman Limited 22 64. 7 ' Number of proposals Presented by board Excessive 0 ~--- 79,4:k SpolKesman Limited 27 79. 4 COO d faith attitude :roj ected by teacher Positive 29 85- 3 85 3* S S 0 ciation spokesman Negative 0 " ' ' ' . GOO d faith attitude 2:05 ected by board Positive 21 61. 8 64 7 e ducation spokesman Negative 1 2. 9 ° Sup 6 r inte ndent attend - ance at bargaining Frequent 26 76. 8 76 8* Se 3 8 ions Infrequent 0 - - - - ' \ a: . . . . . Seventy-five per cent proportion of matched pairs in agreement IS required for significant consensus. 152 TA BLE 4.14 - CONTINUED Matched Pair Per Total Agreements cent Per cent Situational Factor Perception (N: 34) Board member attendance Frequent 17 50. O 70 6 at bargaining sessions Infrequent 7 20. 6 ° er of mass media by Frequent 2 5. 9 85. 3* teacher association Infrequent 27 79. 4 Use of mass media by Frequent l 2. 9 85. 3* boa. rd of education Infrequent 28 82. 4 Use of joint news Frequent 1 2. 0 83, 3* relea. ses Infrequent 27 79. 4 Bargaining table Relaxed 21 61.8 64. 7 atmo sphere Tense l 2. 9 _— *Seventy-five per cent proportion of matched pairs in agreement is required for significant consensus. .XEH Othesis 14: There will be no significant difference in the reported per- ceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions held by their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS with respect to SATISFACTION WITH THE SITUATIONAL FACTORS which existed in the collective bargaining process. The data in Table 4. 15 show that eighteen matched pairs of non- ne EOtiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators per- ceived the situation (face-to-face meetings) as "Frequent. " Only . 22 of a point existed between the mean satisfaction scores for the two 153 groups. As a result, a dependent t_test value of . 746 was lower than the it_value of 2. 11 which was required for significance between group mean satisfaction scores. The data further show that three of the matched pairs perceived the situation (face-to-face meetings) as ”Infrequent. " The _+_£_value required for significance between group mean scores, 4. 30, was higher than the calculated; value of 2. 00. The data in Table 4. 15 further show that none of the calculatedt values between mean satisfaction group scores were significant at the . 05 level. Therefore, it is concluded that no significant difference exists between the reported perceptions of NON—NEGOTIATING SUIDERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions held by their TEA CHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS with respect to SATISFACTION WITH THE SITUATIONAL FACTORS which existed in the collective bargaining process. Consequently, the hypothesis is accepted. 154 wN\mo .N wZ o: . mm . omom A cofigmd FN SmoH o7: o>wmmoounm o ZOE .. mZZ Gmfimoxomm vnmoo. ho. voucomoum Edmomoum mo uofifisz HN\wo .N mZ mam . so . owqo . cofiEmA NN v\:. .N mZ coo .. ow .N- 3..me . o>wmmoounm m ZOE .. mZZ cmEmoxomm Gomufloommm nonomg >9. pounomoum Edmomoum mo nonEsZ :\oN.N mz @504 mm . muoé @3634 - .. 3 E. .m m2 owm .u ow .. 3m J omeoufim m 208 mZZ mcmfimmudn o>floo:oo 5 undo: 330‘s. Son .e mz 000 .N mm .H «2 4 ososooscfi m o2: .N m2 3.». NN. Non; ososoonm 2 Zoe .... mzz mmafiooe oommnouuoomh H mo . u a I“ oodouoba .Q .m Gomaoouona ouaogoonw< Awmuzv hi? “you???" ouoom c338 .«o gonna—oz mhdnw venoumz ooadumumnmwo o2~> .. mflmm some,“ mmOH SHOONZ “Hm—JED mmmumwmmfi mHmIH Q24 mBZHQZHBZHMHnHDm OZHHfifiOOmZnZOZnImmOHUAVh A0. daemon mama mo 33 Seen mz mos. 3 .N 3.3 4 ososoosufi e oifi .N m2 3: .- mo .- 33 .H ososoonm S zoo. - mzz meowmmom fimcwmmumn um ooamvcofid nuance vumom Smoh oZV «convenes: o mflco .N oz 03 .- mm .- Sec 4 ososoonm 8 Zoe - mzz mcommmomdgfidfiumo. ad 0093533 unaccoucmuomsm some 26 ofioowoz a om\wo .N mZ Hm“ . mm . :oo .Z ozfimom ZN ZOH. u mZZ adamoxomm whoop e3 wouoomoum ovsfifim 8:3 @000 they oz. oesomoz o m~\vo .N mZ m: .. om ... make . oZfimonw on ZOH. . mZZ cmfimoxoam :oEdwoommd uosomoufio. wouuomoum ovduflum fwd“ @000 H mo . n a N mucouomma ..Q .m Gomumooumnw munogoohw< 3%qu MV\B Uwhmfiwvh @HOUm GOmuUdm HO HOQWHHSZ mhmdm muOSUadz oocmowficmmm o3m> . mfimm adoz QHDZHHZOO a mu .v Hdmmfifi 156 snob ozv oozes H mz ON\wo .N mz 00v. . moo . comm . vmxmdmm Hm ZUH. u mzz mumsmmoguw 03.3 Mcmcmmmudm Comb oZV mommoaon mBoc ucwfliuo 029 m... .0 .m comumoouonm macoEooumen 3%ch H mo . u a oodouomhfl mo uofigdZ mummnw vosoumg on 00 m "850.3 -mEdm smog utter commando.“ 6333.3:me 31m.) QHDZHHZOU .. ma .v Himmmwfi 157 Hyflthe sis 15: In a significant percentage of cases, the reported per- ceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN DENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS will tend to differ with respect to the role of the superintendent SHOULD PERFORM in collective bargaining. The data in Table 4. 16 show that eighteen of the 34 negotiating superintendents, or 52. 9 per cent, believe they should be chief negotiator for the board in collective bargaining. Fifteen of the 34 teacher chief negotiators, or 44. 2 per cent, believe that their super- intendent should be the chief negotiator for the board. Of the 33 matched pairs who responded to this role choice, only eleven were i in agreement. A little over seventeen per cent of the negotiating superintendents selected the role "Consultant to an 'outside' negotia- tor" while only 2.9 per cent of the 34 teacher chief negotiators sel- ected this role. Of the 34 matched pairs, fifteen were in agreement, or 44 per cent, on the role the superintendent should perform in col- lective bargaining. In this study, significant consensus was con- sidered attained when 75 per cent of the matched pairs were in agree- ment. Therefore, it is concluded that in a significant percentage of cases, the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS tend to differ with respect to the role the SUPER- INTENDENT SHOULD PERFORM in collective bargaining. Con- sequently, the hypothesis is accepted. TABLE 4.16 158 PROPORTION IN AGREEMENT-~NEGOTIA TING SUPERINTENDENTS AND THEIR TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS PERCEPTIONS ON THE ROLE THE SUPERINTENDENT SHOULD PERFORM IN COLLECTIVE BA RGAINING NS TCN Number of Response Per Response Per Matched Pair Role Choice (N=34) cent (N=34) cent Agreements Chief negotiator 18 52.9 15 44.2 11 Member of board negotiating team 6 17. 7 10 29. 4 3 Consultant to board negotiating team 3 8. 8 4 11. 8 1 Consultant to "out- side" negotiator 6 17. 7 1 2. 9 0 Consultant to board and teacher negotiating team 1 2. 9 3 8. 8 O Other 0 - --— 1 2. 9 0 *Seventy --five per cent proportion of matched pairs in agreement is required for significant consensus. Of the matched pairs, 15 were in agreement, or 44 per cent, on the role the superintendent should perform in collective bargaining. 159 Hypothesis 16: In a significant percentage of cases, the reported percep- tions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the re- ported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIA- TORS will tend to differ with respect to the superintendent's role in collective bargaining as PREFERRED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. The data in Table 4. 17 show that negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators generally agree in their perceptions with respect to the role the superintendent should perform in collective bargaining as PREFERRED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. TwentY' seven of the matched pairs agree that the board prefers the superin- tendent to their chief negotiator. Six of the negotiating superinten- dents, or 17. 6 per cent, believe that the board prefers a different role for the superintendent. Of the 34 matched pairs, 28 were in agree- ment, or 82. 4 per cent, on the role which they believe the board of education prefers for the superintendent. On the basis of the data ' presented, it is concluded that in a significant percentage of cases, the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS tend to agree with respect to the superintendents role in collective bargaining as PREFERRED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. Con- sequently, the hypothesis is not accepted. 160 TABLE 4.17 PROPORTION IN AGREEMENT--NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS AND THEIR TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIA TORS PER- CEPTIONS ON THE ROLE THE SUPERINTENDENT SHOULD PERFORM AS PREFERRED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION NS TCN Number of ReSponse Per ReSponse Per Matched Pair Role Choice (N=34) cent (N=34) cent Agreements Chief negotiator 28 82.4 31 91. 3 27* Member of board negotiating team 3 8. 8 0 - - - - 0 Consultant to board negotiating team 1 2. 9 1 2. 9 1* Consultant to "outside" negotiator 2 5. 9 1 2. 9 0 Consultant to board and teacher negotiating team 0 ---- l 2. 9 O Othe r 0 - — — - 0 _ - .. - 0 *Seventy-five per cent proportion of matched pairs in agreement is required for significant consensus. Of the 34 matched pairs, 28 were in agreement, or 82. 4 per cent on the role which they believe the board of education prefers for the superintendent in collective bargaining. 161 Hypothesis l7: In a significant percentage of cases, the reported percep- tions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the re- ported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIA- TORS will tend to differ with respect to the supe rinten- dent's role in collective bargaining as PREFERRED BY THE TEACHER ASSOCIATION. The data in Table 4. 18 reveal that of the 34 matched pairs of negotiating supe rintendents--teacher chief negotiators, sixteen were in agreement, or 47 per cent, with respect to the superintendents' role in collective bargaining as preferred by the teachers' association. Of the 34 matched pairs, only eleven pairs were in agreement on the superintendents' role as chief negotiator for the board. Fifty per cent of the teacher chief negotiators believe that the teachers' association prefers that the superintendent perform an active role in collective bargaining, but not be the chief negotiator for the board. Therefore, it is concluded that in a significant percentage of cases, the reported perceptions of NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS tend to differ with respect to the supe rintendents' role in collective bargaining as PREFERRED BY THE TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION. Consequently the hypothesis is accepted. 162 TABLE 4.18 PROPORTION IN AGREEMENT-~NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS AND THEIR TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS PER- CEPTIONS ON THE ROLE" THE SUPERINTENDENT SHOULD PERFORM AS PREFERRED BY THE TEACHER ASSOCIATION NS TCN Number of Response Per Response Per Matched Pair Role Choice (N=34) cent (N=34) cent Agreements Chief negotiator 21 61. 8 15 44. 2 11 Member of board negotiating team 6 l7. 7 ll 32. 3 3 Consultant to board negotiating team 3 5. 8 7 l7. 7 1 Consultant to "out— side" negotiator 0 -—-- O ---- 0 Consultant to board and teacher negotiator team 5 14. 7 2 5. 8 1 Other 0 ---- O ---- O *Seventy-five per cent proportion of matched pairs in agreement is required for significant consensus. Of the 34 matched pairs, 16 were in agreement, or 47 per cent, on the role which they believe the teacher association prefers for the superintendent in collective bargaining. 163 Hypothesis 18: In a significant percentage of cases, the reported percep- tions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIA- TORS will tend to differ with respect to the role the super— intendent SHOULD PERFORM in collective bargaining. The data in Table 4. 19 reveal that only three non-negotiating superintendents, or 8. 8 per cent, and four teacher chief negotiators, 11. 8 per cent, believe the superintendent should be the chief negotia- tor for the board of education. Eight non-negotiating superintendents, or 23. 5 per cent, believe the role should be ”Consultant to an 'outside' negotiator while none of the teacher chief negotiators selected this role choice. Of the 34 teacher chief negotiators, nearly 30 per cent, 29.4 per cent, indicated that the superintendent should be a consultant to 111th the board negotiating team and the teachers' negotiating team. Of the 34 matched pairs, only eleven agree, or 32 per cent, on the role the superintendent should perform in collective bargaining. Therefore, it is concluded that in a significant percentage of cases, the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the re- ported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS tend to differ with respect to the role the superintendent SHOULD PERFORM in collective bargaining. Consequently, the hypothesis is accepted. 