9' Y.)

I‘IEIQI

W "W IIII film» I III 7%“ E'IIIJIIIII ”‘33 mv’fi“ {fiafim
I.-' ’I' . . E_.{I .‘I , E.
‘E EE - ~ E . III E E." ~ I»

I WIWWWW' II {II ' III III

e : IL" .1?) '
LII" EIWIII'Q I L,
. W'LWIFII 3:;— '3

u‘ ‘35ij gig! .‘3 L“; I WW'i‘IIIfI
:3; “35¢ ’

  
 
 

       

   
         
   

    

        
 

9%‘W"1‘:3““ ‘; .'

       
 

   
 

   
 

-: I.. 13%;; W':W‘:Wi"
III IW- W' ”EL“: :II III” I" I. IIII W’WWWWIIWUI ‘I'I W, I] WIW'WWV‘I :th11 I“;
II EIIIIJ I'IIIII WI." ~7 WWII: III-W w I .
I'-

                 

:.1'I‘
If“ IIII

I:I
I". III IIWIW. III'I
WW"II'IW‘IIII IIIIIEIII'IIII 'EIJ'E ' '

. . I III], I'M if 4,I'.II,EIII’ I'. II
W W ”II" II III“;
WWI?” WEIWI 'WII‘ILW. ' I 'I'IE :I' ‘ W I‘WII'W‘WWH 'IIWW WWI] III

IIWW WWIHNWIWI‘WI?‘ IIII Ixi WWI’i‘WWIII‘: ,

III “III IIIWWWWWI. WW WWIIIIWW

III WHWWII‘W Iig'i'I
IE’E'EIEE’I’IE".:IW~- EEEEEEEIEIWJIII W III
' WW' ' W WWII I‘I‘I'IIIIWI “

I, m I E .. ..IIII III‘EI I“.III IW: I'f‘II'EI
E E EIEWIEEW’EEIEII.E. EEEWE ~E EEE‘EWI E

III" IIIIHI II I“.
II II IEEEE EEIEE

{IIWIIW ‘ II”! I;
”III” “1’ L

I

 

 

  

EE

 

  

  

L.“

 

-
‘-» Lu“ -_ .' ;.,
" . --..
v w "“:‘"**d;3:$
-_’“ -n‘ .
.. Io“...._4~—-<,_.~u,. v-" ,
-
“L...“
"‘17:
H._:.

I
I

M...

     
    

w“

ms”

LIBRARY

mama“ SW ,= ; l///////// ///l/////////l///I/l/////////// W W 'I

3
uniVeg-sity ll 7293 10444 3308

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

An Exploratory Study of Perceptions of Job-
Related Stress among Lansing Elementary and
Secondary School Principals and Assistants

presented by

Ruby L. Helton

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph-D- degreein Administration

and Curriculum

Major professor

 

 

 

Date 9/29/82

0-7639

 

 

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
)V1531.] Place in book drop to
LIBRARJES remove this checkout from
.aggzzgggzL. your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

?.':, an. f: .' .._Q >- i.)- J’
u=.‘T'_.J"‘?j, €77 " "‘
f. .

. ,4. I,

 

 

 

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS OF
JOB-RELATED STRESS AMONG LANSING
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL
PRINCIPALS AND ASSISTANTS

By

Ruby L. Helton

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration and Curriculum

i982

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS OF
JOB-RELATED STRESS AMONG LANSING
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL
PRINCIPALS AND ASSISTANTS

By
Ruby L. Helton

AN ABSTRACT

The primary purposes of this study were to explore areas of

potential job-related stress by having Lansing principals and assis-

tants (a) indicate perceived levels of frequencies of interactions

 

with role-set relationships and in performing critical job tasks

and (b) perceived levels of frustration associated with interacting

 

with role-set relationships and with performing critical job tasks.
A survey instrument was developed by the researcher using a
Likert-type scale designed to elicit perceptions on a variety of job
performances. Survey items were taken from the Peabody study of
critical job functions for school administrators, the Swent study on
occupational sources of stress for Oregon school administrators, and
Samuel Goldman's concept of intra- and extraorganizational referents.
These items were combined into a questionnaire which consisted of 14

specific critical task items and 36 specific role-set relationships.

Findings
The major findings that have emerged from this study are the

following: (a) frequency of interrelationship patterns revealed a

Ruby L. Helton

number of specific differences, especially between the tasks of admin-
istering smaller elementary schools and administering larger secondary
schools; (b) no evidence emerges that perceived frustration levels,
which generally were at very low levels, vary across independent vari-
able groupings; (c) as a group, Lansing principals perceive themselves
as most frustrated in their interrelationships with disruptive stu-
dents; and (d) they also interact frequently with and are highly
frustrated by their critical tasks of maintaining discipline and

promoting student achievement.

Copyright by

RUBY L. HELTON

l982

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my mother and brother, who are
now deceased, for their love, support, and encouragement during their
stay here on earth. The following is representative of the strength

and courage that they both possessed:

Don't Quit

When things go wrong as they sometimes will,
When the road you're trudging seems all up hill,
When the funds are low and the debts are high,
And you want to smile, but you have to sigh,
When care is pressing you down a bit,
Rest if you must, but don't you quit.
Life is queer with twists and turns,
As everyone of us sometimes learns,
And many a failure turns about
When he might have won had he stuck it out;
Don't give up though the pace seems slow--
You may succeed with another blow.
Success is failure turned inside out--
The silver tint of the clouds of doubt,
And you never can tell just how close you are,
It may be near when it seems so far;
So stick to the fight when you're hardest hit--
It's when things seem worst
That you must not quit.

--Salesian Missions

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This phase of my professional development would not have been
possible had it not been for the many pe0ple who were interested in
my completing my work towards the doctoral degree. My feelings of
gratitude are extended to all members of my family who were always
available with words of encouragement and other types of support.

The interest, encouragement, and expertise afforded by members
of my committee, Drs. Ben Bohnhorst, my chairperson, Richard Gardner,
George Logan, and Roy Wesselman, are especially acknowledged and
appreciated. A special thanks to Dr. Roy Wesselman who encouraged me
to stay in school following the death of one of my family members.

Additional thanks are expressed to the following members of the
Lansing School District: Drs. Eva Evans, Bill Helder, Robert Chamber-
lain, Grace Iverson, and William Webb.

Finally, words cannot express the deep appreciation I feel for
the love, understanding, and patience of my dear and personal friend

Mr. J. L. Arline. For all of this, I can only say merci beaucoup.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .........................

List of Figures ........................

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ....................

Purposes .........................
Background: The Significance of the Phenomenon

of Stress in Performing the Role

of the School Principal ...........
Statement of the Problem .................
Importance of the Study ..................
Research Hypotheses ....................
Definition of Terms ....................
Assumptions ........................
Limitations ........................
Overview of the Study ...................

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE ........

Introduction ....................
Origins of Stress for Principals ............
Review of Literature ................
Summary of Literature on Origins of Stress .....
Costs and Results of Stress-Producing Factors ......
Review of Literature ................
Summary of Literature on Costs and Results

of Stress .................

Role-Set Relationships: Intra- and Extraorganiza-

tional Referents ..............
Review of Literature ................

Summary of Literature on Role-Set Relationships

Critical Task Items Performed by the Principal .....
Review of Literature ................
Summary of Literature on Critical Task Items . . . .

Summary of Related Literature ..............

iv

CHAPTER III: METHODS AND PROCEDURES ..............

Research Design ......................
Sample ..........................
Collection of Data ....................
Development of the Instrument ...............
Procedure for the Analysis of Data ............
Dependent Variables ....................
Independent Variables ...................
Treatment of Data .....................
Summary of Significant Differences ............
Rankings of Perceptions ..................
Summary of Chapter ....................

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSES OF DATA .................

Hypothesis I .......................
Hypothesis II .......................
Hypothesis III ......................
Hypothesis IV .......................
Hypothesis V .......................
Hypothesis VI .......................
Rankings of Perceived Frequencies of Interaction

and Levels of Frustration ..........
Summary ..........................

CHAPTER V: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY .........
Summary of Findings ....................
Conclusions ........................
Implications for Future Research .............
Recommendations for Further Research ...........
APPENDIX A: LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS ..............
APPENDIX B: ROLE STRESS PERCEPTION INVENTORY .........
APPENDIX C: FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS .........
APPENDIX D: FREQUENCY OF INTERACTIONrTABLE ..........
APPENDIX E: LEVEL OF FRUSTRATION TABLE ............

APPENDIX F: APPROVAL LETTER FROM UCRIHS ............

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................

103

106

106
108

131

132

7-A.

7-B.

7-C.

LIST OF TABLES

Description of Demographic Data ...........

Race and Perceptions of Frequencies of Interaction

and Levels of Frustration Using the T-Test .....

Race and Perceived Frequencies of Interactions

among Student Services ..............

Race and Perceived Frequencies of Interaction

among Parents and Constituents ...........

Sex and the Perceptions of Frequencies of Interac-
tion and Levels of Frustration Using the T-Test

Sex and Perceptions of Frequencies of Interaction

with Student Services ...............

Education and Training and the Perceptions of
Frequencies of Interaction and Levels of

Perception Using the T-Test ............

Age and Perceptions of Frequencies of Interaction

and Levels of Frustration Using the T-Test .....

Experience and Perceptions of Frequencies of
Interaction and Levels of Frustration Using

the T-Test .....................

Size of School and the Perceptions of Frequencies
of Interaction and Levels of Frustration

Using the T-Test ..................

Size of School and Perceptions of Frequency of

Interaction with School District Staff .......

Size of School and Perceptions of Frequencies of

Interaction among Student Service Groups ......

Size of School and Perceptions of Interaction

with Parents and Constituents ...........

vi

54

71

72

74'

76

77

79

81

83

86

87

90

91

_..-a

7-D. Size of Schools and Representatives of Non-

School Agencies ................... 92
8. Summary of Instances of Significant Differences
Found ........................ 98

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Role-set relationships between the principal and intra-
and extraorganizational referents ........... 46

Perceived frequencies of interaction responses for T4
critical task items .................. lOO

Fourteen perceived frustration levels for critical
task items ....................... lOl

Perceived frequencies of interaction responses for
role-set relationships ................. 102

Perceived levels of frustration responses for role-
set relationships ................... l04

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Purposes

This study examines school principals' perceptions of the roles
and tasks which they perform and their perceived levels of frustration
associated with these performances.

An important stressor associated with one's organizational role
may be the level of responsibility involved. One can differentiate
between responsibility for people and responsibility for things. In-
creases in responsibility for people frequently means that one may
have to spend more time interacting with others and attending more
meetings. Increases in responsibility for things may entail working
late hours alone and meeting deadline pressures and schedules. To
examine the many potential stressful responsibilities assumed by build-
ing principals, plus the day-to-day stress experienced as a result of
interacting with various role set relationships, are the underlying
motives of this research effort. The study herein described examines
a set of selected factors which may be related to sources of.stress
among building principals, focusing on particular role set relation-
ships and on selected critical task performances.

Middle managers such as building principals perceive stressful
situations as occurring somewhat more often than upper level managers

such as district level administrators. Kiev (l979) asserts that the

person at the lower level management position in the organization has
less power to control the volume of work and less authority to imple-
ment decisions. Wayson (l979) maintains that by the nature of the job
responsibilities and designation as head of the instructional unit,

the principal may be placed in a dilemma. Expectations are held for
the principal from many sources, and failure to conform to expectations
could bring about perception of stress problems. Expectations can be
divergent as well as conflicting for the principal, thereby causing
perceptions of relative sources of stress (Goldman, l966).

This study aims at examining perceptions of stress among princi-
pals at the building level. Specifically, the purposes to which this
study is addressed are:

1. To examine in what respects principals may be per-

ceiving the relative frequencies of their day to
day job function as sources of stress;

2. To examine in what respects principals may be per-
ceiving their interactions with role-set relation-
ships as relative sources of stress; and

3. To examine whether perceptions of stress are func-
tions of other independent variables such as race,
sex, education and training, experience, age, and
size of school.

Data gathered from responses of Lansing School District principals
and assistants will indicate whether there are relationships between
perceptions of frustration and perceived frequencies of interaction

with respect to certain role set relationships and with respect to per-

forming certain critical job functions.

Background: The Significance of
the Phenomenon of Stress in Perform-
ing the Role of the School Principal

 

Contrary to popular opinion, not all stress is negative. Ac-
cording to Pelletier (l977), without stress there would be very
little constructive activity or positive change. Life without chal-
lenges which induce creative responses would be no life at all.

The reasons for stress among school principals vary. Research
literature suggests that performing certain critical job tasks and
interacting with certain groups of people are the most common stressors
for building principals. Goldman (l966) describes these groups of
people as intra- and extraorganizational referents.

Problems that principals appear to be faced with most often, ac-
cording to Rogers (1977) may include (a) lack of funding for programs,
(b) job security, (c) student unrest, (d) meeting the personal and
academic needs of students, (e) parental discontent, (f) instructional
leadership, (9) staff idiosyncracies and unionism, and (h) school de-
segregation. Consider the following examples.

Reduced funding has taken its toll on education. State and
federal legislation mandate that certain cognitive and affective ob-
jectives should be implemented, but funding to achieve many of these
objectives is being reduced.

Special education legislation PL 94-142 requires that special
needs students whose disabilities can range from mild to severely
educable mentally impaired and from mild to severely emotionally im-

paired will be mainstreamed into the regular classroom setting.

Currently, many teachers and principals do not have the necessary train-
ing or skills to meet the needs of special education students. A move
is underway to place all students regardless of defined disabilities
into regular classrooms. From a recent ARC (Association for Retarded
Citizens) conference, emphasis was placed on steps to establish a fully
and successfully integrated system with all special education classes
in regular education buildings. McClennen (1982) advocates disseminat-
ing policy and rationale to a wide range of groups including parent/
advocacy organizations, parent advisory committees, special education
advisory committees, local and intermediate directors of special edu-
cation, the Michigan Board of Education, members of the legislature,
and others. It would appear that perceived levels of stress might be
very apparent among principals and teachers as these special needs stu-
dents become a part of the regular school program.

News articles indicate that millages are being voted down at in-
creasingly alarming rates. From all indications, pe0ple are tired of
paying more taxes. There is a decline in student population as well
as a decline in numbers of parents who have school aged children to be
enrolled in school. A general distrust and suspicion of the public
schools' intentions are very real among citizens who would most likely
support funding for schools. Just recently, the Reagan administration
voiced support for tuition tax credits for private schools. This
may become a serious threat to the public school system.

Many principals are faced with soliciting funds for their schools

so that certain academic as well as extra curricular programs can be

maintained at effective levels. Salespersons are very much aware of
the dilemma which the schools currently face. They have become regu-
lar unannounced visitors to the school site and often interfere with
the principal's planned routine for the school day.

The director of the Michigan Association of Elementary and Middle
School Principals has informed members that teacher bargaining units
are now demanding that any seniority rights for principals be struck
from the contract agreement. Many have been successful, and, there-
fore, one who has served as a principal for many years could suddenly
find him/herself out of a job. This trend is becoming increasingly
serious as many schools are being closed.

Student needs are becoming very complex. It appears as though
these needs may be sources of stress as perceived by building
principals. InteraCting with disruptive students, students from
lower socioeconomic environments, and lower achievers take up a great
deal of the principal's time during the school day.

Many students who stride between the walls of the public institu-
tions are the products of parents who were students during the 19605.
It is common knowledge that many students during that time were dif-
ferent in their values and modus operandi. Massey (l976) states that
students of the '605 differed because their parents did not allow them
to develop independence. Currently, as students are being disciplined
by the principal about their behavior, a communications gap becomes
apparent. Conflict often occurs as a result of this communications

gap between home and school.

Society is now demanding that schools develop and enforce disci-
pline policies and "return to the basics." There are many schools,
however, that never left the basics and have consistently maintained a
disciplined environment.

Principals often find themselves interacting with angry and/or
non-supportive parents when they are contacted about their children's
behavior. This might lead some people to believe that many parents
are not concerned about their children's misbehavior in school.

There is a misconception regarding students from lower socio-
economic environments. According to Brookover and Lezotte (l979),
not all students from lower socioeconomic environments are behavior
or academic problems in school. Principals may perceive levels of
stress because many of these students appear to be improperly nourished
or dressed. It may seem as though these students might have less
chance of survival than other students. Many parents of these particu-
larlar students appear to be unconcerned about the plight<rftheir chil-
dren and the possible future consequences. Because parental confer-
ences and other school activities are not attended regularly, a miscon-
ception often occurs among some school personnel that if parents are
not visible in the schools, they do not care about their children.

To aid students from lower socioeconomic environments, many
schools participate in the national breakfast and lunch programs. The
principal must now perform lunchroom duties, because funding levels
do not permit the hiring of qualified personnel capable of ensuring

the safety of students during these free periods.

The scale for free and/or reduced priced meals fluctuates from semes-

to semester. Perceived levels<rfstress may become apparent for

building principals when students who qualified for free or reduced
priced meals are forced to pay for meals because the family's income
exceeds the federal guidelines, even though, according to the latest
government figures, the family's income may still exist within the
poverty arena.

Principals have been charged with increasing the level of academic
achievement for all students. Students who qualify for federal pro-
grams are usually instructed by instructional aides and other support
personnel. A common complaint among principals who are assigned in
"Chapter I" schools is the pull-out effect of these programs. One of
the requirements of the school is to desegregate, and it appears that
pull-out programs often resegregate. Failure to follow guidelines of
these programs can jeopardize funding for an entire school district.
Principals live in constant fear during auditing periods that their
schools might be responsible for their districts' losing funding.

To understand the interactions of the building principal with
role-set relationships, leadership, which is the main responsibility of
the building principal, is the key element of his/her job requirement.
A leader must require or influence people to strive willingly for group
objectives. Tannenbaum and Schmidt (l958) maintain that leadership can
be described as the interpersonal infuence exercised in a situation
and directed through the communication process toward specialized '
goals. The principal's role cannot be effectively performed without
giving consideration as to how role-set relationships might be af-
fected. Teachers who wield powerful sanctions play complementary roles

to building principals. Principals who fail to meet teachers'

expectations may find their authority as well as their leadership
severaly flouted.

The relatively recent movement toward greater worker participa-
tion and the shifts of considerable amounts of power towards members
of unions have become growing causes for concern. Approval for pro-
posed courses of action now have to be sought not only from superiors
but also from the workforce whose values often differ radically. Not
only has this eroded the manager's power and authority, but it has also
diminished his/her status and self esteem. It has also severely taxed
his/her interpersonal skills. If today's manager had to make decisions
between things rather than people, the frequent choice might be for
things. Once seen as more or less routine, people problems currently
take up a major part of the day (Marshall & Cooper, 1977).

Besides interacting with staff, the principal who is a part of the
central level team, must deal with many central level staff personnel.
Unlike the secondary principal who has the help of two or three assis-
tant principals at the school site, the elementary principals alone
must interact with intra- and extraorganizational referents plus per-
form critical job functions. When crisis situations arise, central
level personnel are not usually visible as support systems. Secondary
principals have support systems on site (Dreeban & Gross, 1965).

School desegregation once deemed as the number one problem for school
principals appears to be very much alive as an issue today. Busing is a
source of stress for some principals. The focus on bus safety and getting
children to and from school safely are primary concerns. When unusual oc-
currences happen'UDChildren traveling to and from school, responsi-

bility is placed on the principal and/or on desegregation.

As the focal person in charge of the school facility, the build-
ing principal is charged with implementing a desegregation plan whether
or not s/he believes in it. In the midst of adversities among staff
and parents who might be opposed to desegregation, cognitive and af-
fective growth must be achieved by students. Students should learn to
get along with each other, and parents should begin to support the pro-
gram. Persons who are responsible for mandating such programs are in-
visible when the crisis situations arise.

Interactions with intra- and extraorganizational referents and
performing critical job tasks are requirements of the principalship.
Any or all of these items may be perceived as potentially stressful.

Principals and assistants in the Lansing (Michigan) School Dis-
trict were selected for this research because the Lansing schools re-
present an urban, middle-sized school district that is involved with
many programs such as federal and state programs, court-ordered
desegregation, strong labor bargaining units, and a large proportion of
ethnic populations enrolled. In addition, the system includes minority
and non-minority personnel in administrative posts with various degrees

of experience and various levels of training in school administration.

Statement ofthe Problem

 

Research literature is limited in defining stress producing agents
that plague building principals and assistants. Failure to recognize
the emergence of problematic situations for the public school princi-
pals creates a potentially chaotic plight for the public schools. The
lack of information and knowledge among top level educational adminis-

trators on stress and how it permeates the lives of building principals

10

can inhibit the creation of successful alternative solutions. This
unawareness could eventually lead to less than optimum effectiveness
and even incompetence.

Because the principal is required to maintain a relationship with
a wide variety of persons in complementary roles, this research will
explore the perceptions of stress related to such role-set relation-
ships among principals and assistants in the Lansing School District.
This research will also explore perceptions of frustration relating
to certain critical tasks which principals are required to perform.

Some psychologists describe stress as that which causes or creates
a physical or mental alteration within the biological body functions.
For example, having to interact with certain groups more than others
can bring on levels of frustration which could result in physical symp-
toms such as diarrhea, pain in the neck or lower back, or insomnia.
From levels of frustration, certain mental symptoms such as anxiety,
psychoneurosis, and depression could result. The areas of potential
stress to be emphasized in this study are (a) perceived levels of fre-
quencies of interacting with role set relationships and frequencies of
performing critical job tasks, and (b) perceived levels of frustration
associated with interacting with role-set relationships and in perform-
ing critical job tasks.

Relationships among characteristics of race, sex, education and
training, age, experience, and size of school will also be explored.
Following completion of this research, it is hoped that more clearly
identified perceived levels of stress will be highlighted so that

alternatives may be outlined to assist principals in developing

11

strategies to deal with day-to-day situations on the job without bring-

ing on undue stress.

Importance of the Study

 

Interactions with role-set relationships on a job and performing
certain critical job tasks can be potentially sources of either eustress
or distress. Research is limited in addressing potential sources of
stress among public school principals at the building level, and there
is need for more information addressing this issue. The importance of
this study consists in presenting further information on the following:

1. Whether members of ethnic minority groups functioning

in the principal's role perceive relative sources of
stress at different levels from their majority counter-

parts.

2. Whether female principals perceive relative sources of
stress at different levels from their male counterparts.

3. Whether those principals with more education and train-
ing perceive stress at different levels from those
with less education.

4. Whether older principals perceive relative sources of
stress at different levels from younger principals.

5. Whether principals who are relatively more experienced
on the job perceive stress at different levels from
those with relatively less experience.

6. Whether principals of larger populated schools per-
ceive relative sources of stress at different levels
from those in smaller populated schools (Note: in
Lansing, size of school also is a function of school
level; that is, elementary schools are relatively
small, while high schools are relatively large.)
In addition to examining whether and how the above categories of
principals may differ in their perceptionSTyfthe roles and tasks they
perform and the frustrations they encounter, a seventh research ques-

tion will be addressed:

12

7. Regardless of category, the study will identify which
of the several sorts of role-set relationships and
sorts of critical tasks the Lansing principals as a
total group perceive to be the most demanding and
frustrating and which they perceive to be the least
demanding and frustrating.

Findings obtained in this study may be useful to Lansing central

administration and possibly to other educational institutions in pro—

viding directions for needed inservices and workshops to help princi-

pals and other administrators develop necessary skills in dealing with

job related sources of stress.

The importance of this study is linked to the hope that awareness

and possible solutions outlined may lead to new knowledge that will

reduce excessive stress among middle level administrative personnel.

Research Hypotheses

Six hypotheses to be examined in this study are stated in the null

form as follows:

Hypothesis I: There is no significant difference between
minority and majority principals in percep-
tions of job related stress.

Subhypothesis A:

Subhypothesis B:

There is no significant difference
between minority and majority prin-
cipals in perceptions of frequencies
of interaction and levels of frus-
tration attributed to the critical
task items on the stress measurement
test.

There is no significant difference
between minority and majority prin-
cipals in perceptions of frequencies
of interaction and levels of frus-
tration attributed to the role-set
relationship items on the stress
measurement test.

Hypothesis II: There is no significant difference in the
perception of stress between male and fe-
male principals.

Subhypothesis A:

Subhypothesis B:

13

There is no significant difference
between male and female principals
in perceptions of frequencies of
interaction and levels of frus-
tration attributed to the critical
task items on the stress measure-
ment test.

There is no significant difference
between male and female principals
in perceptions of frequencies of
interaction and levels of frustra-
tion attributed to the role-set
relationship items on the stress
measurement test.

Hypothesis 111: There is no significant difference in the
perceptions of stress among principals who
have received more training and education
in administration and those who have re-
ceived less.

Subhypothesis A:

Subhypothesis B:

There is no significant difference
between principals who have received
more training and education in ad-
ministration than those who have
received less training and education
in administration in perceptions of
frequencies of interaction and levels
of frustration attributed to the
critical task items on the stress
measurement test.

There is no significant difference
between principals who have received
more training and education in ad-
ministration than those who have
received less training and education
in administration in perceptions of
frequencies of interaction and levels
of frustration attributed to the role-
set relationship items on the stress
measurement test.

Hypothesis IV: There is no significant difference in the per-
ception of stress between older and younger
principals.

Subhypothesis A:

There is no significant difference
between older principals and younger
principals in perceptions of fre-
quencies of interaction and levels

Subhypothesis B:

14

of frustration attributed to the
critical task items on the stress
measurement test.

There is no significant difference
between older principals and younger
principals in perceptions of fre-
quencies of interaction and levels
of frustration attributed to the
role-set relationship items on the
stress measurement test.

Hypothesis V: There is no significant difference in the
perceptions of stress among principals who
are more experienced on the job than those
who are less experienced.

Subhypothesis A:

Subhypothesis B:

There is no significant difference
between more experienced and less
experienced principals in percep-
tions of frequencies of interaction
and levels of frustration attributed
to the critical task items on the
stress measurement test.

There is no significant difference
between more experienced and less
experienced principals in percep-
tions of frequencies of interaction
and levels of frustration attributed
to the role-set relationship items
on the stress measurement test.

Hypothesis VI: There is no significant difference between
principals at smaller schools and principals
at larger schools in perceptions of stress.

Subhypothesis A:

Subhypothesis B:

There is no significant difference
between principals at smaller schools
and principals at larger schools in
perceptions of frequencies of inter-
action and levels of frustration at-
tributed to the critical task items
on the stress measurement test.

There is no significant difference
between principals at smaller schools
and principals at larger schools in
perceptions of frequencies of inter-
action and levels of frustration at-
tributed to the role-set relationship
items on the stress measurement test.

15

Definition of Terms

Concepts which undergird this study are defined below.

Role-set. A total compliment of role relationships in which a
person becomes involved by virtue of occupying a particular social

position.

Organizational referents. This includes two distinct groups with

 

whom a person performing a role may have frequent contact. These in-
clude (a) intraorganizational referents and (b) extraorganizational

referents. Intraorganizational referents are those persons with whom

 

the principal deals on a day-to-day basis and who are hired by the

school district. Extraorganizational referents are those other per-

 

sons with whom the principal must interact on a regular basis such as

taxpayers, parents, etc.

Middle management positions of principals and assistant princi-
pals. The chief leadership positions between top level administration
and the teaching ranks. Assistant principals frequently act for the

principals in many circumstances.

Critical tasks of the principal. Those particular job functions
that a principal must perform in order that the school may function
smoothly. These functions are vital to the academic and social

achievement of students.

Job-related sources of stress. Those job tasks which must be per-
formed but which could generate conflict within the individual perform-

ing them. These tasks are built into the system and cannot readily be

16

changed. For the specific purposes of this study, sources of stress

 

will be identified in terms of perceived high frequencies of interac-

 

' tion when associated simultaneously with perceived high levels of

frustration.

 

Stress concept. A non-specific response of the body to any demand
whether pleasant or unpleasant that elicits some biological or mental
response. Stress cannot be avoided because it is part of the human
condition. Eustress and/or short term stress is not necessarily bad
as long as it is temporary and specific. Long term levels of stress

may be characterized as distressful and could become very harmful.

Role stress. Varying degrees of difficulty experienced as a re-

 

sult of meeting role demands; job related tension.

Relationship of frustration and stress. Frustration is a form of

 

stress consisting of perceived feelings of insecurity and/or dissatis-
faction from lack of achieving goals and objectives. Perceptions of
stress may result in frustration or in some other form of responses

(e.g., challenge, excitement, etc.).

Assumptions

 

Several basic assumptions underlie this investigation. The first
is that building level principals who are considered as middle level
managers may suffer from significant levels of stress which are worthy
of investigation. Work situations associated with significant levels
of stress tend to contribute to pressure, conflict, uncertainty, loss

of control over events, etc. Secondly, it is assumed that the sample

17

of this study represents a valid basis for determining perceptions of
stress at least for the immediate population sampled.

This study will gather data on perceived frequencies of interac~
tion and levels of frustration in relation to identified critical tasks
and role-set relationships. In effect, for the purposes of this study,
it is a crucial assumption that perceptions of high frequencies of
interaction coupled with perceptions of high levels of frustration are

likely to be strong indicators of sources of stress.

Limitations

 

It is the intent of this study to explore only selected key
aspects of the perceived levels of possible stress in a principal's
interaction with his/her intra- and extraorganizational referents and
similarly to explore whether certain selected key critical job func-
tions may be perceived as stressful to principals at the building
level. Stress may come from many sources. This study is limited only

to a selected set of possible sources. Also, it applies only to prin-

cipals and assistants in the Lansing School District which is an urban
school district with a heterogeneity of student populations. There-
fore, the findings may not be generalized to other populations or

other school districts, but may at least suggest a basis for further
study. Although all possible sources of stress are not examined, at
least some probable key dimensions of stress will be looked at and

some possible findings may emerge which may prove useful to the Lansing
School District leadership. Another possible limitation is that assis-
tant principals, by virtue of their more specific assignments in cer-

tain circumstances (e.g., in charge of discipline), may have responded

18

to the Stress Perception Inventory somewhat differently than the prin-

cipals did.

Overview of the Study

The balance of this study is organized into four chapters. The
review of literature is summarized in Chapter II. Studies examined in-
cluded those concerned with (a) the origin of stress for principals,
(b) the cost and results of stress producing factors for principals,
(c) role-set relationships and how those relationships may contribute to
stress, and (d) the day-to-day job functions that principals perform
and how these functions may be stress producing.

The items in these headings are related to and extracted from
social systems theory and axiomatic organizational theory. The role
set relationship items that will be used in this study are associated
with the basic precepts of social systems theory which states that:

l. The extent to which the behavior role incumbent is con-

gruent with the expectations held for that role is the
measure used in evaluating the effectiveness of one's
role behavior.

2. The extent to which the behavior of an individual is
congruent with the individual's unique patterns of needs
is the measure of personal efficiency.

3. The extent to which the demands of the organizational
role and the requirement of the individual personality
are congruent is a measure of satisfaction.

This study presupposes, as does social systems theory, that insti-
tutional roles, individual personalities, and cultural values are pri-
mary determinants of social behavior in schools.

The axiomatic theory states that the school structure and school

outcomes are interrelated, and increases in one variable will result in

the decrease in another. This study is tied into and in part emanates

19

out of the axiomatic theory in that it examines whether or not the
basic precepts of this theory applies to the middle managers under
study. For a summary of social systems and axiomatic organizational
theories, see Lipham (1982).

Chapter III presents the design of the study and describes the
procedures utilized in developing the instrument and obtaining and pro-
cessing data.

The outcomes of the statistical analyses used in testing the six
hypotheses and in evaluating the data in relation to problems posed
are found in Chapter IV.

Chapter V, the concluding chapter of the research, includes a
summary of findings, conclusions drawn from the study, and implications

for further research.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

 

It is often assumed that managers and executives are more vulner-
able to stress than people employed in other areas of the market place.
Most middle managers are required to carry out important responsibil-
ities but possess relatively less authority to control those responsi-
bilities. As a result, managers may have the greatest numbers of prob-
lems dealing with stress. Yates (1973) maintains that certain amounts
of stress may be necessary to energize the system, to tune up and keep
one alert and ready for what life may bring. Too much stress persis-
tently encountered may be counterproductive.

This review of related literature dealing specifically with the
problem of this study will be made by exploring several sources of
literature, including materials located in the dissertation abstracts;
educational index; a wide variety of books related to the topic; edu-
cational, psychological, medical, and social journals; and the ERIC
system. The review of literature will be organized under four head-
ings: (a) origins of stress for principals, (b) costs and results of
stress on principals, (c) role-set relationships of principals, and
(d) the critical job performances which principals perform daily.
Role-set relationships and critical task items emanating in part from
social systems and axiomatic theorums are the theoretical framework

from which this research is based (see p. 18).

20

21

Origins of Stress for Principals

 

Review of Literature

 

Currently, principals appear to be faced with more pressure, ag-
gression, changes, and conflicts than ever before. Job demands and
responsibilities are on the rise due to the popular use of computers,
intercoms, dictaphones, and other so-called time saving devices.