164 TABLE 4.19 PROPORTION IN AGREEMENT--NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS AND THEIR TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS PERCEPTIONS ON THE ROLE THE SUPERINTENDENT SHOULD PERFORM IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING NS TCN Number of Response Per Response Per Matched Pair Role Choice (N=34) cent (N=34) cent Agreements Chief negotiator 3 8. 8 4 11. 8 1 Member of board negotiating team 11 32. 4 10 29. 4 5 Consultant to board negotiating team 8 23. 5 9 26. 5 3 Consultant to "out- side" negotiator 8 23. 5 0 ---- 0 Consultant to board and teacher negotiating team 4 11. 8 10 29. 4 2 Other 0 - --- l 2. 9 0 *Seventy-five per cent proportion of matched pairs in agreement is required for significant consensus. Of the 34 matched pairs, eleven were in agreement, or 32 per cent, on the role they believe the superintendent should perform in the collective bargaining process. 165 Hypothesis 19: In a. significant percentage of cases, the reported per- ceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS will tend to differ with respect to the superintendents' role in collective bargaining as PRE- FERRED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. The data in Table 4. 20 show that none of the matched pairs were in agreement with re Spect to the superintendent being the chief negotia- tor for the board. The majority of the non-negotiating superintendents (24) and the teacher chief negotiators (20) believe that their boards prefer the superintendent be a ”member of the board negotiating team” or "Consultant to the board negotiating team. " Of the 34 matched pairs, nineteen were in agreement, or 56 per cent, on the role which they believe the board of education prefers the superintendent perform in collective bargaining. Therefore, it is concluded that in a significant percentage of cases, the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS tend to differ with reSpect to the superintendents' role in collective bargaining as PREFERRED BY THE BOARD OF EDU- CATION. Consequently, the hypothesis is accepted. 166 TABLE 4. 20 PROPORTION IN AGREEMENT-~NON-NEGOTIATING SUPER- INTENDENTS AND THEIR TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIA- TORS PERCEPTIONS ON THE ROLE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT AS PREFERRED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION NNS TCN Number of Re8ponse Per Response Per Matched Pair Role Choice (N=34) cent (N=34) cent Agreements Chief negotiator 2 5. 9 7 20. 6 0 Member of board . negotiating team 18 52. 9 14 41. 2 12 Consultant to board negotiating team 6 17. 6 6 17. 6 4 Consultant to "out- side" negotiator 6 l7. 6 3 8. 8 2 Consultant to board and teacher negotiating team 2 5. 9 3 8. 8 1 Other 0 - - - - l 2. 9 O *Seventy-five per cent proportion of matched pairs in agreement is re- quired for significant consensus. Of the 34 matched pairs, 19 were in agreement, or 56 per cent, on the role they believe the superintendent should perform in collective bargaining as preferred by the board of education. 167 Hypothesis 20: In a significant percentage of cases, the reported per- ceptions of NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS will tend to differ with respect to the superintendents' role in collective bargaining as PRE- FERRED BY THE TEACHER ASSOCIATION. The data in Table 4. 21 reveal that, as separate groups, the re- spondents tend to agree on the superintendents' role as preferred by the teachers' association. Only two matched pairs agreed on the ”Consultant to the board and teacher negotiating teams, " although only 35. 3 per cent of the teacher chief negotiating and 26. 5 per cent of the non-negotiating superintendents selected this choice. Of the 34 matched pairs only ten were in agreement, or 29 per cent, on the superintendents' role in collective bargaining which they believed was preferred by the teachers' association. Therefore, it is concluded that in a significant percentage of cases, the reported perceptions of NON-NEGOTIA TING SUPERINTENDENTS and the reported perceptions of their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS tend to differ with respect to the superintendents' role in collective bargaining as PREFERRED BY THE TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION. Consequently, the hypothesis is accepted. 168 TABLE 4. 21 PROPORTION IN AGREEMENT--NON-NEGOTIATING SUPER- INTENDENTS AND THEIR TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIA- TORS PERCEPTIONS ON THE ROLE THE SUPERIN- TENDENT SHOULD PERFORM IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AS PREFERRED BY THE TEACHER ASSOCIATION NNS TCN Number of Response Per Response Per Matched Pair Role Choice (N=34) cent (N=34) cent Agreements Chief negotiator 4 11. 7 5 l4. 7 1 Member of board negotiating team 11 32. 4 10 29. 5 6 Consultant to board negotiating team 5 l4. 7 5 l4. 7 1 Consultant to "out- side" negotiator 5 14. 7 1 2. 9 0 Consultant to board and teacher negotiating team 9 26. 5 12 35. 3 2 Other 0 - - - - l 2. 4 O *Seventy-five per cent proportion of matched pairs in agreement is required for significant consensus. Of the 34 matched pairs, ten were in agreement, or 29 per cent, on the role they believe the superintendent should perform in collective bargaining as Referred by the teacher association. 169 Summaly In this chapter, the writer has analyzed the hypotheses with re- spect to the data collected. Twenty hypotheses were analyzed and nineteen were accepted as stated. Table 4. 22 and Table 4. 23 show in summary form a compilation of the data collected. In the next section, Chapter V, the findings are presented in addition to a summary, the conclusions and recommendations. woaaoooee uGoEooum< E sossooosm osoooem cosossssm Zoe - m2 2 wouaooomw Munovcoaowfl muouomh Emcofimsfim ct? coflofimfimm mZZ . mZ S cocaoooss oumsvm BO muouomh Lacofimsfim mZZ . mZ o oooooooe. onsson 50 82:38 sosossssm mzz - mz w woumooo< I”. unoccoamfl ousuosnum mcfimmfis ZOE n mZZ N. cooooooe. u osoosoooo sososooeocoo zoe - mzz o ooodooos .m osoosooon onooosfim mesons: Zoe .. mz m cosmooufi In. unopcoaoQ nozmuogmcoO ZOE .. mZ v m wouaooocs “unoccoaovfi ougosuum wcflmflmfi mZZ .. mZ m 1 eooooooe. o ssoosoooosa Good sonosoomesoo mzz .. mz N wouaooo< um unoccoaovfi somuomHmSmm 20m mZZ . mZ H woumooomw qu\coEooo¢. womb odnmmum> swam confide/Z mwmofiomewm o c.3982 E QHEnfimOch EOZ .QHEnfiNOOaw mHmHZEOnHEE .mEZHEHmDm3 wouuomounw 30m ZOE . mZ EH wouaoooen qu 3:089?"wa coBMUsvm mo cumom 5 cofiuomounm >3 conuomounw 30m ZOE . mZ n: woummooen unoEooum< Euotonm Esosm 5 cofluomounw unoccflcwuoasm Bom ZOE - mZ m3 wouaooo< ..m unoccoaofl muouomh Zacofimsfim £33 comuommmfimm ZOE . mZZ v3 wouaoooen “cofiooumaw E cosponsom nsooosm cosoroosm Zoe - m2 2 wouaooolw .m acovcomofl muouomh smcofimsfim £33 coflummmflmm ZOE u mZ NZ wouaooomw qu\voaooo< comb o~3m€m> 3mm cascade/3 mmmofiom>m om 6.25.82 QHDZHEZOO . NNJV HAmZxE 172 TABLE 4. 23 COMPILATION OF DATA PRESENTED ON THE NUMBER OF MATCHED PAIR AGREEMENTS FOR NS/TCN AND NNS/TCN ON THE PERCEIVED ROLE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Matched Teacher Pairs Board Association (NS - TCN = 34) Should Prefers Prefers Role Choice (NNS - TCN = 34) Perform No. of Agreements Chief negotiator for the board of NS - TCN 11 27* 11 education NNS - TCN l 0 Member of the board negotiating NS - TCN 3 O 3 team NNS - TCN 5 12 6 Consultant to board negotiating NS — TCN l 1 1 team NNS - TCN 3 4 1 Consultant to "outside" NS - TCN O O O negotiator NNS - TCN O 2 0 Consultant to board and teacher nego- NS - TCN O 1 tiating teams NNS - TCN 2 1 Other NS - TCN 0 0 0 NNS - TCN 0 0 O =:< Significant proportion of matched pairs in agreement. Seventy-five per cent of matched pair agreements is required for sig- nificant consensus (26 or 34 pairs). CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS S umma ry In this study the author sought to compare perceptions of super- intendents and teacher chief negotiators to determine if supe rinten- dents who perform the role of chief negotiator for the board of educa- tion differ from superintendents who perform a non-negotiator role with re spect to behavior as the educational leader of the teaching staff. Secondly, an attempt was made to determine whether the answer to the primary objective of this study might be related to situational factors and conditions which prevailed during the collective bargaining process. In analyzing the superintendents' role and frequency of actual be— havior, five specific areas were examined. The areas studied were: 1. To determine the extent to which negotiating and non-negotiating superintendents differ in their self-described perceptions of role satis- faction with respect to the collective bargaining process; 2. To identify and describe actual leader behavior perceptions of negotiating and non-negotiating superintendents. In obtaining these perceptions a modified version of the Leader Behavior Description 173 174 Questionnaire, with respect to the dimensions of Consideration and Initiating Structure was used; 3. To compare the actual leader behavior perceptions held by superintendents with the perceptions held by their teacher chief nego- tiators; 4. To identify and describe selected situational factors and con- ditions associated with the collective bargaining process and 5. To determine the extent to which superintendents and teacher negotiators differ in their perceptions with reSpect to the role which the superintendent should perform in the collective bargaining process. This was a descriptive study in which data were secured from superintendents and teachers from a selected sampling of Michigan public school districts. This study included only superintendents who had a minimum of two years tenure in position, and, in addition, in- cluded only K-12 school districts which had a student enrollment be- tween 500 and 2500 and which engaged in bargaining a board-teacher association master contract for the 1973-74 school year. The samples consisted of 80 matched pairs of superintendents and teacher chief negotiators. The superintendents' sample was divided into two groups, 40 negotiating and 40 non-negotiating superintendents, depending on the role which was performed in the board-teacher associa- tion collective bargaining process. The data from 68 matched pairs, or 85 per cent of the questionnaires sent, were used in this study. Two instruments were used to obtain data with reSpect to these 175 samples. One instrument was developed by the writer and used to obtain perceptions about the superintendents role, his satisfaction, and the situational conditions and factors associated with collective bar- gaining. A modified version of the 40-item Leader Behavior Descrip- tion Questionnaire (LBDQ) deveIOped by the Personnel Research Board of The Ohio State University was used as a second data gathering instru- ment in obtaining perceptions about superintendents' leader behavior. Twenty hypotheses were developed for testing and the Control Data Corporation 6500 computer at Michigan State University was used in obtaining the statistical printout data. The statistical analyses of the data included independent and dependenti tests, and the chi square test for homogeneity (12). The . 05 level of significance was used for purposes of this study. In analyzing the remaining hypotheses, the proportion of matched pairs in agreement served as the method of measurement. When 75 per cent of the matched pairs were in agreement significant consensus wa s cons ide red attained. Particular Relevant literature was discussed in Chapter II. attention was focused upon leadership behavior studies and the develop- ment of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. In addition, the literature relative to the role of the public school superintendent in the collective bargaining process as advocated by boards of educa— tion, administrators, and teachers associations was presented. Finally, a series of negotiation models and a review of selected 176 research studies pertinent to the role and leadership behavior of the superintendent in collective bargaining were discussed. In Chapter III the design of the study was discussed. This in- cluded such areas as: the procedure used in selecting the sample, the instruments used in data collection; the modification of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire used in this study; the identifica— tion of variables used in testing the hypotheses; the procedure used for data analyses, and tables reflecting significant information about the respondents in this study. In Chapter IV an analysis of the data collected was discussed. The hypotheses were stated and the data were reported in tables. In addition, this chapter was concluded with a summary statement and summary tables. In this chapter, the writer has presented a summary of the study. The remaining sections of this chapter focus on the findings, conclu- sions and re commendations. Findings The analysis of the data, when examined with respect to the five areas studied, produced the following findings: Area Studied No. 1 To determine the extent to which negotiating and non- negotiating superintendents differ in their self described perceptions of role satisfaction with respect to the collective bargaining pro ce 5 s . Findings: A. 177 The group mean score for the NEGOTIATING SUPER- INTENDENTS with respect to role satisfaction was 4. 