Vetter (1976) asserts that one major source of pressure comes from the
many roles assumed as one becomes a school principal. "Role pressure"
is felt by every person who occupies a formal office in an organiza-
tion. The office holder takes on the roles that go with the office.

In the eyes of others, s/he is expected to behave in a manner that
benefits the role. According to Gmelch (1975), the role model can in-
.clude items that range from how to run an office and meetings to how
one should dress and behave at social affairs. In addition to the pre-
conceived concepts of appropriate behavior held by others, the office
holder will have his/her own personal concepts of appropriate role
behavior. When a concept of role behavior held by one person conflicts
with the concepts held by another or of the role incumbent him/herself,
role pressure may be generated.

Lack of flexibility may pose some problems and generate much
stress among administrators. One might expect individuals to reverse
decisions or change policies which do not result in positive conse-
quences. When the actions of administrators lead to negative conse-
quences, Fox and Berry (1979) state that instead of changing their
modus operandi, some would resort to negative behavior which often

leads to unfavorable circumstances.

22

Vetter (1976) defines another source of role pressure as that
which arises when the demands made on the office holder exceed his/her
role competence. Lack of expertise or an inadequate behavioral style
on the part of principals to meet particular demands creates pressure.
Even if qualified to handle the variety of demands made on the office
holder, s/he might exceed his/her role competence. The principal may
experience "role overload" because s/he lacks the time and energy to
do all that is expected.

Davis (1973) feels that the central problem of being a principal
is that often too many responsibilities are accepted and allowed to
grow. The principal is responsible for controlling the school climate,
dfiriplining students, motivating, persuading, firefighting, preserving
the culture, specializing in curriculum areas, and being a parent sur-
rogate. Those responsibilities can create a role prisoner rather than
a role person. Of particular significance to the problem of adminis-
trative stress is the fact that the work is characterized by an unre-
lenting pace, brevity, variety and fragmentation, and preference for
live action. As educational managers, principals take very few breaks
during normal office hours. They spend the day reviewing on the
average of 36 pieces of mail daily, receiving and making telephone
calls, attending meetings and other hurried activities. One of the
reasons for this unrelenting pace is the open ended nature of the edu-
cational manager's job.

Swent and Gmelch (1978) addressed two key issues in their research
on stress among principals: (a) causes of stress among school adminis-
trators and (b) how these causes can be minimized or eliminated. A

four stage cycle was identified as follows: (a) set of demands, (b)

23

time and resources involved to adequately meet challenges, (c) discre-
pancy in policy changes, and (d) consequences. A meeting is considered
as a demand as is a telephone interruption. Whether or not it produces
stress depends on the individual's perceptions. Lack of time and re-
sources involved to adequately meet demands could result in a discre-
pancy. If a discrepancy does exist, then a demand may not be per-
ceived as a stressor for another. If a new change in school board
policy is not seen as demanding, a discrepancy will not occur. Stress
created by discrepancies may result in a stress response.

Swent (1978) identified several top stressors for principals as
follows: (a) inter- and intrapersonal conflicts, (b) compliance with
rules, (c) attending meetings, and (d) completing reports on time. In
his conclusions he stated that interpersonal relations continues to be
a high source of perceived stress, particularly as it relates to re-
solving conflicts with students, staff, and parents. Complying with
rules and policies was perceived consistently as a high stressor among
principals. Unnecessary meetings called during inopportune times and
completing reports that could be done by other departments were sources
of stress.

Vetter (1976) implies that role pressures are increasing for
school principals and give rise to psychological stress which can re-
sult in lowered job satisfaction and dysfunctional behavior. Two im-
portant factors give rise to increased role pressure of principals:

(a) an increasing need for coordinated effort in order to achieve ef-
fective results, and (b) the set of attitudes that people adopt that
they have a right to know what is going on in an organization. Few

decisions have an isolated impact in organizations that require

24

integrated operations. When one person's behavior affects the affairs
of another, the second person forms role expectations regarding how the
first person should behave. The rise in coordinated efforts bring
about new relationships. The growth in committee meetings is testimony
that increased coordination is an important part of job responsibility.

Heavy personal stress may arise from the special nature of the
head's job, the special problems of carrying out responsibilities, and
the standards used to judge performances on the job. Extra pressure is
created by the typical head's values. According to Vetter (1976) these
values may be in conflict with the value system of others. Shank
(l979) ascertains that principals who are often referred to as middle
managers might differ in their roles from that of middle level managers
in other organizations. When comparing principals and their roles to
those of other managers, the school head is primarily an idealist com-
mitted to human values and people. The business manager is a pragma-
tist committed to getting a job done and producing results. The typi-
cal business manager is also a populist, someone who is willing to
accept mediocrity surrounding pockets of excellence, viewed as
a scarce resource. In contrast, the typical school head is likely to
be an elitist not willing to accept less than excellence. The school
head is continuously struggling to raise people's expectation for them-
selves and often becomes frustrated and disappointed. These differ-
ences do not alleviate the fact that there is stress in any leadership
role.

From Hammond's (1980) point of view, school administrators,
whether superintendents of larger districts or principals in smaller

schools, face stress at one time or another. Their ability or failure

25

to cope with stress may reverberate throughout an entire school system
affecting students and teachers. Yet administrators often consider
stress as chronic and an occupational hazard to be endured. There seems
to be little chance of identifying or changing its cause and effects.
The result is personal suffering and job ineffectiveness. The changing
role of school administration is a primary source of job relatedstress.

Vanderpol (1981) indicates that another cause of stress among edu-
cators is special education legislation, both state and federal. These
laws and a series of ever-changing regulations make schools responsible
for providing education to all children, a responsibility that no other
public organization is required to equal. Teacher layoffs or reduc-
tions in force due to declining enrollments make it difficult to plan
good, effective programs for these students. Layoffs among staff may
contribute to stress, especially if the principal has to choose which
teachers shall stay and which shall go.

Messenger (1981) describes loneliness as being one of the major
sources of stress among building principals. The elementary principal
is usually lonely and isolated. S/He is expected to serve as a loyal
member of the management team. Unlike central office holders and
secondary principals, the elementary principal is the only representa-
tive of the team at the school site. The sense of loneliness is
especially acute when problems arise. Maintaining programs during
teacher strikes, implementing a controversial plan, or disciplining
a teacher can be very stressful. The day-to-day separation from other
administrators and the lack of close support and camaraderie from
peers make it difficult for the elementary principal to perform at a

maximum level at times.

26

Herlicky and Herlicky (1980) stated in a recent NASSP study that
the professional life of a principal is becoming less satisfying for
many. In some areas of the country, the resignation rate of principals
has risen at alarming rates, which is an indication that the pressures
may not be worth the rewards. Psychologists may be correct in their
assertion that loneliness is an intrinsic element in the human
condition, one of the burdens involved in being human. Most people
strive to lighten the burden by establishing genuine and meaningful
relationships with others through seeking out fellow human beings for
mutual support in personal and professional lives. For principals,
friends are difficult to find.

Discussions often take place in regards to whether elementary
principals differ from secondary principals in their perceptions of job
related tensions. According to Poppenhagen (1978), there is no signif-
icant difference between elementary and secondary principals relative
to perceptions of themselves as subject to job related tensions and as
participants in decision making, involving workers, and as experiencing
job dissatisfaction. Elementary principals maintain perceptions of
themselves to the same degree maintained by other principals. Their
roles as elementary principals may even involve a greater diversity of
tasks and a more individualistic responsibility for all that occurs in
their school buildings. Dodd (1975) maintains that the positions of
elementary principals are relatively exposed. S/He interacts with his/
her teachers daily and is not separated from them by secretaries or
administrative assistants. S/He must deal with problems directly.

The opposite is true of the secondary administrator.

27

Marcson (1970) indicates that role conflict has been studied as a
source of organizational stress. People who suffer more role conflict
have lower job satisfaction and higher job related tension than those
who do not experience so much role conflict.

Another primary source of stress in a person's work-role is ambi-
guity. Role ambiguity occurs when an individual has lack of clarity
about work roles and about the scope and responsibility of the
job. Kahn (1977) maintains that persons who suffer role ambiguity
experience lower job satisfaction and a higher job related tension.
From Snoek and Rosenthal's (1966) point of view, role ambiguity
is when an individual has lack of clarity about the work objectives
associated with the role, about colleagues' expectations of the
work role, and about the scope and responsibility of the job.

French, Mueller, and Tupper (1965) cited work overload as contri-
buting to sources of stress. They looked at a qualitative overload in
a larger university. They used questionnaires, interviews, and exami-
nations to obtain risk factors associated with coronary heart diseases
for administrators and professors. It was discovered that symptoms of
stress and low self-esteem were related to workload. The greater the
quality of work expected of professors, the lower the self esteem.

Yates (1973) feels that exorbitant work demands, tightly scheduled
work days, heavy travel, and simultaneous demands can also exert con-
siderable stress on administrators. The reasons for exorbitant work

demands may vary although the most common one is understaffing.

28

Educators find themselves under added pressures each year with the
public continuously demanding more of them. Alley (1980) states that
along with federally funded programs that demand competency testing for
students to ensure academic achievement come less support from the pub-
lic for schools and educators. Many teachers and administrators are
having difficulty in getting support from parents. A recent Gallup
poll noted that 65% of parents of public school children attended lec-
tures, meetings, and other social occasions in local school buildings
during the 1980-81 school year. The same poll reported that 85% of
adults polled would support state certification and examinations for
teachers and administrators. These adults were also supportive of
periodic testing of these professionals to see if they kept up to date
with their field. The trouble is not so much with these specific at-
titudes as with the trend they appear to represent. While professional
concerns certainly plague educational professionals, personal consider-
ations such as inadequate salaries and other socioeconomic factors also
create levels of anguish among today's educators.

Dodd (1975) further states that distrust and low credibility of
public and private institutions have made office holders suspect in
terms of competence and ethics. The school principal is not assumed by
students, teachers, parents, and other administrators to be automati-
cally qualified because of the office s/he holds. Competency must be
continually demonstrated.

Another factor in stress among administrators is living with the
idea of dismissal. According to McClellan, there are,at times good
reasons why a school head should be dismissed. The initial selection

process may not have come up with the right person for the particular

29

job. Or the head may find that a responsibility that had seemed enjoy-
able and feasible has turned out to be something quite different from
what was expected and well beyond his/her capabilities.

McClellan (1978) further states that most school heads have little
or no preparation, since there is no place one can go to learn how to
be a head, except on the job. It is interesting to note that the num-
ber of school heads who serve two or three schools has grown noticeably
in recent years. The school head who is chosen with care and thrives
on new responsibility might suddenly discover that things are going
wrong. Changing school heads is not like changing the manager of a
baseball team. Much more is involved on the part of all concerned.
Emotional damage, financial loss, and diminished creative energies all
follow from a change of head that takes place in the midst of a caco-
phony of dispute, disdain, and defensiveness.

For some, race has been considered a contributing factor in per-
ceptions of stress. Beverly Norman (1981) asserts that black people
who work in white organizations have to deal with the stresses that
everyone else has to deal with. They also have to cope with being
either directly or indirectly the target of institutionalized racism.
Stress concerns the continued self evaluation an individual feels con-
fronted with in situations where s/he is rendered powerless to change.
Competitive blacks have a heightened fear of failure. Failure is not
just the disappointing aspect to one's self, but to one's family and
friends. Failure fulfills the myth that blacks are lazy, incompetent,
and doomed to be unsuccessful in business endeavors. The potential
burnout candidate attempts to eradicate that myth through overachieve-

ment.

30

Bean and Wolfman (1980) discuss another factor associated with
stress. Sex appears to be a contributing factor in stress. Our soci-
ety continues to place a higher value on male roles than on female
roles. Black and white women in academic administration who wish to
reduce the inequities and succeed in a man's world are of the opinion
that one has to be better qualified, more articulate, and more aggres-
sive than men. Since advancement is slower, patience and stamina to
face the inevitable setbacks are required virtues. Black women have
felt from time to time that they must be better than white men and
women. Institutionalized barriers are known to overburden the black
career woman.

Opportunities for women are increasing, but Howard and Downey
(1980) believe that these increases are disturbingly slight, and women
still are grossly underrepresented in leadership positions. It is the
depressing scene of the prospects for the 19805, coupled with the econ-
omists' forecasts of slow economic growth and continued high inflation
that is giving rise to increased job burnout or "stuckness" for the
many women who are not promoted or who do not have a chance for change
or personal and professional opportunities.

Principals find themselves living in a time when studies such as
Bennett's (1977) with all of its methodological flaws are eagerly
sopped up by the media, parents, laypersons, and other educators. The
media views with alarm the drop in SAT scores during the last decade
and people shake their heads, acknowledging that, "Things have just
fallen apart, schools aren't what they used to be, kids aren't learn-

ing, and teachers aren't teaching." Vincent Rogers (1977) indicates

31

that principals who are sincere and concerned about students and their
achievement have difficulty facing adverse publicity.

Alley's (1980) perception of stress is that it is a unique factor
in that it affects people in a personal manner. An event which causes
great anguish for one person may be viewed as just another minor hap-
pening by another. One person may be very upset by certain types of
behavior while another may choose to ignore this behavior. In some
ways, all stress can be considered as personal. However, when viewed
from the perspective of the source of the stressors, four sources

should be considered: personal, interpersonal, institutional, and §p;

 

gjgtgl. In personal sources, human beings develop much of the stress
they endure by their own actions. Those stressors which stem from
within our own personalities can be said to be personal sources of
stress. Personal stress is that which we do to ourselves. Interper-

sonal stress involves others with whom we interact. Such interactions

 

can greatly exaggerate the impact of personal stress upon ourselves.
Institutional stress is very closely tied to interpersonal stress be-
cause institutions generally involve other people and are interpersonal
in a sense. Societal stress includes those stressors which society
contributes to our lives. Inflation, traffic, and smog are examples
of societally-based stressors. Societal stressors are often very real
in the lives of many educators.

School districts appear as yet to have done very little if any-
thing to alleviate principal stress. Upper level management are either
unaware of the frustration of middle management or they have forgotten
about it. Some top administrators even believe that conflict is a sign

of occupational health. With conflict comes stress. Middle management

32

is perhaps subject to a disproportionate share of stress producing
circumstances. Because of the nature of the job, the principal
operates in a potentially stressful situation at all times. Brown and
Carlton (1980) maintain that sources of distress for principals include
interpersonal clashes, heavy administrative responsibilities, time con-
straints, and role expectations.

As mentioned earlier, role ambiguity, which appears to be a stress
factor, may exist for principals becauseiritheir role-set relationships
they may not communicate effectively or may not always be clear in
defining their expectations. Swanda (1975) views today's organiza-
tional management system an an influential factor in role episode. For
instance, the management system determines the needed roles and then
implements the methods used to communicate them.

Swanda (1975) further states that the principal must be able to
differentiate the disparities of universalism versus particularism.

In making decisions, especially those affecting the individual students
or teachers, the principal must choose between two alternatives: (a)
whether to decide the case on its particular merits or (b) whether to
decide the case on some general policy. Often some compromise between
these two is possible, but they represent a potential strain since in
theory, this leads to different decisions. Teachers are probably the
most important group that affects the principal's behavior. Although
teachers are subordinate to the principal, they wield powerful sanc-
tions. The principal has a limited number of pressures to apply to
teachers. Teachers at the secondary level are specialists in subject
areas that may be unfamiliar to principals. Lacking control in tech-

nical matters, the principal's authority is weakened and circumscribed.

33

There may be risks involved with the principal's position that arises
out of his/her dealing with people who are directly concerned with what
takes place in school, but whose interests and perspectives differ.
When risks are maximized, the principal is less likely to undertake
them. However, if the risks are minimized, s/he is more apt to parti-
cipate.

According to Dreeban and Gross (1965), any principal who jeopar-
dizes his/her relationship with administrative superiors by failing to
adhere to system wide policies or expectations held by superordinates
may create hostile feelings. Chances for advancement, possibility of
censureship, and alienation from superiors who are in a position to
offer assistance and support could possibly result. Higher level ad-
ministrators form a group with whom the principal must deal and one
that exerts authority. Since both the administrator's support and for-
mal approval are vital to the principal, his/her expectations assume
critical importance for the principal. However, the principal does
have a degree of independence from administrative superiors due to the
physical and social isolation of the school. His/Her superordinates
are seldom present and actions are not immediately visible to them.

The reduced visibility may tend to decrease the balance of the adminis-
trator's expectations and give the principal room to maneuver.

The origin of all risks is not found in the central office. It
arises as well from teachers and members of the community. If the
principal's administrative superiors expect him/her to support innova-
tion, their backing represents a valuable resource for him/her in deal-
ing with teachers and parents. S/He can claim central officing backing

for programs, dealing with students, housekeeping and building

34

maintenance, maintaining external relations, dealing with teachers, and
reporting to higher administration. Students whose needs are varied
must receive immediate attention. Regardless of how busy one may be,
everything should come to a halt when problems among students arise.
Counseling and discipline techniques must be designed to meet specific
needs. The secondary principal is at an advantage in dealing with
students and their problems because s/he usually has assistants desig-
nated to deal with complex problems.

Summary of Literature on
Origins of Stress

 

This section dealt with the origins of stress for building princi-
pals. Currently, principals are faced with many responsibilities and
often lack the time or resources to carry out these responsibilities.
Because of the open ended nature of the job, principals may become
role prisoners. Meetings, dealing with conflict, answering or making
telephone calls, and opening and answering mail may prevent principals
from taking needed breaks during the school day.

Inadequate funding, complying with federal legislation, and deal-
ing with many other adversities tend to plague principals constantly.

Usually the school head is committed to human values and people
and, therefore, is unwilling to accept less than excellence. When
expectations are not met, the results may be personal suffering and job
ineffectiveness.

This section relates to the study in that it refers to the many
day-to-day occurrences in the lives of principals. The instrument used

in this study draws upon selected portions which are noted in the

35

literature as significant potential sources of stress as principals

carry out their professional functions.

Costs and Results of
Stress-Producing Factors

 

 

Review of Literature

Most of the stress experienced by principals is very different
from temporary stress which can be relieved by coping with specific
problems. Vanderpol (1981) seems to feel that when the signs of stress
are experienced over a long period of time, they need to be taken seri-
ously. The primary symptoms of stress are feelings of tension, an-
xiety, frustration, and isolation. Feelings of depression may take
the form of restlessness, boredom, or burnout. Doubts of one's ability
and adequacy can contribute to stress. Shorter temper, overeating,
overweight, and insomnia may be symptoms of stress. Physical symptoms
might also show up. Sometimes these symptoms are psychosomatic, but
other times they require extensive medical care as in back problems and
coronary heart diseases. Heart attacks and even cancer often begin in
times of severe and protracted stress.

Some of the costs of stress include employee lateness, absentee-
ism, poor decisions, terminations, dissensions in work groups, and
lowered worker morale. According to Manuso (1979), health care costs
and benefits are about one-third of salary and rising. Twenty-five
percent of all Americans are suffering severe emotional stress. One-
third to one-half of patients seeing doctors in general practice are
suffering from stress-related problems. Stressful careers appear to be
increasing in numbers and pose threats to the integrity of the organi-

zations in the long run.

36

Pelletier (l979) maintains that job stress is one of the most
universal and intense kinds of stress experienced. It affects nearly
everyone. Job stress can be defined as a lack of harmony between the
individual and his/her work environment. Such stress may derive from
any number of sources including supervision conflict, conflict with co-
workers, job dissatisfaction, responsibility overload, lack of support,
unclear job expectations, and time pressures.

If exposure to a stressor continues and the body is unable to
adapt, lowered resistence to illness ensues. Yates (1974) states that
specific bodily reactions occur to contain effects of stress. If ex-
posure to stress is prolonged, the body's defense mechanisms gradually
wear down until they become inadequate and one of the organs fails to
Operate properly. This deterioration process can lead to disease in
almost any part of the body. If these body reactions are insufficient,
excessive, or otherwise faulty, they themselves may cause diseases. We
call these diseases "diseases of adaptation" because they are caused
much more by deranged adaptive reactions of our body than by direct
damaging effects of disease-producing agents. Among the best known are
gastrointestinal ulcers, high blood pressure, cardiac ailments, acci-
dents, allergies and many types of mental derangements. Stress has
been identified as a cause of hypertension, although there is some
question about just how much of a factor it is in the origin of the
illness. There is no question about the unfavorable effects stress may
have on an existing hypertensive condition. When the body encounters
real or imagined stress, it responds instantly by increasing the blood
pressure in order to rush an oversupply of blood to vital parts of the

body.

37

Burgoyne (1972) describes stress as a fundamentally psychological
phenomenon with immediate and direct physiological manifestations, just
as physiological disturbance can be accompanied by an experience of
discomfort. The association between stress and pain is very close.

Stuart Klein (1971) defines stress as pressure and pressure as a
"psychological state" that exists when the individual perceives (a)
conflicting forces and incompatible demands made on him/her, (b) at
least one of these forces being induced, (c) the forces as being recur-
rent or stable over time, and (d) employees not being concerned with
objectively induced forces of productivity demands that are defined by
management.

According to Hans Selye (l976), stress cannot be appraised unless
there are biological changes in the system. Channing L. Bete and com-
pany (1972) characterize these changes as one's becoming temporarily
upset. There may be feelings of anxiety, depression, anger, frustra-
tion, appetite loss, and sleep disorders. Persons under stress tend to
lose perspective especially about their own capacity. Usually, when
these symptoms occur, the next thing is psychoneurosis or commonly
put, nervous breakdown.

Levinson (1979) contends that some psychological symptoms may be
a product of the aging process. A peak in the rite occurs between 30
and 40 and is attributable to the shock which follows the realization
that one is inevitably on a descending path. This produces what for
most is a transitory period of depression. Depression increases a

person's vulnerability to illnesses. There is much evidence to

38

indicate that physical illness is likely to occur more frequently and
more severely in pe0ple who feel depressed.

Vanderpol (1981) asserts that besides the external stress of new
social roles for the school and new theories of management, school ad-
ministrators must confront the realities of their own life stages.

As they reach middle age and begin to experience the loss of youth,
they ask themselves, "15 this all there is?";cn*after they achieve a
measure of professional success, they ask themselves, "Where do I go
from here?" This question is asked both by those climbing the adminis-
trative ladder and by those who have reached the top.

Mills (1982) maintains that an overload of stress, whether it
arrives in one big chunk or in a series of smaller ones, cannot be
borne for long without wear and tear. Illnesses of body or mind if
we are individually vulnerable may then result. Many researchers are
coming to believe that stress is the predisposing factor in a broad
spectrum of human ills. Stress consequences can be as commonplace as
tension headaches or obesity, as destructive as alcoholism or family
conflict, and as tragic as sudden death or suicide.

Gmelch (1978) believes that one of the major sources contributing
to twentieth century stress diseases is our future shocked society
where people experience too much change in too short a time, where home
is a place to live or a place to keep up with the Joneses, where tech-
nology feeds upon knowledge and knowledge expands at a phenomenal rate.
While change often brings prosperity, any event that changes one's life

pattern also creates stress.

39

Chronic stress is the major health problem facing managers in
organizations today. Cures have been found for infectious diseases
that historically wiped out entire civilizations. But now individuals
are becoming victimized by stress, according to Yates (1979).

The relationship betwen age and stress related illnesses could be
explained by the fact that as the executives get older, they may be
troubled by stressors other than those resulting from increased respon-
sibilities. For example, stress may be brought on, as Eaton (1969)
suggests, by (a) recognition that further advancement is unlikely, (b)
an increasing isolation and narrowing of interest, and (c) an awareness
of approaching retirement. Nevertheless, the finding by French and
Caplan (1973) indicates that responsibility for people was signifi-
cantly related to heavy smoking, diastolic blood pressure, and choles-
terol levels. The more the individual had responsibility for things
as opposed to people, the lower each were to experience these cardio-
vascular heart disease risk factors.

Middle age is viewed by Levinson (1970) as a stressor to some
administrators, because it brings about certain critical physical turn-
around processes. Physical symptoms such as extreme fatigue, indiges-
tion, and chest pains rise sharply around young executives in top
management group could be traced to an organic cause. These problems
possibly come about because of the manner in which people live and the
state of mind in which they work.

According to Norfolk (1977), no alarm bells ring to show when one
is suffering undue stress, but there are adequate warning signs.

People under stress generally become irritable and overreact to rela-

tively trivial frustrations. They also develop psychosomatic ailments

40

such as tension, headaches, indigestion, and colitis. The way we

react to stress depends on basic defense mechanisms which were acquired
in childhood to cope with anxiety. Freud describes the following
psychological defense mechanisms: avoidance, denial, repressions, pro-
jections, regression, and obsessive behavior. Each of these mechanisms
is employed in every day life and to a certain extent our personalities
are shaped by the defenses we habitually use.

Summary of Literature on
Costs and Results of Stress

 

 

This section dealt with costs and results of stress perceived by
building principals. Stress can be positive or negative. If negative
stress is allowed to surface for a long period of time, physical, and
mental manifestations of disabling cripplers could result. Stress
that is experienced over a prolonged time may gradually wear the de-
fense body mechanisms down. When this deterioration process occurs,
disease that has been lying dormant for long periods of time may affect
any parts of the body that are weak. Some diseases such as cancer,
hypertension, headaches, ulcers, colitis, heart troubles, psychoneuro-
sis, etc., have been associated with stress. If the present study can
usefully identify key potential sources of stress among Lansing prin-
cipals, development of effective ways of dealing with such sources may
save the district considerable loss in terms of both human and finan-

cial resources.

41

Role-Set Relationships:
Intra- and ExtraorganizationaTTReferents

 

 

Review of Literature

 

The role of the principal carries with it certain expectations for
the behavior and performance that are derived from many sources,
notably from what is known as the principal's reference groups. When
the principal acts and performs in an expected manner, the group's
expectations are being met. Conforming to expectations of others may
not be easy. The principal is designated as head of the instructional
unit,and his/her middle person role could possibly create tension and
conflict, especially if expectations have increased the level and in-
tensity of the job demands for him/her (Goldman, 1961).

According to Vetter (l976), stress from interpersonal relations
primarily results from conflict with other people both inside and out-
side the organization. For school administrators, these people include
parents, staff, students, community members, and superiors. Identifi-
cation of specific role-set relations formed a major basis for develop-
ing the instrument in the present study. (See Figure I and Appendth.)

Blood and Miller (1979) maintain that a great deal of dissatis-
faction with the role of the principalship is being expressed through-
out the country. This dissatisfaction is expressed by both the role
incumbents and others who interact in one way or another with the prin-
cipal. Parents are discontent with the current status of schools.
Concerns range from financial aid to discipline and vandalism to basic
unease that students are not acquiring the skills and knowledge neces-

sary for productive lives in society. Principals often find themselves

42

in the center of discontent. Many other factors have made it increas-
ingly difficult for principals to meet role expectations.

The nature of education and the type of relationships represent
other sources of stress in the administrator's life. Education pro-
vides a service which deals directly and intimately with people. Since
many of these relationships deal with youth who are their parents' most
important possessions, parents are naturally concerned with how schools
treat them. This leads to emotional situations as most parents, stu-
dents, and administrator relationships are created out of negative
situations. Legally children are required to attend school,and parents
have no other alternatives but to send them. Thus, the administrator is
confronted with a client who is not his/her choice (Gmelch, 1978).

The role of the principal can best be understood in terms of rela-
tionships to and involvement with intra- and extraorganizational refer-
ents. An intraorganizational referent can best be described as one who
is employed by the school district, such as teachers, administrators,
custodians, secretaries, or those who are direct recipients, as stu-
dents.

According to Vetter (1960), part of the principal's role is to
alleviate health problems among teachers by offering positive rein-
forcement, helping with curriculum decisions that are controversial,
acting as a buffer, aiding teachers in improving school-community re-
lations, adjusting class sizes, fostering more open communication among
staff members, providing adequate inservice training, authorizing pur-
chase of materials, and enforcing policies to keep sick children at

home until they are well.

43

Mental and physical problems cannot be separated. If teachers are
in a school with a principal who cares, works with children, cooperates
with faculty, and creates a supportive environment, they will most
likely be positively reinforced. On the other hand, a principal who
criticizes and never compliments, or who creeps around corners rather

than being open will create a lowering of morale. Physical and mental

manifestations of frustrations and stress will more than likely result
(Dallas, 1978).

One of the principal's primary responsibilities is to manage the
school's daily Operation. However, conditions for teachers' growth
should be considered because their roles have changed and expanded
over the years. Even under the best conditions, these tasks may be
very difficult. Addressing staff development challenges require that
selected findings on the school be given careful consideration in
staff develOpment planning regardless of the external pressures en-
countered. External pressures are unlikely to be dealt with construc-
tively unless staff is first secure in itself (Rogus & Martin, 1979).

Thatcher (1981) maintains that school principals are individuals,
and they react differently to life stressors. Some principals appear
to have the ability to handle all stressors without suffering any onset
of medical problems. Others appear not to have this immunity and, as
a result, have medical difficulties. Thatcher's study was designed
for the purpose of examining the moderating effect of the self actu-
alized personality on life stressors and the difference, if any, of
reported medical problems. Findings indicated that evidence of re-
ported medical problems from those who appeared in the stressor group

did not differ significantly from those in the lower group. Also,

44

principals exhibiting a high degree of self actualizing did not differ
significantly from their counterparts in the incidence of reported
medical problems. Finally, the interaction effect between life stres-
sor and self actualization was not found to be significant. Highly
self actualized principals from high level groups did not differ sig-
nificantly in the number who reported medical problems from those in
the high stress low self actualized group.

From information provided by Bettie Burres Youngs (1978) and burn-
out expert Leroy Spaniol, burnout is the feeling of being locked into
a job routine. Those people in the helping professions such as teach-
ers, counselors, social workers, etc., are suffering the most from
stress. Burnout can last for many years. Many principals have long
recognized the symptoms of burnout in veteran teachers, particularly
those with seven or more years of experience. Principals must now
deal with burnout daily.

A principal who is a strong leader recognizes needs and allows as
well as encourages many types of relationships to develop and grow.
Anxiety among teachers usually occurs from some interpersonal experi-
ences in the school setting (Reed, 1979).

Dodd (1965) obtained 490 cases of role conflicts from 320 princi-
pals with respect to sources of conflict. Principals indicated that
role relationships with those who held conflicting expectations for
their performances were teachers and parents (47%), teachers and other
sources (53%). Pressure from various groups dealt with the adminis-
tration, businesses in communities, parent groups, and teachers in the

school.

45

Gross and Mason (1958) maintain that crossing social system boun-
daries is a source of stress for some school principals. The school
itself may be considered as a bounded social system where interactions
occur between persons not belonging to the system such as parents.
Principals must regulate and deal with such cross systems boundaries
even though they might be confronted with conflicting expectations held
by the teachers and parents.

Goldman (1966) maintains that in the principal's extraorganiza-
tional group, there are four sub groups that have appreciable influence
on school matters: (a) the group that wants to change things, (b) the
group that opposes the school because of a belief that what the school
teaches conflicts with certain values which are held, (c) the group
that is apathetic and non-vocal and that often lends its support where
the pressure is greatest, and (d) the group that takes the leadership
in active support of the schools. Groups such as these include PTAs,
civic organizations, labor unions, etc. It appears that each of these
groups has its own particular needs, desires, expectations, and aspira-
tions which are expressed as opinions on what functions a school should
or should not perform. Figure I suggests what these arrays of intra-
and extraorganizational referents may embrace and is based on Goldman's
discussions referred to above.

Summary of Literature on
Role-Set Relationships

 

 

Principals interact with many role-set relationships during the
school day who have their own expectations about how they should per-
form on the job as well as behave. Those principals who fail to meet

role expectations may create problems for themselves.

46

INTRA- AND EXTRAORGANIZATIONAL REFERENTS

BOARD OF EDUCATION

SUPERINTENDENT

C‘
’L g,
+’ 0* é? ‘gb 3'
5 ‘61 :3 d9 M“’ T
S. 0 R Q, 5“ m
w 4b, ‘3 -. ‘°.§§ Q’s g
w_ z

pg €~fs /////fi \\\\ cgfifi ‘3
Ex 5 3
7; JUDGE: / X 19““ a"
\ DJ
E PTA f pamcmu 1 CLERICAL 2‘.
4..) ‘ O
S A 3
E as?“ 5 “ OM," R 2‘
° 93 (do S; 49 £59 3
2 QB Q ,1; 4)} “‘0"! g
V O m

u: 4? g, 1%

1} 4N3
4%?
I

Figure l. Role-set relationships between the principal and intra-
and extraorganizational referents.

This section relates to the study in that it refers to the many
groups of people that building principals are required to interact with
on the job.

Goldman (1966) has described role-set relationships as those per-
sons with whom the principal comes in contact, such as teachers, par-
ents, community people, central level staff people, support people,
and students.

The school is a bounded social system where interactions occur

between persons who belong and those who do not belong to the system.

47

Principals are the ones who have to regulate and deal with conflicting

episodes between teachers and parents.

Critical Task Items Performed
by the Principal

 

Review of Literature

The preceding discussions on role-set relationships, origins of
stress for principals, and costs related to persons under stress
pointed to how stress originates on a day-to-day basis, to varied
responsibilities that have contributing effects of stress on school
principals, and to the various groups of people that administrators
interact with on a regular basis.