88 while the group mean score for the NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS was 4. 73. There was no significant difference between the group mean satisfaction scores of NEGOTIATING SUPER- INTENDENTS (4. 88) and NON-NEGOTIATING SUPER- INTENDENTS (4. 73) as evidenced by a_t_ test calculation of . 537. ' Area Studied No. 2 To identify and describe actual leader behavior percep- tions of negotiating and non-negotiating superintendents. In obtaining these perceptions, a modified version of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, with respect to the dimensions of CONSIDERATION AND INITIATING STRUCTURE was used. Findings: A. The group mean score for the NEGOTIATING SUPER- INTENDENTS with respect to the dimension of CON- SIDERATION was 41. 00 while the group mean score for the NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS was 40. 67. There was no significant difference between group mean scores on the dimension of CONSIDERATION as evidenced by a; test calculation of . 250. The group mean score for the NEGOTIATING SUPER- INTENDENTS with respect to the dimension of INIT- IATING STRUCTURE was 33. 26 while the group mean score for the NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS was 35. 20. There was no significant difference between group mean scores on the dimension of INITIATING STRUCTURE as evidenced by a t_test calculation of -l. 39. 178 Area Studied No. 3 To compare the actual leader behavior perceptions held by superintendents with the perceptions held by their teacher chief negotiators. Findings: A. The group mean score for the NEGOTIATING SUPER- INTENDENTS with reSpect to the dimension of CON- SIDERATION was 41. 00 while the group mean score for their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS was 34. 76. There was a significant difference between group mean scores on the dimension of CONSIDERATION as evidenced by a t_test calculation of 4. 08. The group mean score for the NEGOTIATING SUPER- INTENDENTS with respect to the dimension of INITIATING STRUCTURE was 33.26 while the group mean score for their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS was 30.12. There was a significant difference between group mean scores on the dimension of INITIATING STRUCTURE as evidenced by a t_test calculation of 2. 43. The group mean score for the NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS with reSpect to the dimension of CONSIDERATION was 40. 67 while the group mean score for their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS was 31. 65. There was a significant difference between group mean scores on the dimension of CONSIDERATION as evidenced by a t_test calculation of 5. 41. The group mean score for the NON-NEGOTIATING superintendents with respect to the dimension of INITIATING STRUCTURE was 35. 20 while the group mean score for their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS was 30. 35. There was a significant difference between group mean scores on the dimension of INITIATING STRUCTURE as evidenced by a_t_ test calculation of 2. 30. 179 Area Studied No. 4 To identify and describe selected situational factors and conditions associated with the collective bargaining process. Findings: A. The responses obtained from the situational conditions which existed in bargaining the 1973-74 master contract were similar for the school districts sampled. There were no significant differences between superin- tendents' groups with respect to the frequency of actual occurrence of situational conditions as evidenced by the results of chi square tests. NEGOTIATING and NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS tend to perceive the situational factors which existed in collective bargaining in their school districts in much the same way. With respect to the responses, they tend to agree that each situational factor was either Frequent or Infrequent; Excessive or Limited; Positive or Negative, or Relaxed or Tense. With the exception of the "Supe rintendent's attendance at bargaining sessions, " there was no significance dif- ference between superintendents' groups as evidenced by the results of chi square tests. NEGOTIATING and NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS expressed above average mean satisfaction scores (3. 50) on most situational factors which existed in the collective bargaining process. There were no significant differences between super- intendents' group mean scores with respect to SATIS- FACTION WITH THE SITUA TIONAL FACTORS which existed in collective bargaining as evidenced by the results of the t_tests. As matched pairs, NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS and their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS tend to agree in their perceptions of the situational factors which occurred in the collective bargaining process. 180 Responses were obtained for twelve situational factors. With respect to nine of the factors, over 75 per cent of the matched pairs (NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS and their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS) were in agreement. The percent- age of matched pair agreements for the remaining three situational factors were: Actual hours in collective bargaining, 52. 9 per cent, number of proposals presented by board Spokesman, 67. 6 per cent, and number of proposals presented by teacher association Spokesman, 70. 6 per cent. There were no significant differences between NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS group mean satisfaction scores and their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS group mean satisfaction scores with respect to the situational factors as evidenced by t_test calculations for each factor. As matched pairs, NON-NEGOTIATING SUPER- INTENDENTS and their TEACHER CHIEF NEGO- TIATORS tend to agree as they perceive the situa- tional factors which existed in the collective bar- gaining process. With respect to the responses obtained for the twelve situational factors, on seven of the given items over 75 per cent of the matched pairs (non-negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators) were in agreement. The percentage of matched pair agreements for the remaining five situational factors were: Face-to-face meetings, 61. 7 per cent; Actual hours involved in collective bargaining 50 per cent; Good faith attitude projected by board of education spokesman, 64. 7 per cent; Board mem— ber attendance at bargaining session, 70. 6 per cent, and Bargaining table atmosphere, 64. 7 per cent. There were no significant differences between NON- NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS group mean satisfaction scores and their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS group mean satisfaction scores with respect to the situational factors as evidenced by; test calculations for each factor. 181 Area Studied No. 5 To determine the extent to which superintendents and teacher negotiators differ in their perceptions with respect to the role which the superintendent should perform in the collective bargaining process. Findings: A. As matched pairs, NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS and their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS agreed in 44 per cent of the cases, or 15 of 34 matched pair agreements, on the role the super- intendent SHOULD PERFORM in the collective bargaining process. As matched pairs, NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS and their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS agreed in r)ver 82 per cent of the cases, or 28 of 34 matched pair agreements, on the role which they believe the BOARD OF EDUCATION PREFERS for the superintendent on collective bargaining. Twenty seven matched pairs agreed that the role pre- ferred by the board was "chief negotiator for the board. " One pair agreed on the role "Consultant to the board negotiating team. " As matched pairs, NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS and their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS agreed in 47 per cent of the cases, or 16 or 34 matched pair agreements, on the role which they believe the TEACHER ASSOCIATION PREFERS for the super- intendent in collective bargaining. As matched pairs, NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERIN- TENDENTS and their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS agreed in 32 per cent of the cases, or 11 or 34 matched pair agreements on the role the superintendent SHOULD PERFORM in the collective bargaining process. As matched pair, NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS and their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS agreed in 56 per cent of the cases, or 19 of 34 matched pair agreements, on the role which they 182 believe the BOARD OF EDUCATION PREFERS for the superintendent in collective bargaining. G. As matched pairs NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTEN- DENTS and their TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS agreed in 29 per cent of the cases, or ten of 34 matched pair agreements, on the role which they believe the TEACHER ASSOCIATION PREFERS for the superintendent in collective bargaining. Conclusions The following conclusions were based on the analysis of data re- lative to the hypotheses and the five areas studied: 1. Superintendents who perform the role ”chief negotiator for the board" do not differ from superintendents who perform a "non- negotiator role" with respect to their perceptions of satisfaction with their role in board-teacher association collective baggaining. 2. Negotiating sgperintendents' do not differ from 112};- negotiating superintendents' with respect to their perceptions of fre- quency of actual leader behavior with their teaching staffs as measured by the LBDQ dimensions, Consideration and Initiating Structure. 3. Negotiating superintendents' differ in their reported self- described perceptions as compared to the reported perceptions of £1293}: teacher chief negotiators with respect to the superintendents' aging} leader behavior as measured by the LBDQ dimensions, Consideration and Initiating Structure. 4. Non-negotiating superintendents' differ in their reported 183 self-described perceptions as compared to the reported perceptions of their teacher chief negotiators with respect to the superintendents' actual leader behavior as measured by the 1:229 dimensions, Con- sideration and Initiating Structure. 5. Negotiating superintendents do not differ from non—negotiating superintendents' with respect to their reported perceptions of freguenC}r of occurrance of situational conditions which existed in bargaining the 1973-74 master contract. 6 Negotiating superintendents do not differ from non-negotiating superintendents with respect to their reported perceptions of the 313$ ational factors which existed in bargaining the 1973-74 master contract. 7. Negotiating superintendents do not differ in their reported perceptions as compared to non-negotiating superintendents' reported perceptions with respect to their satisfaction with the situational fac- £o_1;_s which existed in bargaining the 1973-74 master contract. 8. As matched pairs, negotiating superintendents and _t_he_i_r teacher chief negotiators tend to agree in their reported perceptions with reSpect to the situational factors which existed in bargaining the 1973—74 master contract. 9. As matched pairs, p_e_gotiating Simerintendents and t_h_e_iL teacher chief negotiators tend to agz_e_e in their reported perceptions with respect to their satisfaction with the situational factors which existed in bargaining the 1973—74 master contract. 