In order to illustrate the scope of the principal's responsibil-
ity, a comprehensive list of critical task items has been developed
by the Southern States Cooperative Program (1955), hereafter referred
to as the "Peabody list." The major categories are:

1. Instruction and curriculum deve10pment
Staff personnel
Student personnel
School plant
School transportation

Community school leadership

~00:pr

Organization and structure
School finance and business management
This listing of critical tasks was also a major basis for the

development of the instrument used in this study.

48

Swent (1978) investigated occupational sources of stress among
school principals and found that listed among the very high stressors
for principals were:

1. Complying with federal, state, and organizational
rules

2. Attending meetings that took up too much time

3. Trying to complete reports and paper work on time

4. Resolving parent and school conflicts

The principal has the responsibility in aiding teachers in imple-
menting proper curriculum that will benefit all students from various
ethnic and cultural backgrounds. In order to fulfill this obligation,
a principal must be aware of the contemporary world. One who is not
will find it difficult,for instance, to convince teachers of the need
to include a global perspective in their instruction. A principal's
behavior serves as a model to staff and, according to Kranjewski (l979),
communications and concerns are exhibited through actions.

Expectations are thrust on the principal from all sectors, public
and private, in school and out. Kranjewski further states that each
group considers its demands more important than any other.

Brown and Carlton (1980) are under the assumption that, because of
the nature of the job, the principal operates in a potentially stress-
ful situation at all times. Sources of distress for principals include
interpersonal clashes, heavy administrative duties, time constraints,

and conflicting role expectations.

Summary of Literature on
Critical Task Items

 

 

This section addresses the critical tasks performed by the build-
ing principal. The principal must be concerned about many things, in-
cluding curriculum offerings to students which are global in nature and
represent a multi-ethnic society. As the instructional leader, the
principal is responsible for the well-being of students, teachers, and
other central staff personnel.

There are many areas that the principal does not have control over
but must be held accountable for, such as carrying out federal, state,
and organizational rules. Attending arrays of meetings at the district
level and resolving an assortment of conflicting situations between

role-set relationships can contribute to perceptions of stress.

Summary of Related Literature

Chapter II on related literature was divided into the following
areas: (a) the origin of stress associated with the required functions
that building principals are required to perform, (b) the costs and
results of stress as it relates to physical and mental disabling crip-
plers, (c) role-set relationships of the principal, and (d) critical
task performances.

There are many factors associated with the origins of stress.
Since stress is relatively personal in nature, persons may or may not
experience similar effects. The literature mentions that two of the
important factors that give rise to increased role pressure of princi-
pals are as follows: (a) in order to achieve effective results, one

has to increase the need among subordinates for co-ordinated efforts;

50

and (b) the attitudes that people adopt as they insist in knowing what
is going on in an organization.

Other factors cited as contributing to stress are role ambiguity,
role conflict, work overload, exhorbitant work demands, federal and
state legislation, race, age, publicity, and role-set relationships
such as parents, students, teachers, central district level personnel,
and others.

Severe illnesses may be the price one has to pay as a result of

being under undue stress. Mental disabling cripplers such as psycho-
neurosis and the loss of sleep can result. Our bodies are filled with
diseased cells. Once stress invades one's life, the weakest parts of
the body can become infected. Physical diseases such as cancer and
heart attacks could result.

Once seen as routine, people problems have now become a matter of
central significance. The principal has many persons with whom s/he is
required to interact. Goldman refers to role relationships as intra-
and extraorganizational referents. These referents can range from
angry parents to staff persons who wield powerful sanctions. Princi-
pals who lack the skills and techniques to deal with the uniqueness of
individual concerns could become very ineffective in implementing goals
and objectives of the organization.

There are certain required functions related to the job that prin-
cipals must be capable and willing to perform. These are referred to
in the literature as critical task items. They include the following:

1. Instruction and curriculum development

2. Staff personnel

3. Student personnel

51

School plant

School transportation
Community school leadership
Organization and structure

School finance and business management

«ammonia-14>

Complying with federal, state, and organiza-
tional rules

10. Attending meetings
11. Completing paper work on time
12. Resolving parent and school conflicts

Certain stressors are built into the organization. Because of
this, principals may operate under stress most of the time. However,
if techniques are developed to aid individuals in learning how to deal
with their stressful situations, it may be possible to limit many of
the effects associated with being under undue stress.

The following chapter will discuss the methods and procedures used
for this research. It will highlight mechanisms employed to involve
Lansing School District principals and assistants, as well as the pro-
cess used in determining what was vital for the development of the

"stress perception inventory."

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The primary purpose of this chapter is to describe the research
design of the study, including a description of the sample, identifi-
cation of independent and dependent variables, development of the in-
strument, collection of data, and procedures and treatment of the
analyses of data.

The sample for this study was selected from the Lansing School
District. Perceived levels of stress were measured by having partici-
pants indicate perceived frequencies of interaction and perceived
levels of frustration on dependent variables on the stress perception

inventory (see Appendix B).

Research Design

 

In this study consideration is given to the role stresses of
building principals and assistants in the Lansing School District. The
dependent variables of this study will be responses of the Lansing
School District principals and assistants to a questionnaire on (a)
perceived frequencies of interaction in performing critical job tasks
and in interacting with role-set relationships and (b) perceived levels_

of frustration associated with perceived frequencies of interaction in

 

performing critical job tasks and in interacting with role-set rela-

tionships. The following independent variables will be used to

52

53

determine which may be related to perceptions of stress: race, sex,

education, age, length of experience, and size of school.

Sample

The subjects for this study are administrators in the Lansing
School District who were employed as building principals and assistants
during the school year of 1981-82.

Elementary administrators are principals and assistants in charge
of K-4 building facilities, K/5-6 facilities, and K-6 facilities. One
assistant administrator has the responsibility of a special education
facility that houses kindergarten through grade 12 for the mentally and
severely physically impaired students. One administrator is respon—
sible for K-6 regular education and physically impaired students, and
one is responsible for the K-5 grade levels. The secondary administra-
tors are principals and/or assistants who have students in grades seven
through nine, grades six through nine, or grades 10 through 12.

Table I is a presentation of demographic information developed
from responses of principals and assistants in the Lansing School Dis-
trict on the "stress perception inventory."

In Table I, the demographic data have been presented to reflect
race, age, sex, experience, current positions of principals, size of
school, and educational level.

Twenty-six or 38.8% of the principals responding to the question-
naire listed their race as minority and 41 or 61.2% as majority.

Principals were asked to indicate their age category, and they
responded as follows: 19 or 28.3% were in the 31-41 age category, 32
or 47.8% were in the 42-52 age category, 16 or 23.9% were in the 53-63

Table 1.

Description of Demographic Data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent Total Number
Variables Respondents N % of Responses
Race Minority 26 38.8 67
Majority 41 61.2
Age 30 or under 0 O 67
31-41 years 19 28.3
42-52 years 32 47.8
53-63 years 16 23.9
Sex (gender) Female 25 37.3 67
Male 42 62.7
Years of Less than 2 7 13.0 53
experience 2-5 12 23.0
6-10 9 17.0
ll-15 11 21.0
16-25 13 25.0
26 or more l 1.0
Current Elementary 39 58.2 67
positions Asst. elem. 2 3.0
of Junior high 3 4.5
principals Jun. high asst. 11 16.4
Senior high 4 6.0
Sen. high asst. 8 11.9
Enrollment 100-499 39 59.2 66
as of the 500-999 3 4.5
fourth Friday 1000-1499 11 16.7
count (size 1500-1999 13 19.7
of school)
Educational M.A. degree 44 68.0 65
level M.S. degree 9 14.0
Ed.D. degree 1 2.0
Ph.D. degree 11 17.0

 

 

age category, and there were no responses for the over 63 years of age

category or the under 30 years of age category.

In the sex (gender) category, 25 or 37.3% were females, and 42 or

62.7% were males.

55

For the years of experience category, seven or 13.0% of the re-
spondents had been principals for less than 2 years, 12 or 23.0% for
2-5 years, nine or 17% for 6-10 years, 11 or 21.0% for 11-15 years, 13
or 25.0% for a period of 16-25 years, and one or 1.0% for 26 years or
more.

For the current positions of principals category, 39 or 58.2% of
the principals were elementary, two or 3.0% were assistant elementary
principals, three or 4.5% were junior high principals, four or 6.0%
were senior high principals, and eight or 11.9% were assistant senior
high principals.

To examine size of school as a possible stress factor, partici-
pants were asked to indicate the student population of their schools on
the fourth Friday (September, 1981). Thirty-nine or 59.1% had an
enrollment of 500-999, 11 or 16.7% from 1000-1499, and 13 or 19.7%
from 1500-1999.

To decide whether training might be a factor in perceptions of
stress, participants were asked to indicate their educational levels.
Forty-four or 68.0% had M.A. degrees, nine or 14.0% had M.S. degrees,
one or 2.0% had an Ed.D., and 11 or 17.0% had Ph.D. degrees.

Collection of Data

 

Seventy-seven building principals and assistants in the Lansing
School District were surveyed using the instrument in Appendix B.
Questionnaires were coded by odd and even numbers prior to being sent
out. Even numbered questionnaires were assigned to female principals,
and odd numbers were assigned to male principals. As questionnaires

were turned, they were recorded with their code numbers. This '

56

procedure allowed the researcher some indication as to who was not
responding to the questionnaire as well as returning them as had been
requested. '

For the purpose of expedience, data were collected by the use of
the school district's courier (mail service in the Lansing School
District). Each principal was sent a research packet containing a
cover letter (see Appendix A) and a three-part questionnaire (see Ap-
pendix B). Respondents were given a period of two weeks to return
questionnaires to the researcher at Vivian Riddle School. Since these
data were to be collected locally, it was felt that participants could
respond immediately. Many of the surveys were returned within a four
day period. Those participants who did not return questionnaires were
sent a reminder letter emphasizing the importance of their contribu-
tions (see Appendix C).

The Department of Evaluation Services was contacted for the pur-
pses of securing a programmer for the study. This programmer was re-
sponsible for suggesting a statistical procedure to apply to the parti-
cular data to be obtained for the study. After a return of 87% of the
questionnaires (N = 67), the data were analyzed.

Personnel in the Evalaution Services department recorded responses
from the questionnaires on a general recording data form to determine
whether participants had responded to all questions and to prepare for
computer runs. The recording form was returned to the researcher for
the purpose of checking responses from the questionnaires with the in-
formation that had been recorded on the general purpose data recording

form.

57

Development of the Instrument

 

Several phases preceded the development of the final instrument.
Leading to the creation of the instrument, several areas of concern
were identified. These areas were (a) role-set relationships common to
most building principals--relationships with persons with whom the job
requires day-to-day interaction such as parents, teachers, students,
administrators, salespeople, central district-level administrators, and
other school district employees. For this particular study, these
relationships have been labelled as intra- and extraorganizational
referents. Role-set relationships can be determining factors as to
whether one is successful and/or continues as a building principal.

(b) Critical task items common to most building principals are those
that are required of the position. Both role-set relationships and
critical job tasks may lead to perceived stressful situations at times.

As stated previously (see pp. 18-19), the role set relationships
and critical task items emanate out of social systems theory and
axiomatic organizational theory which are the theoretical frameworks

from which the items in this study are drawn.

A Likert-type scale was designed to elicit perceptions on a
variety of job performances. For the present study, items from the
Peabody Study of Critical Task Items for Building Administrators, the
Swent Study on Occupational Stress among Oregon School Administrators,
and Samuel Goldman's Concept of Intraorganizational and Extraorganiza-
tional Referents for School Principals were combined and organized into
a questionnaire. Principals were requested to indicate (a) their per-

ceived frequencies of interaction with role-set relationships and with

58

critical job functions and (b) their perceived levels of frustration
associated with these interactions.

To refine the instrument, four faculty members in the College of
Education at Michigan State University were consulted, as were five
members of the Lansing School superintendent's cabinet. These district
personnel were the directors of personnel, elementary education, middle
and secondary education; the deputy superintendent; and the curriculum
director. These five individuals critiqued and evaluated the proposed
instrument for content, readability, and validity. The reviewers made
useful suggestions which were incorporated into the final design (see
Appendix B). The decision to use these reviewers was based on the
recommendation that a first draft of a questionnaire should be sub-
mitted to competent persons. According to Englehart (1972), these per-
sons should be a field related to the content of the study.

Mehrens and Lehmann (1969) state that tests used to assist in
making decisions about individuals should have a reliability level of
at least .85. For group decisions, a reliability level of about .65 is
sufficient.

The Gutman Split Half Method was used to test the data for relia-
bility. A reliability analysis was done under "frequency of interac-
tion" items. Levels ranged from .78353 to .87717. Items under "levels
of frustration" were also considered as reliable. Levels ranged from

.84374 to .93314.

Procedure for the Analysis of Data

 

Data gathered by the questionnaire in Appendix B were explored

through the use of four point ordinal scales on which respondents were

59

asked to indicate their perceptions of frequencies of interaction along

with levels of frustration, with respect to both "critical task items"

and "role-set relationships." A range of “very rarely" to "very fre-

quently" was used to measure frequencies of interactions. A range of

of "very low" to "very high" was used to measure the levels of frus-

tration associated with role-set relationships and critical job func-

 

 

tions.

Dependent Frequencies of Levels of
Variable Interaction Frustration
Critical "very frequently” "very high"
task items to "very rarely" to "very low'I
Role-set "very frequently" "very high"
relation- to "very rarely" to "very low"
ships

Dependent Variables

 

The generalized dependent variable of critical task items was

broken into several specific dependent variables as follows:

1.

toooxiow

Carrying out federal guidelines and dealing with
governmental restrictions

Planning and administering the school budget
Dealing with busing problems

Participating in the organization and structure
of the school district

Dealing with and overcoming the inadequacies of
the school facility

Reporting pupil absences
Establishing and maintaining community relations
Negotiating and administering contracts with staff

Performing public relations

10.
11.

12.
13.
14.

60

Establishing and maintaining discipline

Promoting student achievement and reducing student
dropout rates

Dealing with crime and vandalism
Coping with parents' lack of interest of opposition

Supervising instruction practice and developing
curricular programs

The generalized dependent variable of role-set relationships was

broken into specific dependent variables as follows:

A.

Interactions with district staff

15. Superintendent of schools

16. Assistant superintendent of schools

17. Directors of elementary and secondary schools
18. Associate quadrant directors

19. Special education services

20. Physical plant and maintenance personnel
21. Office of fringe benefit personnel

22. Special services personnel

23. Adult education personnel

24. Evaluation services personnel

25. Data processing personnel

26. Pupil personnel services

27. Personnel services personnel
Interactions with building faculty and staff
28. New teachers

29. Tenured teachers

30. Support personnel (counselors, teachers, con-
sultants, speech therapists, etc.)

61

31. Instructional aides

32. Secretaries

33. Lunchroom personnel

34. Building custodians

Interactions with student services

35. Disruptive students

36. Abused and neglected students

37. Academically talented students

38. Low achievers

39. Student organizations

40. Physically disadvantaged students

41. Socio-economic disadvantaged students
42. Socio-economic advantaged students.
Interactions with parents and constituents
43. Individual angry parents

44. Individual parents who are supportive
45. Organized parent groups

46. Organized community groups
Interactions with representatives of non-school agencies
47. Court judges

48. Juvenile authorities

49. Police department

50. Salespeople

62

Independent Variables

 

The following independent variables isolated in the hypotheses

were grouped:
training.

Age:

Experience:

Education
and
Training:

Size of
School:

Treatment of Data

 

age, experience, size of school, and education and

Principals who indicated that they were 41
years of age or younger were placed in Group
I as younger principals. Principals who
indicated that they were 42 years of age or
older were placed in Group II as older prin-
cipals.

Principals who indicated that they had been
on the job for 10 or fewer years were placed
in Group I and were considered as having
less experience. Principals who indicated
that they had been on the job for 11 or more
years were placed in Group II and were con-
sidered as having more years of experience.

Principals who indicated that they had re-
ceived either the M.A. or M.S. degree were
placed in Group I and considered as having
less training and education. Principals who
indicated that they had either the Ed.D. or
Ph.D. degree were placed in Group II and
considered as having more training and educa-
tion.

Principals who indicated that they were
assigned to schools with student enrollment
of 100-999 were assigned to Group I and

were considered as being principals assigned
to smaller sized schools. Principals who
indicated that they were assigned to schools
with student populations ranging from 1000-
1999 were assigned to Group II and were con-
sidered as principals in larger sized schools.

The t-test was used for the purpose of determining whether signif-

icant differences occurred between the means of the independent vari-

able groups (a) in response to critical task items and (b) in response

63

to the five subsets of role-set relationships (identified above). The

hypotheses tested were:

1.

There is no significant difference between minority
and majority principals in perceptions of stress.

There is no significant difference in the perceptions
of stress between male and female principals.

There is no significant difference in the perceptions
of stress among principals who have received more
training and education in administration and those who
are less experienced.

There is no significant difference in the perception
of stress between older and younger principals.

There is no significant difference in the perceptions
of stress among principals who are more experienced on
the job than those who are less experienced.

There is no significant difference between principals
at smaller schools and principals at larger schools in
perceptions of stress.

Summary of Significant Differences

 

The following significant differences occurred when the t-test was

applied:
1.
2.

Race and frequencies of interactions with student services

Race and frequencies of interactions with parents and
constituents

Sex and frequencies of interactions with student services

Size of school and frequencies of interactions with
school district staff, with student services, with
parents and constituents, and with representatives of
non-school agencies

When significant differences occurred using the t-test, the chi

square test was applied to further determine where among the specific

variables (1-14 under critical task items and 15-50 under role-set

64

relationships) specific differences occurred. The results were as

follows:

1.

10.

11.

12.

Minority principals perceived that they frequently
interacted more with physically disadvantaged students
than their majority counterparts.

Minority principals perceived that they frequently
interacted more with angry parents than their majority
counterparts.

Female principals perceived that they interacted more
frequently with physically abused and neglected stu-
dents than male principals.

Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they
interacted more frequently with the superintendent of
schools than principals in smaller sized schools.

Principals in smaller sized schools perceived that they
interacted more with the associate quadrant directors
than principals in larger sized schools.

Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they
interacted more with fringe benefit personnel than
principals iri smaller sized schools.

Principals in smaller sized schools perceived that they
interacted more with special services personnel than
principals in larger sized schools.

Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they
interacted more with adult education personnel than
principals in smaller sized schools.

Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they
interacted more with data processing personnel than
principals in smaller sized schools.

Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they
interacted more with pupil personnel than principals
in smaller sized schools.

Principals in smaller sized schools perceived that they
interacted more with disruptive students than principals
in larger sized schools.

Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they
interacted more with organized student groups than prin-
cipals in smaller sized schools.

p!‘

DO

13. Principals in smaller sized schools perceived that they
interacted more with angry parents than principals in
larger sized schools.

14. Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they
interacted more with court judges than principals in
smaller sized schools.

15. Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they
interacted more with juvenile authorities than princi-
pals in smaller sized schools.

16. Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they

interacted more with the police department than princi-
pals in smaller sized schools.

It is interesting to note that all of the significant differences
found were related to frequency of interaction. In no case were the
comparisons of mean scores for independent variable groupings found to

be significantly different on level of frustration.

Rankings of Perceptions

 

The data were further examined to determine which of the 50 spe-
cific dependent variables were ranked by the Lansing principals as ones
they perceived to be the highest and lowest sources of frustration.
These data are tabulated in Appendices D and E. Critical task items
which were ranked in the top seven on both lists are asterisked.

Lansing principals and assistants ranked their perceptions of
frequencies of interaction in the following order for the critical task
items:

* 1. Establishing and maintaining discipline

2. Establishing and maintaining community relations
3. Performing public relations
* 4. Promoting student achievement

5. Supervising instructional practices and developing
programs

* 6.
* 7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

12.
13.

14.

66

Coping with parents' lack of interest
Carrying out federal and state guidelines
Planning and administering the school budget
Dealing with busing problems

Reporting pupil absences

Dealing with and overcoming the inadequacies of the
school

Dealing with crime and vandalism

Participating in the organization and structure of
the school district

Negotiating and administering contracts with
staffs

Lansing principals and assistants ranked their perceptions of the

frustration levels with the critical task items in the following order:

*1.
*2.
*3.
*4.

11.
12.
13.

14.

OOWVO‘

Carrying out federal and state guidelines

Coping with parents' lack of interest

Promoting student achievement

Establishing and maintaining discipline
Establishing and maintaining community relations
Dealing with crime and vandalism

Overcoming the inadequacies of the school facility
Performing public relations

Planning and administering the school budget

Supervising instructional practices and developing
programs

Reporting pupil absences
Dealing with busing problems

Participating in the organization and structure
of the school district

Negotiating and administering contracts with staffs

67

Critical task items which were ranked in the top seven on both
lists are as follows:
--carrying out federal and state guidelines
--coping with parents' lack of interest
--promoting student achievement
--establishing and maintaining discipline
Lansing principals and assistants ranked as the ten highest fre-
quencies of interaction and frustration among role-set relationships
as follows. Items which appear on both lists are asterisked.
The highest frequency of interaction items were:
1. Interactions with secretaries
2 Interactions with lunchroom personnel
* 3. Interactions with tenured teachers
4 Interactions with building custodians
* 5. Interactions with disruptive students

* 6. Interactions with socio-economically disadvantaged
students

* 7. Interactions with support personnel
* 8. Interactions with lower achievers
9. Interactions with instructional aides
lO. Interactions with individual parents who are supportive
They ranked the following ten items as the most frustrating among
role-set relationships:
* 1. Interactions with disruptive students
2. Interactions with abused and neglected students

* 3. Interactions with socio-economically disadvantaged
students

* 4. Interactions with lower achievers

68

5. Interactions with salespeople

6. Interactions with physical plant and maintenance
personnel

7. Interactions with with evaluation and services
personnel

* 8. Interactions with tenured teachers

* 9. Interactions with building custodians

*lO. Interactions with support personnel

Six items among the role-set relationships are asterisked as ap-
pearing on both these two high-ranking lists. They are interactions
with:

--disruptive students

--socio-economically disadvantaged students

--lower achievers

--tenured teachers

--building custodians

--support personnel

Summary of Chapter

 

Chapter III has described the data gathering and processing pro-
cedures used in this study and has listed the (a) significant differ-
ences found among independent variables, (b) rankings of items by the
Lansing principals and assistants, and (c) items of overlap among the
lists of highest rankings for both frequency and frustration.

Chapter IV will report the specific data analyses which resulted

from this study.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSES OF DATA

In this chapter are results of empirical and statistical analyses
of the study. The tables will present the following: (a) use of the
t-test to identify which of the independent variables stated in the
hypotheses are significant factors in perceptions of frequencies of
interaction and levels of frustration, (b) use of chi square statis-
tics to determine which of the specific dependent variables produced
the significant t-test differences, (c) presentation and analyses of
the high and low frequencies of interaction and levels of frustration
areas for role relationship items, and (d) presentation and analyses
of high and low frequencies of interaction levels and levels of frus-
tration for the critical task items.

The null form of each hypothesis is stated individually, followed

by relevant data.

Hypothesis I

 

H : There is no significant difference between minority
and majority principals in perceptions of job related
stress.

Subhypothesis A: There is no significant difference be-
tween minority and majority principals
in perceptions of frequencies of inter-
action and levels of frustration at-
tributed to the critical task items on
the stress measurement test.

Subhypothesis B: There is no significant difference be-
tween minority and majority principals

69

70

in perceptions of frequencies of inter-
action and levels of frustration at-
tributed to the role-set relationship
items on the stress measurement test.

Table 2 presents data on race and perceptions of frequencies of
interaction and levels of frustration. Twenty-six or 38.8% of the
participants were minority principals, and 41 or 61.2% were majority
principals. A total of 67 participants responded.

The t-test was used to determine the significance of differences

in mean scores. High mean scores are an indication of low perceived

 

frequencies of interaction and low levels of frustration. Low mean

 

scores indicated are perceived high frequencies of interaction and

 

perceived high levels of frustration.

 

In Table 2, a significant difference was found between the mean
score (2.3673) for majority principals and the mean score (2.0886) for
minority principals below the .05 level of confidence for "student
services" (asterisked in the right-hand column of Table 2). Minority
principals perceived that they interacted more frequently with student
services than their majority counterparts. They also perceived that
they interacted more frequently with "parents and constituents" (also
asterisked in the right-hand column).

Table 2-A has been developed to show which area under "student
services" produced the significant difference between the mean scores
fbund in Table 2 for student services. The table shows that it was
"interactions with physically disadvantaged students" which produced
a difference below the .05 level of significance.

It is not clear why minority principals perceived that they inter-
act more with physically disadvantaged students than their majority

counterparts. It might be supposed that minority principals perceived

.comuomgmu:_ we zucmacmc» cu Humammc ;u_3 =mucm=u
upumcou new mucmcma= new =mm0w>cmm acmcaumz :_ venom Ame. Pm>op mucovmwcouv mmocmcmmumu accumwwcmwme

71

 

.ummh-» oculwcmma comumcungd mo m_m>m4 new :omuumcmucH do mmwucmaamcd we mcomuauuema ecu mama

Nomo.o N~._e .e su.coh~z
omo.o mmmm.o em.mm om aumeoc.z mam»~ a~=mzo~hqswm
hum-msom s<e¢c do mweoum z<wz
_mme.o- N~._o .e Au_eowez
eom.o oe.e.o- em.wm em >uweo=_z mzmp_ xmep s<hoh do mmmoum z<mz
mm_~.m em._o _e »u_eowez
_Fm.o meom.m em.mm em eBPLocuz =o_3meumaec co pm>os
oom_.m &~._o _e mu.cohez
me~.o ooeF.m em.mm 0N seweoe_z =o_uuaem3:w co mm_u=m=aeeu
mm_uzme< soozum
-zoz do mu>~p<hzmmuxam¢ .m
meeo.m e~._o .e »3_20uez
moe.o emo_.m em.mm om xewtoewz =o_uaeumaec to _m>on
“mmm.~ N~._o _e xa.eohez
.moo.o emma.P em.wm om >3.eoevz co_uumemec_ co suemzaeed
mkzw=h_»mzou oz< mpzua<a .a
emwm.~ N~._e .e saweoflmz
Nem.o _ooo.~ am.mm om sumeoe_z copueeumaec co _m>ms
meom.~ N~._e _e seweohez
.Neo.o memo.~ Na.mm em xu.eo=.z =o_uumemu=_ co auemsameu
mmu~>mmm hzmoapm .u
oowo.m NN._G Fe xu.eonaz
mem.o .ooo.m mm.mm om au.eoe_z =o_uaeum=ee co _m>on
_c-.F em._e _e »3_Lohez
mo~.o Neoc._ em.mm em »3_eo=wz =o_uu~emu=_ co sueosomed
aa<hm oz< >hs=u<d uz~os_=m .m
o~m_.m e~._o .e »e_eohaz
mme.o «om—.m em.wm em seweoe_z cementumsec co Fm>ms
mmoN.N pm._m .e xu.cowez
mem.o eo-.~ em.mm cm xuwcocwz =o_uoeemu=_ co zueoaomea
aaqcm cuumhmmo soozom .<
ma_xmzo~hqswm Pmm-mnom do mzo_»amumma
“meo.~ &N.Fo .e »B_eonaz
mm~.o mmmm.~ Nw.mm mm »3_co=wz cementumaee ea _m>ms
mo_~.m e~._o .e x3.20eez
~m~.o mm~_.m em.mm om saweo=Pz =o_uuaemce_ co zuemsamea
mzmh_ gm<h s<u~p~au do mzo_hawumma
su._.aaooea _.a3-~ m 2 co N 2 mega upsemee>

.N epam»

.mucousum vomau=o>vamwc >__ou.mxga nu.) «copuuocouc. c. ucaou Ame. _~>o_ wucou.ucou~ moucogouw_oc

 

 

 

 

mucouaum

N.Nw .c o o o.o a e.o— _— a.NN o_ a.__ m x~.gonuz tom-aco>uo

u.no=ouo-o.uom

mooo.o eNNn.o o.mm oN o o m.— p o.a o e.o— N o.N— N— a~.ac:.: gu_: u:.uu~s~u=_

mucucaum

N.pc .e «.m_ n. o.n N o.o e w.Nm NN e.m_ m— Na.s¢nu: vomauco>vam.v

-m_u u.ao=ouo-o_uom

moo—.o o_o_.m o.wm oN ¢.NN m— o o o.m N c.n— o e.NN m. zu.co=_: ga.3 u:.auoguu=~

mucucaum

N._o No o.n N m.NN @- m.oN c— m.N m o.o e au_gono: tumouca>uo

-m.v x—Noupmxga

NaNo.oc oNom.c_ m.mm oN m.. — m.N m c.o o o._— a m.__ m »u_go=.z guN: oc.uu~cou=_

N._o .e m.c m ¢.NN m— m._— m e.m_ m o.m o Au.gonax aco.u-_coaco

acouaum

w_mm.o Noam.o «.mm oN m.— N e.n— a c.m o m.N m m.N m muNLoc_x gu.z oc.uuacou=.
m._c _e o o o o c.c— N m.mm «N m.e_ o— Napsonax

mgo>a.guu so.

m¢_N.o m—om.m N.mm oN o.n N m._ N o.o e v.o— N. ¢.—N m a»_go=_: =u_3 m:.uuogou=_

N._o Ne c.m N o.o o ¢.o— —— o.mN N— m.N m Nu.gcna: mucuuaum vouco_uh

x_—ou_euuou<

mvoN.o cmNo._ m.mm oN m._ _ o.o e o.o_ N a... m o.m o Nupcoe.: guvx a:_uu~cuu=~

N._o Ne o.m N o.pp w «.mN N— a.o_ o. o.o c Nu_gonax mueovaum

nausea a__au.mxzn

m.¢o.c mm_m.N m.mm oN o o o.m c a... m a.p— a o.o e »»_go:_x gu_3 mcpuuacuu=_
N._o N. o o o o e.o— N «.mN Np «.mN N. Nu.sonox

mucuoaum o>_ua:sm_o

NN¢_.c nmNo.m m.on 0N o o o o m.. N «.m— m o.mN o— su_co=—: gu.3 «co—uuagouc_

._o>oa oguaam a omccamum a omcoamua N apocog a »_u=a:cogmcu a xpucoaoogm n apueusaogu u—ao.go> o.ao.s.>
852:8; :3 .33 .38 oz to, a :2, 28:83.:

No":
moup>eom acmuzum mcos< mac—uuugouc~ No moNucoacogN ou>puugua can mung .<-N uam¢p

73

these frequencies of interaction for any of several reasons: (a) any
handicap, whether physical or socio-economic, may be perceived by
society as indicating that one is less qualified to perform as a pro-
ductive citizen; (b) the minority principals might see the physically
handicapped person as having to experience problems similar to racism,
sexism, etc.; and (c) minority principals may be assigned to schools
where more physically handicapped students are, in fact, enrolled.
Further research is needed to ascertain the basis for this finding.

Table 2-B has been developed to indicate which area under "par-
ents and constituents" produced a significant difference between the
mean score (2.3537) for majority principals and the mean score (1.9584)
for minority principals.

It is not clear as to why minority principals perceived that they
interact more frequently with angry parents than majority principals.
Perhaps it may be that minority principals come in contact with more
hostile parents than their majority counterparts, or minority princi-
pals could be perceiving that parents are feeling that they are not
qualified to perform the duties expected of principals. Some minority
principals have indicated that they felt that majority parents ap-
proach them differently than they approach majority principals during
conferences and other school activities. Or it could be that angry
parents may identify more with minority principals. Also angry par-
ents could feel that minority principals are more accessible. In any

case, further research is needed.

74

.mucugua Nuaca cu.) acpuuogou=_ a. vase» Ana. —o>o_ oucuu.u=ou. moucvsuNNNa.

 

 

N..@ .v o o o.p— a m.aN oN v.u— Np o.n N Na—sonuz museum

vo~_:ougo segue

58... SB.» «.8 0N m; _ 3” N Z: N to. : 3 m 373...: 5... 9.39235

N. s S c c c a 3. N. n. S .N a. : a 5:2,... 32:,

acosoa vu~.=uuso

nmmN.o mamm.N N.mm oN o o a o m.e m «.mN N— o.o o Nu.5o=.: guvz nevuuogou:_

N.—o Ne o o o o e.o— N n.Nm mN ¢.n_ a Na_gon.: “wedge;

. u>—ucoaq:m

ommo.c «mmm.o o.mm 0N c.n N c c o.n N o.N_ N. a... o— Ad'socvz ga.x ucpuuagou:_
N._o .e c o ¢.v n o.mN oN m.oN v. c.e v xu.gonux

mucogoa mung.

ecpno.o ¢¢oN.o «.mm oN o o c.m N m.N m m.o— op e.n— a Nu—gocpx 3a.: uc—uuaguu=_

—u>oa ugaacm a «accumua a oncoamoa a a—ugox a »_a:a:cogu=_ a apucoaaogu a apucoacocu «pan—go> span—gs»
oucau.u.co.m . .gu —uuoh page» oz ago’ wwwmmmmmm New» acoecoauucn

 

 

Nan:
.mucoauvumcou ecu mucacaa acaa< copuuuuouc_ Na mmNucuaaogu uu>—uugog ego ouax .muN u4m<h

75

Hypothesis II

 

H : There is no significant difference in the perception of
stress between male and female principals.