10. As matched pairs, non-negitiating superintendents and their 184 teacher chief negotiators tend to agree in their reported perceptions with respect to the situational factors which existed in bargaining the 1973-74 maste r contract. 11. As matched pairs, non-negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators tend to agree in their reported perceptions with respect to their satisfaction with the situational factors which ex- isted in bargaining the 1973—74 master contract. 12. As matched pairs, negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators tend to disagree in their perceptions on the role (A) the superintendents should perform and (B) the role the teacher association prefers the superintendent perform in the collec- tive bargaining process. Negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators tend to agree in their perceptions on the role which the board of education prefers the superintendent perform in collective bargaining. 13. As matched pairs, non-negotiating superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators tend to disagree in their perceptions on the role the superintendent should perform; the role the board of education prefers, and the role the teacher association prefers for the superin- tendent in collective bargaining. 185 Recommendations The findings of this study are of consequence to public school administrators, boards of education and teachers' organizations. A major finding of the study was that superintendents who serve as chief negotiator for the board of education expressed a greater degree of satisfaction with their role in collective bargaining than did the group of non-negotiating superintendents. In his doctoral study, Scott com- ments: In accepting the negotiator's role it is almost in- evitable that the superintendent may become, in varying degrees, the adversary of teachers. While there may be many superintendents who tend to shy away from the negotiator's role be— cause of the adversary position in which it may place them . . this may be an exaggerated fear which is not likely to be confirmed by research. It was found in the writer's study that the group mean score on role satisfaction in collective bargaining for the negotiating supe rin— tendents was 4. 88 (out of a possible 6. 00) while the group mean score for the non-negotiating superintendents was 4. 73. Somewhat surprisingly, there was consensus of agreement with— in the groups (superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators) and between the groups (negotiating and non-negotiating superintendents) with respect to the situational factors and conditions associated with 1Scott, op.cit., p. 143. 186 the collective bargaining process. With reSpect to actual leader be- havior and role performance, 1) there was a significant difference be- tween group mean scores as measured by the £29 dimensions, Con- sideration and Initiating Structure, and 2) in a significant percentage of cases, there was disagreement in the perceptions held within groups (superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators) on the role the superintendent should perform in the collective bargaining process. It is interesting to observe that the non—human factors (situational conditions and factors) were perceived by the superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators with about the same percentage of fre- quency; however, there was a significant difference between the per- ceptions held by the superintendents as compared to the perceptions held by their teacher chief negotiators with respect to the frequency of leader behavior and the role the superintendent should perform in the collective bargaining process. Recommendation: Each superintendent should design and implement a comprehensive program for assessing superintendent-staff relation— ships. In the initial stages of the design, the superintendent should analyze the attitudes he holds toward (a) the teachers, (b) the board- superintendent relationship, (c) the board-teacher collective bar- gaining process, and (d) the overall role and responsibilities as superintendent of the school system. If the superintendent is to be an effective educational leader, it 187 is of considerable importance that his behavior is viewed in a favor- able light. It can be hypothesized that favorable perception of the superintendent's leader behavior is related to high subordinate staff morale. The superintendent should devote time, energy, and leader- ship to the maintenance of high morale by working in harmony with the teaching staff. The morale of the staff is a continuing concern but the superintendent ought to be able to fulfill his leadership respon- sibilities by searching for teamwork and general agreement. The future of educational administration depends primarily upon the training of those who are to provide leadership in the field. The present training programs may not be fully meeting the challenging and eXpanding roles of school administrators. Professors of educa- tional administration could spend time with superintendents in a variety of situations to experience firsthand the kinds of problems encountered and to observe the alternatives for dealing with them. The training programs for superintendents could include an internship assignment with an on-the -job superintendent and simulations through games with role playing in realistic situations. Workshops in specific areas of administration should be avail- able for those superintendents who desire to improve their overall performance. Teacher organizations are challenging the public school administrator to re-assess his role in teacher-board relationships. The leadership of the local teachers' organizations has been taken over by younger men and women (the group mean age for the two groups of 188 teacher chief negotiators was 34.1 and 35. 6) who are determined to develop the profession to a greater degree of solidarity and organiza- tional maturity. Recommendation: Colleges and universities should consider placing greater emphasis on the content of administrative preparation pro- grams; namely, (a) leadership styles, (b) technical, conceptual and human relations skills required in administration, and (c) role theory and o rganizational be havior. Recommendation: One method which might aid the superintendent in his staff relations hips would be the development of simulated labora— tory materials by superintendents, boards of education, and teachers' associations. These materials would describe and demonstrate sel- ected situational conditions and factors associated with the process of board -teache r collective ba rgaining. Recommendation: There should be a cooperative effort by the Michigan State Department of Education and the state associations (MASA, MASB, MEA, MFT) in the development of workshops and seminars designed to improve board-administrative—staff relationships. These inservice programs should be made available to practicing school administrators, teachers, board members, and graduate students enrolled in educa- tional preparation programs. 189 Recommendations for Further Research The results of this study suggested a need for research in the following areas: 1. A study should be undertaken to contrast the leadership be- haviors of instructional superintendents (those who tend to take an active part in the development of programs) with non-instructional superintendents (those who tend to take an active part in school busi- ness affairs). 2. A study should be undertaken to determine what role super- intendents perform in bargaining a board - non-certificated master contract. Perceptions should be obtained with respect to the super- intendent's frequency of leadership behavior as perceived by non- certificated personnel. 3. Research should be undertaken to obtain the perceptions held by "outside negotiators" with respect to their role and authority in negotiating a collective bargaining agreement. These perceptions should be contrasted with the perceptions held by the superintendents, school board members and teachers experienced in the collective bar— gaining process. 4. A study should be undertaken to obtain the perceptions held by middle management administrators with respect to (A) their role in collective bargaining and (B) their relationship with the superintendent when the board employes an "outside negotiator. " 190 5. Research needs to be undertaken to determine what it is that the superintendent actually does to improve his frequency of leadership behavior with reSpect to the teaching staff. These perceptions should be obtained before, durirfi and following the process of collective bargaining. 6. The findings in this study derive from a selected sampling of public school superintendents and their teacher chief negotiators in Michigan. The writer suggests that a replication of the study be under- taken using as the research methodology the case study approach or dire ct ob se rvation. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Allen, Roy B. "Implications of Collective Negotiations for the Role of the Superintendent, " in Roy B. Allen and John Schmidt, editors, Collective Negotiations and Educational Administration. Columbus, Ohio: The University Council for Educational Administration, 1966. American Association of School Administrators. School Administrators View Professional Negotiation. Washington: American Associ- ation of School Administrators, 1961. . The School Administrator and Negotiation. Washington: American Association of School Administrators, 1968. Ashly, Lloyd W.; McGinnis, James W.; and Pershing, Thomas E. Common Sense in Negotiations. Danville, Illinois: The Inter- state Printers and Publishers, Inc. , 1972. Bavelas, Alex. “Leadership: Man and Function, " in Sherman H. Frey and Keith R. Getschman, editors, School Administration Selected Readings. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, Co., 1968. Berelson, Bernard, and Steiner, Gary A. Human Behavior: An Inventog of Scientific Findings. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. , 1964 in Educational Organizations and Admin- istration, Concepts, Practices, and Issues by Edgar Morphet and others. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. , 1974. Best, John W. Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. Bobbitt, H. Randolph. , Jr.; Breinholt, Robert H.; Doktor, Robert H.; and McNaul, James P. Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1974. 191 192 Campbell, Roald; Corbally, John E. , Jr.; and Ramseyer, John A. Introduction to Educational Administration. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. , 1966. Carter, Lannor F. The Studgof Leadership by C. G. Browne and T.S. Cohn, editors. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc. , 1958. Castetter, William B. , and Burchell, Helen R. Educational Adminis- tration and the Improvement of Instruction. Educational Research and Service Bureau. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc. , 1967. Elzey, Freeman F. Statistics. Belmont, California: Brooks-Cole Publishing Company, Inc., 1967. Fiedler, Fred E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. Gross, Neal. Who Runs Our Schools. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. Gross, Neal; Mason, Ward 8.; and McEachern, Alexander W. Exploration in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Spperintenden- cy Role. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1958. Hall, Richard H. Organizations, Structure and Process. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. Halpin, Andrew W. ”How Leaders Behave, ” in Fred D. Carver and Thomas J. Sergiovanni, editors, Organizations and Human Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , 1969. . The Leadership Behavior of School Sycrintendents. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago, 1956. Hemphill, John K. Situational Factors in Leadership. Bureau of Educational Research. Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1949. Lieberman, Myron, and Moskow, Michael H. Collective Negotiations for Teachers. Chicago: Rand-McNally and Company, 1966. Morphet, Edgar L.; Johns, Roe L.; and Reller, Theodore L. Educational Organization and Administration: Concepts, Practices, and Issues. Englewood Cliffs: New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1974. 193 Owens, Robert G. Organizational Behavior in Schools. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. Popham, W. James. Educational Statistics. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1967. Schmidt, Charles T.; Parker, Hyman; and Repas, Bob. A Guide to Collective Negotiations in Education. Social Science Research Bureau. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1967. Turney, Billy, and Robb, George. Research in Education. Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press, Inc. , 1971. VanZwoll, James A. School Personnel Administration. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc. , 1964. Periodicals Becker, Harry. "The Role of School Administrators in Professional Negotiations. " The American School Board Journal, 150 (May, 1965), 9-10. Bennis, Warren G. "Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior: The Problem of Authority. " Administrative Science Quarterly, 4 (December, 1959), 259-60. Caldwell, William E. "The Superintendent's Negotiation Role. " The Journal of Educational Research, 64 (October, 1970), 73-77. Christner, Charlotte A. , and Hemphill, John K. "Leader Behavior of B-29 Commanders and Changes in Crew Members' Attitudes Toward the Crew. " Sociometg, XVIII (February, 1955), 82-87. Fleishman, Edwin A. ”The Measurement of Leadership in Industry. " Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVII (June, 1953), 153-58. Gessner, W.A. , and Williams, E.D. "Negotiations: Key to Agreement from the Viewpoint of Superintendents. " Minnesota Journal of Education, 47 (October, 1966), 15. Grieder, Calfin. "Superintendents Cannot Face Union Bargaining Teams Alone. " The Nation's Schools, 78 (July, 1966), 6. Gross, Calvin. "Ways to Deal with Teacher Militancy. " Phi Delta Kappan, 46 (December, 1964), 147-48. 194 Langer, John H. "The Emerging Elementary Principalship in Michigan. " Phi Delta Kappan, 48 (December, 1966), 161. Lieberman, Myron. "Avoid These Costly Mistakes. " School Management, XII (February, 1969). 42. Metzler, John H. , and Knade, Oscar. "A Tranquilizer for Negotia- tions. " American School Board Journal, 155 (December, 1967), 12-13. Michigan Forum of Educational Organizations. "Criteria for Deve10ping an Educational Accountability Plan. " The Michigan Elementary Principal, L (April, 1974), 23. Moore, Samuel A. , II. "So We're Looking for a New Superintendent. " Michigan School Board Journal, XX (March, 1973), 12. Skowneski, Edward. "Board of Education: Negotiation. " Michigan School Board Journal, XVIII (April, 1971), 27. Steffenson, James P. "Board-Staff Negotiation. " School Life, 47 (October, 1964), 2. Stogdill, Ralph M. "Personal Factors Associated With Leadership: A Survey of the Literature. " Journal of chhologL 25 (1948), 63. Wilson, Charles. "Whose Man is the Superintendent? . " Phi Delta Kappan, 48 (December, 1966), 156-57. Pamphlets, Brochures; and Miscellaneous Materials American Association of School Administrators. ResolutionsL Plat- form, ConstitutionJ Bglpws, Ethics. Washington: American Association of School Administrators, 1965. . RolespResponsibilities, Relationships of the School Board, Superintendent and Staff. Washington: American Association of School Administrators, 1963. The School Administrator. Resolution 23. Washington: American Association of School Administrators (December, 1972). "The University of Oregon Study. " Helping Administrators Negotiat . Washington: American Association of School Administrators, 1974. 195 Board of Education. Independence Public Schools, Independence, Missouri. Superintendent Brochure (March, 1975). Board of Education Brochure. Coldwater Community Schools, Coldwater, Michigan (November, 1974). Board of Education Brochure. Ecorse Public Schools, Ecorse, Michigan (January, 1975). Board of Education Brochure. Goleta Union School District, Goleta, California (1974). Board of Education Brochure. Neenah Joint School District, Neenah, Wisconsin (July, 1974). Board of Education Brochure. Williamston Public Schools, Williamston, Michigan (March, 1972). Boles, Harold W. "Educational Leadership. " Western Michigan University, Faculty Seminar, Mirneograph Sheet. Halpin, Andrew W. Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1957. "The Superintendent's Effectiveness as a Leader. " Administrator's Notebook, Midwest Administration Center, The University of Chicago, VII (October, 1958). Hencley, Stephen P. "The Conflict Pattern of School Superintendents. " Administrator's Notebook, Midwest Administration Center, The University of Chicago, VIII (May, 1960). Hills, R. J. "A New Concept of Staff Relations. " Administrator's Notebook, Midwest Administration Center, The University of Chicago, VIII (March, 1960). Michigan Education Association. Negotiation Terms and Definitions, Office of Professional Negotiations. Lansing: Michigan Education Association (undated). Michigan State Department of Education. "Grouping of Districts by Pupil Membership. " Analysis of Michigan Public School Revenues and Expenditures, Bulletin 1011, 1972-73. . The Common Goals of Michigan Education. (1971). 196 National Education Association. Guidelines for Professional Negpti- ation. Washington: National Education Association, 1965. National School Boards Association. "Beliefs and Practices. " Washington: National School Board Association, 1965. National School Boards Association. "Resolution on Teacher- Superintendent-Board Relations. " Washington: National School Board Association, April, 1965. Sower, Christopher. "How to Study an Organization. " Mirneograph Guide Sheets (November, 1967). Stogdill, Ralph M. Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire--Form XII, An Eigperimental Revision. Bureau of Business Research. Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1962. Tilles, Roger B. A Study of Michigan Law Relating to Public Employ- ment of Teachers. Lansing: Michigan Association of School Administrators (undated). Mono graph Published in cooperation with the Personnel Research Board, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, Bureau of Business Research. R-88 Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, by Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons, editors, 1957, 168 pp. Fleishman, Edward A. "A Leader Behavior Description for Industry," in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Management. Halpin, Andrew W. "The Leader Behavior and Effectiveness of Aircraft Commanders, " in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Management. ' "The Observed Leader Behavior and Ideal Leader Behavior of Aircraft Commanders and School Superinten- dents, " in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Marpagement. Halpin, Andrew W. , and Winer, James B. "A Factorial Study of the Leader Behavior Descriptions, " in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Management. 197 Hemphill, John K. "Leader Behavior Associated with the Administrative Reputations of College Departments, " in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Hemphill, John K. , and Coons, Alvin E. "Deve10pment of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, " in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Rush, Carl H. , Jr. "Leader Behavior and Group Character- istics, " in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Management. Unpublished Material Cave, David Raymond. "A Critical Study of the Leader Behavior of School Administrators in Conflict with Teachers' Unions. " Unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Garver, George G. "A Study of the Relationship Between Selected Variables and the Attitudes of Public School Principals in Oakland County, Michigan, Concerning Collective Bargaining for Public School Teachers. " Unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Heim, Max Otto. "A Study of What Selected Respondents Think the Role of the Superintendent Should Be in the Negotiating Process. " Unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, University of Kansas, 1967. Myers, Robert B. "A Synthesis of Research in Leadership. " Unpublished paper presented to A. S. C. D. , March, 1957. Scott, Walter W. "A Study of Preparation Programs in School Administration as Affected by Collective Negotiations. " Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966. APPENDICES APPENDIX A COVER LETTER AND PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO SUPERIN TEN DENTS APPENDIX A July 30, 1973 To: Public School Superintendents From: Kenneth L. Deal, Superintendent Subject: The Role of the Superintendent in Collective Bargaining Process Dear Superintendent: I am writing to solicit your help in being a part of a study which I will soon undertake. In order to determine the present status of your role in the collective bargaining process, I am requesting that you complete the enclosed data sheet and return it in the stamped, self-addressed envelope. I would appreciate your responding to the form and returning it to me within the next 5 days but no later than August 8. The nature of this study will be conducted in the following manner: 1. The preliminary data sheet (enclosed copy) should be returned to me by August 8. 2. A final instrument, questionnaire check-sheet type, will be developed which you will be asked to respond to in late September or early October (approximately 10-15 minutes). 3. A summary of this data will be processed to all Super- intendents who indicate such. The role of the Superintendent in the collective bargaining process needs greater clarification. In an effort to better understand the impact of collective bargaining on the Superintendency role, it is possible that the outcome of this study will help bring about this need clarification. 198 199 Page 2 July 30, 1973 Public School Superintendents I can assure you that all data collected will be held in strictest confid- ence and all forms destroyed after the tabulation of the data. Your name or the name of your district will not be identified in the study at any time. I sincerely hope you will respond positively to my request. Since rely, Kenneth L. Deal Superintendent Enclosure/Form l KLD:k 200 SUPERINTENDENT DATA FORM Please return this form in the enclosed Role of the Superintendent in self-addressed Board/Teacher Collective enveloped on or be- Bargaining before August 8, 1973 Name Name of School District City and Zip Code Office Telephone Number Number of students in K-12 on fourth Friday 1972 Approximate S. E. V. per pupil $ SUPERINTENDENT PERSONAL DATA: Age ; Highest degree held . Total Number of years as Superintendent in this district . Total Number of years as Superintendent in other Michigan districts SUPERINTENDENT ROLE IN BOARD/TEACHER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (please select the one which best describes your present role or specify in Number 7.) (CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER BELOW) I am: 1) Chief negotiator, representing the Board of Education at the bargaining table. 2) A member of negotiating team representing the Board of Education at the bargaining table but not the chief spokesman. 3) Consultant to the Board and the Board negotiating team and am not present at the bargaining table. 4) Consultant to an "outside" negotiator designated to con- duct negotiations for the board. 5) Member of the Board negotiating team at the bargaining table with the "outside" negotiator acting as chief spokesman. 201 6) Consultant to the Board and Teacher representatives. 7) OTHER: Please specify your negotiation role in respect to 1) your relationship to the Board, teacher association, outside negotiator, how frequently you attend the bargaining sessions, whether you attend as a team member or observer and so forth. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT FOR 1973-74 Has the Board of Education and the Teacher Association reached agreement on a total Master Contract (language and salaries) for 1973-74? Yes No If yes, when was this agreement reached? Month Year If pp, are language, proposals presently being discussed? Yes No If 1.0: are economic proposals (salaries /fringe benefits) presently being discussed? Yes No COMPOSITION OF YOUR BOARD NEGOTIATING TEAM (specify - check all appropriate titles of individuals who serve at the bargaining table for the Board.) Sup't. Who serves as "Chief" Negotiator Ass't. Sup't. for Board of Education in Board/ Adm. Ass't. Teacher Negotiations? H.S. Prin. Elem. Prin. Specify: Bd. President Board Officer (Secy or Treas.) Board Trustee "Outside" Negotiator Other (please indicate) 202 I will take part in the continuation of this study by completing a questionnaire in late September or early October, and I would like to have a copy of the summarized data. Yes No Thank you for your assistance. Kenneth L. Deal Superintendent North Branch Area Schools North Branch, Michigan 48461 APPENDIX B LETTER TO SUPERINTENDEN TS APPENDIX B March 26, 1974 To: Public School Superintendents From: Kenneth L. Deal, Superintendent Subject: Questionnaire No. 2 --- Superintendent Role in Board/Teacher Collective Bargaining Process Dear Colleague: I am preparing Questionnaire No. 2 with respect to your role in the Board/Teacher Collective Bargaining process, and I anticipate it being ready for distribution within the next 30 days. In early August, you may recall completing a preliminary question- naire and at that time, I asked your assistance in continuing to be a part of the study. You responded in the affirmative. I appreciate this ve ry much. The information gathered in Questionnaire No. 2 will be held in strict confidence and all forms will be destroyed after the data are sum- marized. Your name and/or school district will not be identified in the study. An abstract of findings will be mailed to each superinten- dent taking part. In conclusion, the data will form the substance of my dissertation at Michigan State University. In order to compare and contrast perceptions held by superintendents with respect to role, satisfaction, and behavior, it will be necessary to obtain data from the teacher association chief negotiator in your school district. The chief negotiator for the teacher association being a teacher on your staff. (not an MBA representative or out- side negotiator for the staff, BUT the teacher on your staff who had responsibilities as chief negotiator for the association). In summary, you as the superintendent would complete one question— naire and the chief negotiator for your teacher association would com- plete one questionnaire. THE CHIEF NEGOTIATOR FOR THE TEACHER ASSOCIATION BEING THAT TEACHER WHO NEGOTIATED THE 1973-74 MASTER AGREEMENT --- THE CURRENT YEAR CONTRACT. The complete packet--two questionnaires and envelopes muld be sent directly to you. You, in turn, would give the association chief nego- tiator his questionnaire in an envelope specially marked for him. He 203 204 Page 2 March 26, 1974 Public School Supe rintendents would return his completed questionnaire in a sealed envelope dir- You would place your completed questionnaire in an un- Finally, both sealed envelopes would be placed in I am confident your ectly to you. sealed envelope. a master envelope and mailed directly to me. association chief negotiator would cooperate in this study. Your help with this detail would be greatly appreciated. (APPROXIMATE TIME FOR COMPLETION -- 15 minutes). I am further confident the results of this study will be meaningful to practicing administrators as well as students of educational adminis- tration. If you have questions regarding the study, your role in this matter, etc. , please telephone me collect within the next five days at 313-688-3001. Unless I hear from you, I will plan to forward the questionnaires and directions within the next few weeks. Thank you very much for your consideration, assistance, and patience. APPENDIX C INSTRUMENTS USED IN DATA COLLECTION APPENDIX C May 26, 1974 To; Superintendent of Schools From: Kenneth L. Deal, Superintendent Subject: Questionnaire regarding your role in collective bargaining; your perceptions of role satisfaction, leader behavior, and situational factors which existed in bargaining the existing 1973-74 Board/Teacher Association master agreement. Dear Supe rintendent: I am submitting to you the enclosed questionnaire for your completion. You may recall our previous correepondence and you indicated a willingness to take part in this study. THE INFORMATION GATHERED IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE WILL BE HELD IN STRICT CONFIDENCE. NEITHER YOUR NAME OR SCHOOL DISTRICT WILL BE IDENTIFIED IN THIS STUDY. AN ABSTRACT OF FINDINGS WILL BE MAILED TO YOU AT A FUTURE DATE. This study is being conducted in selected school districts in the state of Michigan and the data will form the substance of my doctoral dis- sertation at Michigan State University. It is anticipated that the results of this study will be beneficial to you as a practicing superintendent and will also aid college and university departments in the preparation of school administrators. Further, the outcomes should be helpful to state associations, and to boards of education and teachers as greater information is needed if internal organization conflicts are to be reduced. IN ORDER FOR THIS STUDY TO BE COMPLETEDLIT IS ESSENTIAL THAT TWO QUESTIONNAIRES BE COMPLETED. The questionnaires are to be completed by: l) The Superintendent of Schools 2) The Teacher who served as Chief Negotiator for the Association in bargaining the existing contract, 1973-74. Your help in soliciting cooperation of the teacher chief negotiator is appreciated. 205 20.6 Page 2 May 26, 1974 Supe rintendent The enclosed packet of materials contains: 1) Superintendent questionnaire and manila envelope. 2) Teacher Chief Negotiator questionnaire and manila envelope. 3) One large envelope, self-addressed and stamped for con- venience in returning b_ot_h completed questionnaires in sealed envelopes. I extend sincere appreciation for your willingness to take part in this study. Kenneth L. Deal 207 SUPERINTENDENT QUESTIONNAIRE FORM This questionnaire is to be completed by the Superintendent. Complete and return date May 28 - 29 - 3O CONTENTS AND DIRECTIONS Please complete all items requested in the questionnaire. After completing the enclosed questionnaire, please place it in this envelope, seal it, and place it with the sealed envelope which was completed by the Chief Negotiator for the Teacher Association. (The teacher who served as Chief Negotiator in bargaining the existing contract - 1973-74). After obtaining both sealed envelopes, place them in the postage paid, self- addressed envelope provided and forward them to me. It is extremely important that both questionnaires be sub- mitted since the study cannot be completed with only one questionnaire from your district. I respectfully urge your cooperation in obtaining the com- pleted questionnaire from the teacher negotiator. The anticipated time for completion is 15 minutes. I extend sincere appreciation for your cooperation. (Information was printed on the outside of the envelope) 208 SUPERINTENDENT QUESTIONNAIRE FORM - PART I Name School District Student Enrollment at present time Age Highest degree held to date Number of years as Superintendent in this district Number of years as Superintendent in other Michigan districts Number of years of services as a classroom teacher Number of years of service as an administrator below superinten- dency level Number of administrators between you and building principals in district (Superintendent Role in Board/Teacher Association Collective Bargaining) In Column 1, indicate the role you will actually perform in collective bargaining for the coming year, 1974-75. In Column II, indicate the one role you believeyou should perform in the collective bargaining process for 1974-75. In Column 111, indicate the one role which you believe the Board of Education and Teacher Association prefers you perform in the bar- gaining proce s s. l 2 3 [Actual Board - Superintendent Role Choice: Role Role Should Association 74-75 Be Prefers -- Chief negotiator repre- senting the Board at the bargaining table . -— Member of the Board negotiating team, sit at bargaining table but not be the chief spokesman. 209 (PART I -- Continued) 1 2 3 .Ectual Board - ole Role Should Association 74-75 Be Prefers -- Consultant to Board negotiating team but not sit at bargaining table -- Consultant to "outside" negotiator representing the Board and may or may not sit at bar- gaining table. -- Consultant to the Board and to the Teacher Col- lective Bargaining team. -- Other (Please specify) Role Satisfaction: To what degree were you satisfied or dissatisfied with your actual role in negotiating the existing Board-Teacher Association Master Agreement, 1973 -74 ? (Indicate by placing an "X" in one column) » ery Fairly Fairly 7 9 Very atisfied Satisfield Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfie Other than your collective bargaining role, please indicate your gen- eral level 7f satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the overall position of Supe rintendent. Fairly Fairly Ve ry Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied atisfied Satisfied Satisfied 210 Role Selection: What method was used in determining your role in the collective bar- gaining process in negotiating the existing 1973-74 Board-Teacher Master Agreement? the method) A) Discussed in a Board meeting and official action was taken B) Informally appointed by Board with no official action taken C) Inherited this particular role from my predecessor D) I requested this particular role E) Other: (Please spe cify) Board- Teacher Association Collective Bargaining Relations PART 11 (Place an "X" on the line most nearly describing THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE TO BE ANSWERED WITH RE- SPECT TO ONLY THE YEARS YOU HAVE SERVED AS SUPERIN- TENDENT IN THIS SCHOOL DISTRICT. (Place an "X" in one Column) During your tenure as Superintendent: Very More Less Very Un- Collective Bargaining Satis- than Satis- than Satis- Relations fac- Satisfac- fac- Satis- fac- to 1:1 to ry to ry fa cto ry to ry 1) Before bargaining the existing 1973-74 con- tract, how satisfac- tory or unsatisfac- to ry has the Board- 'I‘eacher Associa- tion relationship been in obtainng master contract agreements: 2) 2” Prior to the existing 1973-74 master agree- ment, how frequently A) B) C) D) E) F) Was the grievance procedure used? Were the grievances settled at the principal's level? Were the grievances settled at the super- intendency level? Were the grievances settled at the Board of Ed. level? Was binding arbitration (Am. Arb. Assn.) used in settling grievances? Were unfair labor changes filed against the Board? Frequency 4 - 6 7 - 12 13+ 212 ( PART II -- Continued) THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ASK YOU TO INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT THE CONDITIONS STATED DID OCCUR PRIOR TO THE 1973-74 SCHOOL YEAR AND SECONDLY TO INDICATE IF SUCH CONDITIONS ACTUALLY DID OCCUR DURING THE PRESENT SCHOOL YEAR 1973-74. (Indicate by placing an "X" in the YES OR NO columns) BEFORE 1973-74 1) During your tenure School Year ACTUAL 1973-74 School Year as Superintendent YES NO YES NO in this district, has your board: Been unable to open school in August/Septem- ber due to lack of a master agree- ment with teachers ? Had services with- held (strike) by the teachers during the school year? Used mediation (M. R. C.) in resolving bar- gaining issues? After mediation had failed to re- solve the issues, used factfinding as a method to resolve bargaining issues ? Sought a court injunc- tion forcing the teaching staff back to their classrooms? Obtained a court injunction which forced the teaching staff back to their classrooms: Had mass teacher resignations due to failure to obtain a Board-Association master agreement? 