Subhypothesis A: There is no significant difference be-
tween male and female principals in
perceptions of frequencies of inter-
action and levels of frustration at-
tributed to the critical task items on
the stress measurement test.

Subhypothesis B: There is no significant difference be-
tween male and female principals in
perceptions of frequencies of inter-
action and levels of frustration at-
tributed to the role-set relationship
items on the stress measurement test.

Table 3 is a presentation of data On the frequency of interaction
and level of frustration for Lansing School District principals and as-
sistants broken down by the independent variable "sexJ' The table shows
that 25 or 37.3% of the total population are female principals and 42
or 62.7% are male principals. The t—test was used to test the signifi-
cances of differences.

In relating sex to perceptions of frequencies of interaction among
student services, the mean score (2.3740) for male principals was sig-
nificantly higher than the mean score (2.0662) for female principals.
The mean score for the female group was lower, which means that they
perceived their frequencies of interaction to be higher with student
services than their male principal counterparts.

Table 3-A presents the results of the chi square test for student
services and the independent variable sex. Female principals perceived
that they interact more frequently with physically abused students than

their male counterparts.

76

.copuumgmacv we
aucmaamc» o» «omammg guy: =mmup>gmm ucwvaum= :_ vase» Ame. Nm>op oucmupmcouv mmucmemwmpv acmupwvcmvma

 

mmNo.o RN.~o Ne mw—mz mam»—
omm.o NaeN.o mm.Nm mN mw—memu a—zmzo_p<4um a<h0h no mucoum z<mz
omom.o- NN.Nm Nv mm—mz
oom.o ava.cu Rm.Nm mN mm—mewm wruh~ xm<h 4<ho» «cm muxcum z<mz
MN—m.m NN.N@ we mm—mz
Nmo.o memo.m am.Nm mN mm—msmm cowumgumagm mo —o>mq
emmw.m RN.No Ne mm—mz
mNN.o memo.m um.Nm mN mmpaemg ccmuumgoacw we Aucwscwgu
mu—uzmw< .
Jocxumnzoz me mw>~h<hzmmu¢am¢ .u
Nmo—.m NN.No Ne mw—uz
mNm.o vamp.m um.Nm mm mm—osmu covuasumagu we —w>w4
NmNN.N RN.N0 Ne mw—oz
owm.o emm—.~ “m.Nm mN mwpusou :o*uuug~u:+ we xucoaaugu
mhzm=h_hmzou =z< mhzmx<a .n
NNmm.~ RN.Nm Ne mm_mz
wmv.o omcm.N am.Nn mu mupoewu :omuusungu mo pu>m4
oan.N wN.Nc Ne mm—m:
«mwo.o Nmmo.~ mm.Nm mN mw—msmm cowuumgmucw No xucwsamgu
mmu_>¢um hzuozhm .u
meo.m RN.Nm Ne mops:
mmm.o NaNc.m um.Nm mN mm—memu :cpucsumagm mo —u>u4
maON.— NN.N© Ne mmpm:
Noc.o mm~m.— um.Nm mm mm—osmu copuuagmucv we Aucoacwgm
mu<hm oz< >h4=u<u wz~oa_=m .m
caN—.m NN.N@ Ne mm—mz
Nam.o m—N—.m mm.Nm mN mm—mEmu ccvuogumsgm so —m>oa
ommN.~ RN.No Nv mm—mz
ppm.o m—mw.N um.Nm mN mm—msog covuumgmucv we xucmaomgu
um<hm hu_¢hm~a doozum .<
ma_zmzo~h<4um humimaom no m2¢~h¢uuzua
NNNN.N «N.No Ne mw—uz
NON.o mmm¢.~ . um.Nm mm mo—mswm cowuugumagm mo po>ma
mm—N.N NN.No Ne mm—mz .
Nme.o mwpm.N um.Nm mN mw—oemg copuuagmucv No hucoacogu
I. .. .11: mzmh_ xm<h _nu_h_mu no mac—humumma
zu——Nawnoga meuam x zimo N z xmm w—mnwgc>

 

.NNeuzv amou-N
mzu mcpma :ovuugumagu No m_o>m4 ecu copuuogauc_ No mm_u:m:ougu No meoNumnugoa as» use xmm .m open»

77

.mucweaum nausea N..ou.maga ea.) meo.uuagou:. =. case» Ame.

.o>o. oucuv.N:ouv muucagouu.oa

 

 

 

mmmzoammx

 

nucoeaun

N.No Ne o.N. N. m.N m a.N. N. e.o. n. o.N. N. mu.ax vomouca>ua

u.locooouo.uom

aNNN.o mN.... n.Nn mN a... o o.n N m.N m o.¢. o. a... a mo.aanu su.r ac.»u~souc.

mucoeaum

mu.a: vuuau=a>ea

2.8.88.3qu

vcmN.o oomo.v n.Nn «N o o o o c.n N v.n. a o.oN c. mo.auom su.3 ac.auagouc.

o o.n N

mucuvaum

N.No Ne o o a.oN v. m.o~ v. a... a 0.9 o no..z umo~ac~>uom.c

A..ou.mxgn

moo..o mNoN.N n.Nn mN m.o m ¢.o. N o.o v m.N m c.a o mo.a§um au.3 ac.uoaeoa:.

N.No No m.. . a.ON o. o.N. N. v.n. o o.o o mo.u: nee.»

--.:omso acuuaun

.oo..o .oN..m n.Nn mN m.c n a... c. o.» N m.N m m.N m mo.glou su.: u:.uuacou=.
N.No No o.n N m.. . a... m «.mn eN «.0. N no..:

uso>o.gua so.

omN..o .om..N n.Nn mN o o c o m.v n e.o. .. v.9. .. mo.usou ga.x 5:.uuocoue.

o

N.No Ne o.n N ¢.o. N «.m. n. m.oN c. o.a m mo.-: mucoeaum vouco.au

A..ou.naoau~

onmN.o NNmnN.. n.Nn mN m.. . m.c n m.N m ¢.o. .. m.N m mo.unuu s».: ac.»uagouc.

N.No Ne o o ¢.o. .. m.oN a. e.m. m o.m N no..z mucouaum

woman. a..~u.m»gn

nmvo.oc ooNN.m n.Nm mN o o m.e n ¢.o. N ¢.n. a o.o c mu.asuu gu—x u:.uuagouc.
N.No Ne o o o o ¢.o. N m.oN v. n..n .N mu.a:

mucovzum o>.ua:gm.v

oeNN.o NNma.N n.Nn mN o o c o m.. . m.N. N. o.N. N. mo.alum =u.3 u:.uuacua:.

.o>o4 ogoacm a onconmuz a omeoamua a ».ueo¢ a ».u:o:caeuc. n a.»:o:aogu a ».uco:aogu o.aa.ga> o.ao.ca>
oucau.u.=u.m .gu .ouo. .auo» oz Nun: ago> acoecoaouc.

mou.>com acovaum gu.3 co.uuucu»=. mo mo.u:o:oogu No meo.unougaa can now .<-n mam<.

73

It is unknown why female principals perceived that they interact
more frequently with physically abused students than male principals.
These data might mean that female principals are more sensitive to the
needs of these sorts of students. Female principals might be more
observant of students in their appearances and more quickly recognize

when behavior patterns or appearances change.

Hypothesis III

 

Ho: There is no significant difference in the perceptions

of stress among principals who have received more edu-
cation and training in administration and those who
have received less.

Subhypothesis A: There is no significant difference be-
tween principals who have received more
training and education in administration
than those who have received less train-
ing and education in administration in
perceptions of frequencies of interac-
tion and levels of frustration attri-
buted to the critical task items on the
stress measurement test.

Subhypothesis 8: There is no significant difference be-
tween principals who have received more
training and education in administration
and those who have received less train-
ing and education in administration in
perceptions of frequencies of interac-
tion and levels of frustration attri-
buted to the role-set relationship
items on the stress measurement test.

Table 4 shows comparisons of means for training and education of
principals and assistants in the Lansing School District. Group I re-
presents those principals who indicated that they had received an Ed.D.
or Ph.D. degree and Group 11 those principals who indicated that they
had received the M.A. or M.S. degree. A total of 67 responded. The
t-test was used to determine the significance of differences in the

mean SCOT‘ES.

79

 

m.oo.o o.NN mm .. m2...
.m..o oeNN.o o.N. N. . N.=mzo..<4NN .<.o. No. mNNoum z<Nz
amoe.o- o.NN mm ..
com.o .mom.o- o.N. N. . mzN.. xm<. .<.c. No. mNNoum z<Ns
mace.o- c.NN mm ..
vom.o Noam.c- o.N. N. . =o..eg.m=ee No .o>m.
..N..N o.NN mm ..
mma.o NNN..N N.N. N. . =c..u~eu.=. No Nucoaamea
mN.uzNu<
Nooxum-zoz No mN>..<.2NmNNaNN .N
NNNo.N o.NN mm ..
.NN.o NNNN.N o.N. N. . =o..oe.maec Ne .o>o.
oNN..N o.NN mm .. .
m.N.o NN.N.N o.N. N. . co..u~em.=. No Nueoaamea
m.zN=...mzou az< m.zNN<N .o
NNoN.N c.NN mm .. .
NNN.o NNNN.N o.N. . N. . =c..oe.m=e. .9 .m>~.
mNNN.N o.NN mm ..
.NN.o mNN..N c.N. N. . co..ueeo.e. No Nueuaaega
mNu.>NNm .zNo=.m .u
.Noo.N o.NN mm ..
NNm.o mam..n o.N. N. . =o..eeumac. No .o>o4
ome... N.NN mm ..
NNN.o eNNm.. c.N. N. . =c..o~em.e. No Nueoaaoga
N.<.m Nz< ..N=N<a wz.N..=N .N
.m...m o.NN mm ..
N.N.o NNNN.N o.N. N. . co..ae.m=ee No .m>o.
oeNN.N o.NN mm ..
eNN.o NNNN.N o.N. N. . =o..uoem3=. No Nucmsoote
a.<.m .u.¢.m.o Neozum .<
ma.=mzo..<.NN .Nm-N.oN do mzo..aNuNNN
.mmm.N c.NN mm .. .
ome.e NomN.N o.N. N. . =o..ae.m=e. No .e>u.
meN..N o.NN mm ..
NNN.o emeN.N o.N. N. . =o..uaco.=. No Noemauuc.
.. .1..--. .. mzN.. xm<. SKN.N.NN do mzo..NNuNNa
Nu...peaoga ..u.-N x lem,N z Naoce N..a.ee>

 

S": .33... 0.3 9.3: .55
-aougoq No m.o>m4 can co.uumgouc. No mm.ucm:omLN No mco.uamugwa 6:» new a:.c.og. new co..mu=vm .e o.nm.

80

This hypothesis cannot be rejected since no significant difference
was found between the mean scores of the independent variables below
the .05 level. The lack of finding any significant difference between
principals who have more education and training in administration and
those who have less training and education in administration is not
surprising, since the majority of the respondents rank very high in
terms of level of education (additional work beyond the M.A. or M.S.

degree but less than the doctoral degree).

Hypothesis IV

 

H0: There is no significant difference in the perception
of stress between older and younger principals.

Subhypothesis A: There is no significant difference be-
tween older and younger principals in
perceptions of frequencies of interac-
tion and levels of frustration attri-
buted to the critical task items on
the stress measurement test.

Subhypothesis B: There is no significant difference be-
tween older and younger principals in
perceptions of frequencies of inter-
action and levels of frustration at-
tributed to the role-set relationship
items on the stress measurement test.

Table 5 presents the comparisons of the perceptions of frequencies
of interaction and levels of frsutration for the independent variable
age. Group I represents principals who indicated on the survey that
they were 41 years of age or younger. For the purposes of this re-
search, these principals represent the younger group. Group II re-
presents principals who indicated that they were 42 years of age or
older. Group II is described as older principals. A total of 19 or
28% of the sample were younger principals, and 48 or 72% were older

principals. The t-test was used to determine the mean scores.

81

 

NNNN.N- N.NN Ne .. NzN..
eNN.N NN.N.N- N.NN N. . e.=NzN..<.NN N<.N. NNN NNNNNN zeNz
NNNN.N .N.NN Ne ..
NNN.N NeNN.N N.NN N. . Na... ewe. .<.N. NNN NNNNNN zeNz
NNNN.N N.NN Ne ..
NNN.N NNeN.N N.NN N. . ee.eeeeeeee Ne .Nee.
N.N..N N.NN Ne ..
NNN.N NN.N.N N.NN N. . ee.eeeeeee. Ne Neeeeeeeu
NN.NZNN<
NNNNNN-zNz No NNN..<.zNNNNNNN .N
NNN..N N.NN Ne ..
NeN.N NNN..N N.NN N. . ee.eeeemee. Ne N.N>NN
NNN..N N.NN Ne _.
NNN.N N.NN.N N.NN N. . ee..eeeeee. Ne NeeeeeNeN
N.2N=...N2NN Nae N.2NN<N .N
N.NN.N N.NN Ne ..
NNN.N .NeN.N N.NN N. . ee.eeeemeee Ne .NNN.
NN.N.N N.NN Ne ..
NN..N NN...N N.NN N. . ee.eeeeeee. Ne Neeeeeeee
NNN.>NNN .2NN=.N .N
NN.N.N N.N. Ne ..
NNN.N NNNN.N N.NN N. . ee..ee.meee .0 .NNN.
.N.N.. N.NN Ne ._
NNN.N NNNN.. N.NN N. . ee.eeeeoee. .e Nueeeeeeu
NN<.N Nze ..N=N<N Nz.NN.NN .N
NNN..N o.NN Ne ..
NNN.N NNN..N N.NN N. . ee.eeeemeee Ne .NNNN
NNNN.N N.NN Ne ..
NeN.N NNNN.N N.NN N. . ee.eeeee.e. .e Neeeeeeeu
NN<.N .N.N.N.N NNNNNN .e
NN.=Nzo..<NNN .NN-NNNN No N2N..NNNNNN
.NNN.N N.NN Ne ..
eNN.N NNNN.N N.NN N. . ee.eee.mee. Ne .NeeN
NNN..N N.NN Ne ..
NNN.N NeeN.N N.NN N. . ee.eueeeee. Ne NeeeeeNeN
.. ....... .. NNN.. eme. NNN...NN No N2N..NNNNNN
Nu...eeeeee ..e.-N . 2 Ne N z NeeeN N.ee.ee>

 

.umNu-» ms. m:.m= :o.uNL.N:gN no N.umwN new co..umgmu=. No Nw.u:w=cugm mo mco.uawugog ecu mm< .m m.ao»

82

This hypothesis cannot be rejected since no significant difference
was found between the mean scores of the independent and variable
groups. .

It is not surprising that age was not found to be a significant
factor in perceptions of interaction and levels of frustration for Lan-
sing principals and assistants because the majority of the principals
and assistants responding to the survey were placed in the older age
category. Also most of the principals were at least 30 years of age
when appointed to the principalship, already having reached a full

level of maturity.

Hypothesis V

 

H0: There is no significant difference in the perception
of stress among principals who are more experienced
on the job than those who are less experienced.

Subhypothesis A: There is no significant difference be-
tween more experienced and less experi-
enced principals on the job in percep-
tions of frequencies of interaction and
levels of frustration attributed to the
critical task items on the stress mea-
surement test.

Subhypothesis B: There is no significant difference be-
tween more experienced and less experi-
enced principals on the job in percep-
tions of frequencies of interaction
and levels of frustration attributed to
the role-set relationship items on the
stress measurement test.

Table 6 presents data on principals and assistants who have 10 or
more years of experience on the job and principals who have fewer than
10 years of experience on the job. Twenty-eight or 53% of the total

population represents principals in Group I. Twenty-five or 47% of the

233

.wvo.o Nv mm .. mth.