213 BEFORE 1973-74 School Year ACTUAL 1973-74 School Year YES NO YES NO 214 (PART II -- Continued) PLEASE INDICATE YOUR PERCEPTIONS OF THE SITUATIONS WHICH EXISTED IN BARGAINING YOUR EXISTING BOARD OF EDU- CATION-~TEACHER ASSOCIATION MASTER CONTRACT, 1973—74. YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO 1) INDICATE YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE SITUATION AS INDICATED BY THE STATEMENT, AND 2) INDICATE YOUR DEGREE OF SATISFACTION OR DISSATISFACTION WITH THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION. VS = Very Satisfied FD = Fairly Dissatisfied S = Satisfied D = Dissatisfied FS = Fairly Satisfied VD = VeilDissatisfied Board-Teacher Association Collective Perception of Bargaining Process, 1973-74 Contract: Situation Satisfaction ("X" one box) (Circle one) 1) Face-to-face meetings of the representatives for each side. Freq. Infreq. VS S FS FD D VD 2) Actual hours involved Exces- in bargaining. sive Ltd. VS S FS FD D VD 3) Number of proposals presented by the Board's Exces- spokesman. sive Ltd. VS S FS FD D VD 4) Number of proposals pre- sented by the Association's Exces- spokesman. sive Ltd. VS S FS FD D VD 5) Good Faith attitude pro- jected by the Teacher Posi- Assoc. spokesman. tive Neg. VS S FS FD D VD 6) Good Faith attitude pro- jected by the Board's Posi- spokesman. tive Neg; VS S FS FD D VD 7) Superintendent attend- ance at actual bargaining sessions. Freq. Infreq. VS S FS FD D VD 8) 9) 10) ll) 12) 215 Board members attend- ance at actual bargaining sessions. Use of mass media by Teacher Association to community regarding status of bargaining Use of mass media by Board of Education to community regarding the status of bargaining Insurance of joint news release statements by Board-Association re- presentatives concerning the status of bargaining. Bargaining table atmo sphe re during sessions. Freq. Infreq. VS FS FD VD Freq. Infrqu. VS FS FD VD Freq. Infrqu VS FS FD VD Freq. Infreq. VS FS FD VD Relaxed Tense VS FS FD VD 216 LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE Developed by Staff Members of The Ohio State Leadership Studies Personnel Research Board the Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio Copyright, 1957 217 SUPERINTENDENT SELF-DESCRIBED FREQUENCY OF BEHAVIOR -- PART III Each of the following statements describes a specific kind of behavior, but does not ask you to judge whether it is desirable or undesirable. THIS IS NOT A TEST OF ABILITY. IT SIMPLY ASKS FOR YOUR PERCEPTION OF HOW FREQUENTLY YOU, AS SUPERINTENDENT PERCEIVE YOURSELF ENGAGING IN THE BEHAVIOR DESCRIBED BY THE ITEM. A. Read each item carefully. B. Think about how freguently you perceive yourself actually engaging in the behavior as described by each item. C. Decide whether you act as described by the item on the following frequency scale. D. Draw a circle around one of the five letters following the item to show the perceived frequency you have selected. THE SUPERINTENDENT- - TEA CHER RELATIONSHIP With respect to my relationship with the teachers on this staff, I per- ceive the following degree of frequency on each item: Supe rintendent- - Teacher Relationship Frequency Scale A Always D = Seldom B Often E = Never C = Occasionally (Circle one) l. I do personal favors for the teachers on this staff ABCDE 2. I make my attitudes clear to the teachers on this staff. 3. I do little things to make it pleasant to be - a teacher in this school system. A B C D E 4. I try out my new ideas with the teachers on this staff. 5. I act as the leader of the teachers on this staff. 6. I am easy to understand where teachers are con ce rned. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 218 I rule the teachers on this staff with an iron hand. I find time to listen to the teachers on this staff. I criticize poor work of teachers on this staff. I give teachers on this staff advance notice of changes. I Speak to teachers in a manner not to be questioned. I keep to myself where teachers are concerned. I assign teachers on this staff to particular tasks. I am the Spokesman for the teachers on this staff. I look out for the personal welfare of indi- vidual teachers on this staff. I schedule the work to be done by the teachers on this staff. I maintain. definite standards of per- formance for the teachers. I refuse to explain my actions to teachers on this staff. I keep the teachers on this staff informed. I act without consulting the teachers on this staff. I back up the teachers on this staff in their actions. I emphasize the meeting of deadlines where teachers are concerned. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 219 I treat all teachers on the staff as my equal. I encourage the use of uniform procedures where-teachers are concerned. I get what I ask for from the Board of Education. I am willing to make changes where teachers are concerned. I make sure that my part in the school organization is understood by the teachers on this staff. I am friendly and approachable where teachers are concerned. I ask that teachers on this staff follow standard rules and regulations. I fail to take necessary action where teachers are concerned. I make teachers on this staff feel at ease when talking with them. I let teachers on this staff know what is expected of them. I speak as the representative of the teachers on this staff. I put suggestions made by the teachers into operation. I see to it that teachers on this staff are working up to capacity. I let other people take away my leadership with the teaching staff. I get the Board of Education to act for the welfare of the teachers on this staff. I get teachers approval in important matters before going ahead. '220 39. I see to it that the work of teachers on this staff is coordinated. A B C D E 40. I keep the teachers on this staff working together as a team. A B C D E If you wish to use the reverse side of this sheet for comments, please do so. Thank you for your cooperation. Please enclose this questionnaire in the small manila envelope and seal it. 221 1339 Fromm Drive Saginaw, Michigan 48603 May 26, 1974 To: The Teacher Chief Negotiator of this school district who served in this role in bargaining the existing master agree- ment for 1973-74 between the Board of Education and Teacher Association. From: Kenneth L. Deal, Doctoral Candidate, Michigan State Uni- versity, East Lansing, Michigan and Superintendent, North Branch Area School. Dear Teacher Negotiator: I am submitting to you the enclosed questionnaire for your completion. This study is being conducted in selected sChool districts in Michigan, and the data will form the substance of my doctoral dissertation at Michigan State University. My purpose in conducting the study is to obtainjourjerceptions of the role of your superintendent in the Board of Education--Teacher Associa- tion Collective Bargaining process; to obtain your perceptions of the frequency of‘ superintendent behavior with respect to selected state- ments, and to obtain your perceptions of selected situational factors which existed during the time the existing contract, 1973-74, was being bargained. THE INFORMATION GATHERED IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE WILL BE HELD IN STRICT CONFIDENCE. YOU ARE NOT BEING ASKED TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND YOUR DISTRICT NAME OR NAME OF THE SUPERINTENDENT WILL NOT BE IDENTIFIED IN ANY WAY IN THIS STUDY. AN ABSTRACT OF FINDINGS WILL BE FORWARD- ED TO YOU AT A FUTURE DATE. Your Superintendent of Schools has agreed to take part in this study, and he, too, will complete a questionnaire. It is anticipated that the outcomes of this study will be beneficial to a variety of groups. As a teacher in the profession, it is essential that administrators and teachers understand roles and responsibilities. It is essential that perceptions held by teachers with respect to the Superintendents' role in collective bargaining be obtained if internal conflicts are to be minimized. 222 May 26, 1974 Page 2 . The Teacher Chief Negotiator IN OR DER FOR THIS STUDY TO BE COMPLETED, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT I OBTAIN COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES FROM YOU, AS THE CHIEF TEACHER NEGOTIATOR FOR THE EXISTING CON- TRACT, AND FROM YOUR DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS. In an effort to facilitate the collection of the questionnaires, please complete your questionnaire, place it in the manila envelope provided, SEAL IT, and give it to your Superintendent who will submit both sealed envelopes to me in a laie, self-addressed, stamped, manila envelope. I extend sincere appreciation to you for your willingness to take part in the completion of this study. K enneth L. Deal 223 TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE FORM This questionnaire is to be completed by the teacher on the staff who served as THE CHIEF NEGOTIATOR for the Association in bargaining the EXISTING contract between the Board of Education and the Assoc- iation - 1973-74 Master Agreement. Complete and return date MAY 28 - 29 - 30 CONTENTS - DIR EC TIONS l. Enclosed in this envelope is the questionnaire for completion. The person completing it was Chief teacher negotiator for the Association which resulted in the existing contract - 1973-74. 2. It is important that all items on the questionnaire be completed. 3. AFTER COMPLETING THE ENCLOSED QUESTIONNAIRE, PLEASE PLACE IT IN THIS ENVELOPE, SEAL IT - AND GIVE IT TO YOUR SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT. HE IS ALSO COMPLETING A QUESTIONNAIRE. THE SUPERINTENDENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED A LARGE ENVELOPE AND WILL FOR- WARD HIS SEALED QUESTIONNAIRE AND YOUR SEALED QUESTIONNAIRE TO ME IN ONE MAILING. 4. It is extremely important that the questionnaire be completed and returned during the time indicated above. 5. Anticipated time for completion -- 15 minutes. 6. In order for the study to be completed, it is imperative that both questionnaires be completed and returned. 7. My sincere appreciation for your consideration and cooperation. (Information was printed on the outside of the envelope) 224 TEACHER ASSOCIATION CHIEF NEGOTIATOR QUESTIONNAIRE - PART I Please complete the following personal background information: Age Sex Highest degree held to date Number of years of service as a teacher in BE school district Number of years of service as a teacher in other Michigan schools Have you ever served in a school administrative capacity? Yes_ No If so, please indicate type of position and years of service Level of teaching position: Elementary__; Middle School__ High School— Subject area taught (Please specify) Number of years of service as a member of the Teacher Collective Bargaining team in this school district Number of years of service as Teacher Chief Negotiator in t_l_u_s dis- trict (Superintendent Role in Board-~Teacher Association Collective Bargaining) In Column 1, indicate your perception of the role the Superintendent of this district should actually perform in collective bargaining for the coming year, 1974-75. In Column II, indicate the one role which you believe the Board of Edu- cation and the Teacher Association prefers the Superintendent perform in the bargaining process. In Column III, indicate your perception of the role that the Superinten- dent himself believes he shouldperform in the collective bargaining process. 22'5 I II III Board - Superintendent Role Choice: Role Should Assoc. Supt. Thinks Perform Prefers Should Perf. B A -- Chief negotiator repre- senting the Board at the bargaining table. -- Member of the Board negotiating team, sit at bargaining table but not be the chief spokesman. -- Consultant to Board negotiating team but not sit at bargaining table. -- Consultant to "outs ide" negotiator representing the Board and may or may not sit at the bargaining table. -- Consultant to the Board and to the Teacher Col- lective Bargaining team. -- Other (Please specify) 226 PART II PLEASE INDICATE YOUR PERCEPTIONS OF THE SITUATIONS WHICH EXISTED IN BARGAINING YOUR EXISTING BOARD OF EDU- CATION--TEACHER ASSOCIATION MASTER CONTRACT, 1973-74. YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO 1) INDICATE YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE SITUATION AS INDICATED BY THE STATEMENT, AND 2) INDICATE YOUR DEGREE OF SATISFACTION OR DISSATISFACTION WITH THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION. VS = Very Satisfied FD - Fairly Dissatisfied S = Satisfied . D = Dissatisfied FS - Fairly Satisfied VD - Very Dissatisfied Board-Teacher Association Collective Perception of Bargaining Process, 1973-74 Contract: Situation Satisfaction ("X" one box) (Circle one) 1) Face-to-face meetings of the representatives for each side. Freq. Infrqu VS S FS FD D VD 2) Actual hours involved in Exces- bargaining. sive Ltd. VS S FS FD D VD 3) Number of proposals presented by the Board's Exces- Association spokesman. sive Ltd. VS S -FS FD D VD 4) Number of proposals presented by the Teacher's Exces- spokesman. sive Ltd. VS S FS FD D VD 5) Good Faith attitude pro- jected by the Teacher Posi- Assoc. spokesman. tive Neg. VS S FS FD D VD 6) Good Faith attitude pro- jected by the Board's Posi- spokesman. tive Neg. VS S FS FD D VD 7) Superintendent attendance at actual bargaining sessions. Freq. Infreq. VS S FS FD D VD 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 227 (PART II -- Continued) Board members attend- ance at actual bargaining sessions. Use of mass media by Teacher Association to community regarding status of bargaining. Use of mass media by Board of Education to community regarding the status of bargaining. Issuance ofjoint news re lease statements by Board-Association re- presentatives concerning the status of bargaining. Bargaining table atmos- phere during sessions. Freq. Infreq. VS FS FD VD Freq. Infrqu VS FS FD VD Freq. Infreq. VS FS FD VD Freq. Infreq. VS FS FD VD Relaxed Tense VS FS FD VD LEA DER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE Developed by Staff Members of The Ohio State Leadership Studies Personnel Research Board The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio Copyright, 19 57 228 TEACHER ASSOCIATION CHIEF NEGOTIATOR DESCRIPTION OF FREQUENCY OF BEHAVIOR -- PART III Each of the following statements describes a specific kind of behavior, but does not ask you to judge whether the behavior is desirable or un- desirable. THIS IS NOT A TEST OF ABILITY. It simply asks for YOUR PERCEPTION of HOW FREQUENTLY you perceive the Super- intendent of this district actually engaging in the behavior described by the item. A. Read each item carefully. B. Think about HOW FREQUENTLY YOU PERCEIVE the Superintendent actually engaging in the behavior as described by each item. C. Decide whether he acts as described by the item on the following frequency scale. D. DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters following the item to show the perceived frequency you have selected. THE SUPERINTEN DENT- - TEACHER RELA TIONSHIP With respect to how frequently the Superintendent of this school dis- trict actually engages in the behavior of each item with his teaching staff, I perceive the following degree of frequency: Frequency Scale A = Always D = Seldom B = Often E = Never C = Occasionally (Circle One) 1. He does personal favors for the teachers on this staff. A B C D E 2. He makes his attitudes clear to the teachers on this staff. A B C D E 3. He does little things to make it pleasant to be a teacher in this school district. A B C D E 4. He tries out his new ideas with the teachers on this staff. A B C D E 5. He acts as the leader of the teachers on this staff. A B C D E 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 229 He is easy to understand where teachers are concerned. He rules the teachers on this staff with an iron hand. He finds time to listen to the teachers on this staff. He criticizes poor work of teachers on this staff. He gives teachers on this staff advance notice of changes. He speaks to teachers in a manner not to be questioned. He keeps to himself where teachers are concerned. He assigns teachers on the staff to particular tasks. He is the Spokesman for the teachers on this staff. He looks out for the personal welfare of individual teachers on this staff. He schedules the work to be done by the teachers on this staff. He maintains definite standards of per- formance for teachers. He refuses to eXplain his actions to teachers on this staff. He keeps the teachers on this staff informed. He acts without consulting the teachers on this staff. He backs up the teachers on this staff in their actions. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 230 He emphasizes the meeting of deadlines where teachers are concerned. He treats all teachers on this staff as his equal. He encourages the use of uniform procedures where teachers are concerned. He gets what he asks for from the Board of Education. He is willing to make changes where teachers are concerned He makes sure that his part in the organiza- tion is understood by the teachers on this staff. He is friendly and approachable where teachers are concerned. He asks that teachers on this staff follow standard rules and regulations. He fails to take necessary action where teachers are concerned. He makes teachers on this staff feel at each when talking with them. He speaks as therepresentative of the teachers on this staff. He lets teachers on this staff know what is expected of them. He puts suggestions made by the teachers on this staff into operation. He sees to it that teachers on the staff are working up to capacity. He lets other people take away his leader- ship where the teaching staff is concerned. 231 37. He gets the Board of Education to act for the welfare of the teachers on this staff. A B C D 38. He gets teachers approval in important matters before going ahead. A B C D 39. He sees to it that the work of teachers on this staff is coordinated. A B C D 40. He keeps the teachers on this staff working together as a team. A B C D If you wish to make comments, please use the reverse side. Thank yo u ve ry muc h. APPENDIX D FOLLOW UP LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENT APPENDIX D June 3, 1975 TO: PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS FROM: KENNETH L. DEAL, SUPERINTENDENT SUBJECT: QUESTIONNAIRE REGARDING YOUR ROLE IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE FROM TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATOR Dear Superintendent: During the past few days, Imailed to you 1) a questionnaire re- garding your role in collective bargaining, and 2) a questionnaire to be completed by the teacher who served as Chief Negotiator for the Assoc- iation in bargaining your existing contract. Since the study is being conducted in selected small and medium-size spchool districts in Michigan, your responding is ot utmost importance. Withoutyour assistance, the study cannot be completed. I sincerely hope you will respond by submitting both questionnaires to me within the next 2 or 3 days. If you have a question, concern, or need another set of questionnaires, please contact me. Thank you very much for your cooperation. 232 APPENDIX E S UPPLEMENTA RY TA BLES APPENDIX E TABLE A NEGOTIATING AND NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS' RESPONSES TO THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WHICH EXISTED BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE ASSOCIATION PRIOR TO BARGAINING THE 1973-74 MASTER CONTRACT Level of Value NS NNS Satisfaction Assigned (N234) Per Cent (N: 34) Per Cent Very Satisfactory 5 8 23. 5 8 23. 5 More than Satisfactory 4 8 23. 5 7 20. 6 Satisfactory 3 16 47. l 15 40. 2 Less than Satisfactory 2 2 5. 9 3 8. 8 Very Unsatisfactory l 0 - - - - 1 2. 9 Totals 34 100. O 34 100. 0 Negotiating Superintendents' group mean satisfaction score = 3. 65. Non-negotiating Superintendents' group mean satisfaction score = 3. 53. 233 234 TABLE B NEGOTIATING AND NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS' RESPONSES TO THE METHOD USED IN DETERMINING THEIR ROLE IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING NS NNS Mcthod* (N=34) Per cent (N=34) Per cent A 14 40. 0 ll 28. 9 B 13 37.1 12 31. 6 C 5 14. 3 6 15. 8 D 3 8. 6 9 23 7 E 0 ---- 0 ---- Totals 35** 100. 0 38*** 100. 0 *A = Discussed in a board meeting and official action was taken. B = Informally appointed by boa rd with no official action taken. C = Inherited this particular role from my predecessor. D = I requested this particular role. E = Other (Please specify). *‘i‘One negotiating superintendent selected two methods. ***Four non-negotiating superintendents selected two methods each. 235 TABLE C NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS' PERCEPTIONS CONTRASTED WITH THEIR TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS PERCEPTIONS OF LEA DER BEHAVIOR USING HALPIN'S LEADER BEHAVIOR QUA DRANTS NS Mean for C = 41. 00 Halpin's Leader Behavior Quadrants NS Mean for I = 33. 26 TCN Mean for C - 34. 76 I II III IV TCN Mean for I - 30.12 LBDQ Scores Highly Ineffec Most Discip- on Effec- tive Bene In linarians Matched Matched Dimen- tive volent effec- "cold pair pair Leader Gentle tive No. (N=34) C I (C+ S+) (C+ S-) (C- S-) (C- 8+) 1 NS ------ 39 33 NS TCN ------ 35 19 TCN 2 48 34 NS 24 20 TCN 3 41 28 NS 41 37 TCN 4 43 36 NS 43 26 TCN 5 37 31 NS 42 33 NS 47 40 TCN 51 35 TCN 35 19 TCN TABLE C - - Continued 236 Ha_1pin's Leader Behavior_Q_uadrants I 11 I III I\f LBDQ Scores Highly Ineffec- Most Discip- on Effec- tive Bene- In- linarians Matched Matched Dimen- tive volent effec- "cold pair pair sions Leader Gentle tive fish" No. (N=34) C I (C+ S+) (C+ S-) (C- S-) (C- 8+) 9 NS ----- 38 35 NS TCN ----- 25 26 TCN 10 35 27 NS 31 31 TCN ll 37 32 NS 30 30 TCN 12 50 44 NS 47 35 TCN 13 41 17 NS 20 24 TCN 14 42 30 NS 46 30 TCN 15 39 31 NS 32 39 TCN 16 34 35 NS 33 31 TCN 17 46 39 NS 48 38 TCN 18 41 34 NS 42 32 TCN 19 36 29 NS 22 26 TCN 237 TABLE C- - Continued Halpin's Leader Behavior Quadrants I II III IV LBDQ Scores Highly Ineffcc- Most Discip- on Effec- tive Bene- In- linarians Matched Matched Dimen- tive volent effec- "cold pair pair sions Leader Gentle tive fish" No. (N=34) C I (C+ S+) (C+ S-) (C- S-) (C- 5+) 20 NS ---- 37 36 NS TCN ----24 34 TCN 21 46 35 NS 24 28 TCN 22 47 32 NS 44 31 TCN 23 27 31 NS 33 21 TCN 24 42 42 NS 38 39 TCN 25 48 32 NS 35 31 TCN 26 47 38 NS 33 18 TCN 27 1 46 43 NS 29 29 TCN 28 45 36 NS 31 29 TCN 29 43 39 NS 25 28 TCN 30 39 38 NS 24 24 TCN TABLE C- - Continued 238 Ha_lpin's Leader Behavior_Quadrants I II III IV LBDQ Scores Highly Ineffec- Most Discip- on Effec- tive Bene- In- linarians Matched Matched Dimen- tive volent effece "cold pair pair sions Leader Gentle tive fish" No. (N234) C I (C+ S+) (C+ S-) (C- S—) (C- 5+) 31 NS ----- 41 32 NS TCN ----- 38 35 TCN 32 34 21 NS 34 29 TCN 33 39 35 NS 43 38 TCN 34 43 24 NS 33 29 TCN Superintendents ' Totals 13 7 10 5 Teacher Chief Negotiators 1 l 4 l4 5 Matched pair Agreements 5 l 4 2 Summary of Halpin's Quadrant Scheme: agreements. ) (Based on matched pair 1) Five superintendents evaluated as highly effective. 2) One superintendent evaluated ineffective, benevolent, gentle. 3) Four superintendents evaluated as most ineffective. 4) Two superintendents evaluated as disciplinarians, "cold fish. " 239 TABLE D NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS' PERCEPTIONS CONTRASTED WITH THEIR TEACHER CHIEF NEGOTIATORS PERCEPTIONS OF LEADER BEHAVIOR USING HALPIN'S LEADER BEHAVIOR QUADRANTS 1111‘; 2:2: £3: g ; 132:2; Halpin's Leader Behavior Quadrants TCN Mean for C = 31.65 TCN Mean for I - 30.35 1 II III IV LBDQ Scores Highly Ineffec- Most Discip- on Effec- tive Bene- In- linarians Matched Matched Dimen- tive volent effec- "cold pair pair sions Leader Gentle tive fish" No. (N=34) C I (C+ S+) (C+ S-) (C- S-) (C- S+) 1 NNS ----- 50 28 NNS TCN ----- 37 31 TCN 2 34 32 NNS 27 43 TCN 3 42 41 NNS 47 42 TCN 4 43 38 NNS 32 3p TCN 5 36 31 NNS 35 33 TCN 6 46 39 NNS 28 20 TCN 7 39 28 NNS - 52 49 TCN 8 35 33 NNS 18 20 TCN TABLE D - - Continued 240 Halpin's Leader Behavior Quadrants I II III IV LBDQ Scores Highly Ineffec- Most Discip- on Effec- tive Bene- In- linarians Matched Matched Dimen- tive volent effec- "cold pair pari sions Leader Gentle tive fish" No. (N=34) C I (C+ S+) (C+ S-) (C- S-) (C- 5+) 9 NNS ----- 43 47 NNS TCN ----- 26 27 TCN 10 42 39 NNS 38 43 TCN ll 37 30 NNS 31 25 TCN 12 42 50 NNS 27 40 TCN 13 35 26 NS 44 38 TCN 14 49 45 NNS 29 14 TCN 15 47 28 NNS 35 34 TCN 16 38 22 NNS 38 30 TCN 17 34 37 NNS 22 23 TCN 18 43 39 NNS 30 15 TCN 19 35 37 NNS 45 41 TCN TABLE D - - Continued 241 Ha_lpin's Leader Behavior Quadrants I II III IV LBDQ Scores Highly Ineffec- Most Discip- on Effec- tive Bene- In- linarians Matched Matched Dimen- tive volent effec- "cold pair pair sions Leader Gentle tive fish" No. (N=34) C I (C+ S+) (C+ S-) (C- S-) (C- 8+) 20 NNS ----- 40 31 NNS TCN ----- 28 11 TCN 21 38 29 NNS 40 34 TCN 22 38 32 NNS 32 17 TCN 23 35 29 NNS 27 29 TCN 24 31 33 NNS 33 37 TCN 25 52 38 NNS 40 47 TCN 26 48 49 NNS 21 25 TCN 27 45 36 NNS 29 22 TCN 28 44 33 NNS 34 30 TCN 29 44 43 NNS 17 19 TCN 30 37 28 NNS 21 23 TCN 242 TABLE D - - Continued Halpin's Leader Behavior Quadrants I II III IV LBDQ Scores Highly Ineffec- Most Discip- on Effec- tive Bene- In- linarians Matched Matched Dimen- tive volent effec- "cold pair pair sions Leader Gentle tive fish" No. (N=34) C I (C+ S+) (C+ S-) (C- S-) (C- 5+) 31 NNS ----- 30 34 NNS TCN ----- 12 35 TCN 32 46 33 NNS 34 32 TCN 33 41 36 NNS 37 4O TCN 34 44 33 NNS 30 32 TCN Superintendent's totals 13 5 l4 2 Teacher Chief Negotiators l4 3 l3 4 Matched pair Agreements 5 l 5 0 Summary of Halpin's Quadrant Scheme based on matched pair agreements for each quadrant: 1) 2) 3) 4) Five superintendents evaluated as highly effective. One superintendent evaluated as ineffective, benevolent, gentle. Five superintendents evaluated as most ineffective. None of the superintendents evaluated as dis ciplinarians or "cold fish." 243 TABLE E NEGOTIATING AND NON-NEGOTIATING SUPERINTENDENTS' RESPONSES TO THE FREQUENCY OF GRIEVANCES FILED AND THE LEVEL OF SETTLEMENT Group Frequency Chosen NS = 34 Total Response NNS = 34 0 1-3 4-6 Respondents Grievance NS 10 15 9 34 Procedure Used NNS 7 l9 8 34 Settled at NS l7 l6 1 34 Principal's Level NNS 16 16 2 34 Settled at NS 18 15 34 Superintendent's Level NNS 13 20 34 Settled at NS 22 ll 1 34 Board's Level NNS 18 15 l 34 Binding Arbitration NS 30 4 O 34 Used NNS 30 4 O 34 Unfair Labor NS 33 l 0 34 Charge Filed NNS 30 3 1 34 "Illlllllllllllllllllf