 

eNe.N N.NN.N NN NN . N.NNZN..<NNN N<.o. NON NNNNNN zeNz
NNNN.N- Ne NN ..
NNN.N NeNN.N- NN NN _ NzN.. NNN. Ne.o. NON NNNNNN zeNz
NNNN.N Ne NN ..
NNN.N NeNe.N NN NN _ ee.eeeemeee Ne .NNNN
N..N.N Ne NN ..
NNe.N NeN..N NN NN . ee..ueeNNe. No NeeeeeNeN
NN.N2NN<
NNNNNN-zoz do NNN..<.2NNNNNNN .N
.NN..N Ne NN ..
NNN.N NNN..N NN NN . eo.eee.meee Ne .NNN.
NNN..N . Ne NN ..
NNN.N NNNN.N NN NN . ee.eeeeeee. .0 Nueeeeeed
N.2NN...NzNN Nz< N.2NN<N .N
eNNN.N Ne NN ..
NNN.N NNNN.N NN NN . ee.eeeemeee Ne .NNNN
NNNe.N Ne NN ..
NNe.N NNN..N NN NN . eo..eeeeee. Ne NeeNNeNeN
NNN.>NNN NZNNN.N .N
.N.N.N Ne NN ..
oeN.N NNN..N NN NN . ee.eee.meee Ne .NNNN
NNNN.. Ne NN ..
NNN.N NNNN.. NN NN . ee.eueeeee. No NeeeeeNeN
NN<NN Nze .NNaeee N2.N..=N .N
NNe..N Ne NN ..
NNN.N eNoN.N NN NN . ee..eeemeee Ne .NNNN
eNeN.N Ne NN ..
NNN.N N.NN.N NN NN . ee..eeeeee. Ne NeeeeeeeN
NN<.N .N.N.N.N NNNNNN .<
NNNNNzN..<NNN .NN-NNNN No Nzo..NNNNNN
NNeN.N Ne NN ..
NNe.N NNNN.N NN NN . ee.eeeemeee No .N>NN
NeN..N Ne NN ..
NNe.o NNeN.N NN NN . ee.eeeeeee. .0 Neeeeeeeu
NzN.. ewe. NNN...NN No NzN.NNNNNNN
Nu...eeeeea ..ee-N x 2 Ne N .m NeoeN N.Ne.ee>

 

.NNNHZV NNNN-.
mg“ 0:.N: :oNNNsumacN No N.m>m4 use co.uumcm.c. No No.6cmacoLN No Nco.uaougma can mo:m.gwaxm .m m.amp

84

principals who indicated that they had more years of experience repre-
sents Group II. A total of 53 participants responded.

This hypothesis cannot be rejected because no significant differ-
ence was found between the mean scores for principals and years of ex-
perience. The differences observed in the mean scores could be chance
differences only. Principals in Group II comprised 25 or 47% of the
total sample. These principals indicated that they had more than 10
years of experience on the job in comparison to 28 or 53% of the prin-
cipals who indicated that they had fewer than 10 years of experience.
Many of the respondents indicated that they had been teachers or held
other positions in the organization for at least six to ten years prior
to becoming principals. The years of experience as a teacher combined
with the years of experience as a principal could be a factor in lesser
experienced principals not perceiving higher levels of stress. Experi-
ence, knowledge, and skills developed during these years would appear
to be sufficient in providing principals with the sophistication needed
to deal effectively with the multi-ethnic society that is represented

in the Lansing School District.

Hypothesis VI

 

Ho: There is no significant difference between principals
at larger sized schools and principals at smaller
sized schools in perceptions of stress.

Subhypothesis A: There is no significant difference be-
tween principals at larger sized schools
and principals at smaller sized schools
in perceptiions of frequencies of inter-
action and levels of frustration attri-
buted to the critical task items on the
stress measurement test.

Subhypothesis 8: There is no significant difference be-
tween principals at larger sized schools

85

and principals at smaller sized schools

in perceptions of frequencies of inter-

action and levels of frustration attri-

buted to the role-set relationship itmes
on the stress measurement test.

It should be noted that larger sized schools correlate very highly
with secondary schools and smaller sized schools correlate with elemen-
tary schools. Hence the test here may also be considered a test of
school level as well as school size.

Table 7 presents data on the frequency of interaction and level of
frustration for principals and size of school. Forty-two or 63.6% of
the total sample are principals in smaller sized schools. Twenty-four
or 36.4% are principals in larger sized schools. A total of 66 parti-
cipants responded. The t-test was used to determine the significance
of observed differences in the mean scores.

In Table 7, five instances of significant differences were found

between the mean scores of principals in smaller sized schools and

principals in larger sized schools, as follows.

School district staff. The mean score (2.9114) for principals

 

in smaller sized schools was higher than the mean score (2.5361) for
principals in larger sized schools with respect to frequency of inter-
action with school district staff. Table 7-A explains what areas under
school district staff produced significant differences when the chi
square test was applied. In this case, seven instances of significant
chi square scores were obtained. They were for interactions with the
superintendent of schools, the associate quadrant directors, the fringe
benefit personnel, the special services personnel, the adult education

personnel, the data processing personnel, and the pupil personnnel.

£36

=.NEON. N.;N:o.um.mg .Nuoue ace =.Nm.ocmmm .oozom-coc No Nw>.uaucmmwgamge =.N.:mzu.umcou use NuchON:

..NOO.>OON OOOOONN. ..NOOON OO.ONN.O .OOOON. O. OOOON .NO. .ONO. OOONO.NOOO. NOOOOOONO.O eOeO.N.ON.Ne

NOON.O e.ON eN .. Na...
.NOO.O NONN.O N.NO Ne . N.:NzO..<.NN .<.O. NON NNNOON NNNz
NNNN.O e.ON eN ..
NNO.O NNeN.O N.NO Ne . N2... NNN. .<.O. NON NNNOON zeNx
OON..N e.NN eN ..
.NN.O .NNN.N N.NO Ne . OO..OO.NOON NO .ONO.
O.NN.N e.NN eN ..
.OOO.O NOON.N N.NO Ne . OO.OOOLO.O. NO NOOOOOOON
NN.OzNN<
NOONON-zOz NO NN>..<.NNNNNNNN .N
ONN... e.ON eN ..
ONN.O N.O..N N.NO Ne . OO.OOOONOLN NO .OOOO
NNON.. e.NN eN ..
.NO0.0 NN.N.N O.NO Ne . OO..OOOOOO. NO NOOOOOOON
N.zNO...NzOO Oze N.zNN<N .O
ONN..N e.ON eN ..
ONN.O N.O..N N.NO Ne . OO..OOONOON NO .OOO.
NNNN.. e.ON eN ..
..O0.0 .N.e.N N.NN Ne . OO..OOOO.O. NO NOOOOONON
NNO.>NNN .zNOO.N .O
NNN..N e.NN eN ..
NeN.O eNNO.N N.NN Ne . OO.OOOONOON NO .ONO.
NN.O.. e.ON eN ..
NNN.O NNON.. N.NO Ne . OO.OOOOOOO. NO NOOOOOOLN
NN<.N Oz< ..OOO<N Oz.O..ON .N
.NN..N e.ON eN ..
ONN.O N...N N.NO Ne . OO.OOOONOON NO .OOO.
.NNN.N e.ON eN ..
.NOO.O e..N.N N.NN Ne . OO.OOOOOOO. NO NOOOOOOON
NN<.N .O.N.N.O .OONON .N
NN.=NNO..<.NN .NN-N.ON NO NzO..NNONNN
NNNO.N e.ON eN ..
NON.O NNNN.N N.NO Ne . OO.OOOONOON .O .OOO.
NN...N e.NN eN ..
ONN.O NNNN.N N.NO Ne . OO..OOOONO. NO NOOOOOOON

 

mzmh. xm<p _nu_P_au no mzo_hamu¢wa

.xu...amnocOTNNNN1w x .Tm;wo N z maogw m.mNNLO>
.aoo u z. uNm.-N ecu m:.N:
co.umcumagm NO N.m>m. vcm :o.uumgmuc. NO mm.u:o=amgN No Nco.uqmugmn mg. ecu .oo=um No ou.m .N m.nON

87

 

ed... .N O O N.N. N. NON N. N..N. O. O O .. .2828

a.»o=oa ooc.gw

.NNNc.o Noom.o. o.no N. o o N.o. N N.o. .. ..o o o o . su.z aco.uuagouc.

o.on ON a o m.¢ n o.N m N.o. n. m.e m .. oucacua:.at

ecu aca.n .au.mxga

Neon.o comm.e o.mo Ne o o ..N o m.NN a. N..N «— m.v N . gu.x Nco.uuagouc.

«.NN «N o o o.n N ..N o N..N e. o.n N .. moo—Neon

co.uau:vo .O.uuam

ammo.o NNmN.o o.mo No o o o.n. N o.N m N.mN N. N.o. .. . :u.3 Neo.uoogou=.

¢.on «N o o o.c. N N.m. o. o.o. N o o .. msouuog.o «casuoao

ONN.OoNNO «g»

«ooNo.o ON.N.N o.no NO 9 o m.v n N.N. n. N..N .N o.N m . gu.z Nee—uuagouc.

co.uau:uo Nuaucouom

¢.om eN o o n.N N ..N m N.o. n. m.v n .. -couam can Ngaucasa.o

mo «LagooLNO ecu

ooa¢.o no.¢.N o.no N. o o m.o n N.mN N. m.om oN o.m N . sue: Nco.uuagou=.

«.NN «N o a ..c e N.N. N. o.o. N m.. . .. N.Oo:um mo

.uaam u:oum.mma cg.

mNNo.c oumm.o o.mu Ne o o N.NN a. «.mN N. o.N m m.. . . Nu.) aco.uuasouc.

e.on «N o o m.v n N.¢N o. ..o v m.. . .. N.oo;um No

mucoccou:.cuaam as»

Ov¢.o.o Noom.o. o.mo Ne o o n.nn NN N..N e. o.N m m.. . . gu.3 NOONNuOLauc.

aaosw

.oNo. chosen a umcoamom a amcoamoz a a.oNO¢ a a.u=o:cogu=. u ».u=o=oosu a ».u=o:augu o.ao.ga> o.aa.ga>

852:8; .5 .SO. .33 O2 be. % NOON OOOOOOOOOO.

 

 

no u z

.NNONN No.5um.a .oogum =u.3 co.uuagmuc. No Nucoaaagu no Nco.aaougug ecu .oogum No oN.m .<-N NNN<N

88

.N.oo:um uoN.N so..usm c. m.Oa.uc.NN Lo. .oecoNson Nou.>swm .a.uaam ea.) u:..uocoa=. :. ease» Noucugu...a

.occomgoa ..Naa use ..uccomgoa ac.mmauoga Neon ..occoNgoN co.uou:uo u.:vu gu.z 5:.uuasouc. c. vase. .mc.

.m.oozum uo~.N guano. :. N.Oa.uc.gn so.
.o>o. oucou.u=ou. «oucuguuN.O u:uu.m.cm.me

 

33:3. .2528
gu.3 ac..oua

.2829. ..N....
No.2 Neo.uuagouc.

.occomgon
o:.mmouosa Nana
gu.z aco.auagouc.

.uccomsoa
moo—>Lom co.ua=.u>o
:u.3 m:¢.uu~guuc.

.mscomsoa
=O.uou=eo u.ava
Nu.) Nea.uoaguac.

.occomeoa
Nan—>gom .O.uaau
ga.z Nee—uuaguuc.

 

 

v.on vN o o m.¢ n ..N. N o.N m a o ..
N¢NN.° NNNo.m o.mm Ne m.. . o.N m n.on ON N..N c. o.n N .
¢.on ON o c o o m.v n o.m. N N.N. N. ..
coooc.o NmNN.NN o.mo Ne c o ..N o N.Nn mN N.m. o. m.. . .
«.NN eN c o o.m N o.c. N o.n. N ..N o ..
c.ooo.c Nc.N.NN N.mo Ne o o N..N NN N..N v. ..o e m.. . .
¢.cm «N o o O.n N N..N e. o.c. N m.. . ..
NmNN.o NeNN.. o.no Ne o O ..N o N..N .N N.N. .. ..o e .
e.on eN o o ..N. N N..N oN ..N. N. o.n N ..
OoNoo.c Name... N.mm Ne m.. . m.mv on ..N. N o.« N m.n N .
«.NN eN o o m.. . m.o. N N.N. .. N.N m ..
ONN.O.o .meN.N c.nc Ne o o N.N. N. N.N. .. N.N. c. N.N. .. .
maogu
.u>u. «Luzon a «Neoamum a omeoamuc a ».oguu a a..=onomg.=. a ».uco:cagu a 5.»:oaaogu o.ao.ga>
uucou.u.:m.m .gu .Ouo. .an. oz ago, mumchmNN Ngo> acoccoaovc.

 

 

o.a~.so>

 

 

Anuac—ucouv (uN u4n<h

89

Student services. The mean score (2.4291) for principals in

 

smaller sized schools was higher than the mean score (1.9693) for prin-
cipals in larger sized schools with respect to frequency of interaction
in dealing with student services. Table 7-B explains what areas under
student services produced a significant difference when the chi square
statistic was applied. There were two instances: interactions with

disruptive students and with student organizations.

Parents and constituents. The mean score (2.3135) for principals

 

in smaller sized schools was higher than the mean score (1.9688) for
principals in larger sized schools with respect to frequency of inter-
action with parents and constituents. Table 7-C explains what area
under parents and constituents produced significant differences when

the chi square test was applied.

Respresentatives of non-school agencies. The mean score (3.3668)

 

for principals in smaller sized schools was significantly higher than
the mean score (2.8310)for principals in larger sized schools. Table
7-0 explains what areas under representatives of non-school agencies
produced significant differences when the chi square test was applied.
There were three instances: interactions with court judges, juvenile
authorities, and the police department.

Table 7 indicates that the total means for all role-set relation-

 

ships taken together were also significantly different. This differ-

 

ence is a reflection of the combined effect of the differences dis-
played in Tables 7-A, 7-B, 7-C, and 7-0. There were a total of 13

significant chi square comparisons in Tables 7-A, 7-B, 7-C, and 7-D.

90

m:..uugou=. can N.OONON qu.N so..oem c. N.Oa.u:.sa LON Nucueaum o>.NO=gN.u cu.) uc.uuogua:. a. vase» .mo.

.N.oogum ONN.O gouge. :. N.Oa.uc.en sou mco.uun.cooso Ncovsum cu.)
.oNO. oucoc.N:Ou. Noucugo.u.v N:OO.O.:O.NO

 

 

 

 

 

N.NN ON a o a o o.w m o.n. a N.m. c. .. «N.Ouaum «OONOONOO

u.nocouo-o.uoN

.Oo..o can..o N.NN NO o o o.c. N N.m. N. N.N. n. N.m. o. . Nu.) «co—uuocouc.

O.om ON o o o.n N ..o O o.n. o o.«. N .. Nco.u

-.N.=Ougo acavaum

.oooo.o N.NN.NN N.NN NO ..o O N.NN NN N.m. o. ..o O °.n N . no.3 mco.auogoue.

mucovaun

O.on ON a o o o m.. . N.m. c. N.N. m. .. ONOONOO>O~N.O

a..Oo.¢oeouo-O.uoN

N.Nn.o omNO.m o.no NO c o c.m N N.N m n.on ON N.NN m. . gu.3 Neo.uuaguu=.

O.on ON m.. . m.O m N.m. c. ..N o ..o O .. mucoeaua uouauea>ua

-N.u a..-u.mxsn

NNNo.o NNNN.N N.NN NO o.n N N.NN N. ..N. o o.o. N o.o. N . su.: Neo.uuogoue.
O.om ON m.. . o o m.O n N.N. m. o.o. N ..

. Ngo>o.gua no.

cO.N.o ammo.o N.NN NO m.. . m.. . o.o. N N.NN NN N.o. .. . 39.3 ago—uuasouc.

O.on ON m.. . o.n N ..N. N o.o. N ..N o .. Nucovaum nouco.ou

a..~u.awvaua

ONon.o monn.O N.NN NO o.n N ..N. N o.n. N N.NN N. O.N m . nu.) Nco.uuacou:.

O.om ON m.. . m.O m N.o. .. ..o O o.N m .. mucouaum

vomaao a..au.mmsg

NNNN.o NNNN.N N.NN NO m.. . N.m. o. N..N O. N..N O. m.O n . gu.3 Neo.uuoso.:.

0.0n ON o o o o N.O n ..o O N.NN N. .. Nueuoaum

u>..a=cm.u

O.m.o.c NwOn.N N.NN NO o o o o ..o O N.NN NN N.ON o. . g..x Nco.uuasoue.

Naosu
.NNON ogoacm a «accumuz a «NOONNON a N.NNON a N.Ncuaaoguc. a N.Ncuaaogm a N.NOoacogu u.aa.so> o.ao.ga>
852:8: .8 .38 .3O. . O: to. II -II N..N. OOOOOONOOO.
mmmzonNN
.oo - z

.NOOOLN uu.>gmm acocaum ocean co..uugou:. No No.u=o=OugN No Nee—NauugoN ecu .oagum No u~.m .N-N N.N<.

91

.N.oogum eo~.N so..usa N. N..N.u=.gN so» mucosaa Ncho .oac.>.uc. Nu.x N:.uuosoa:. N. ONNNN .NN. .NNN. cocoa—ucou. NoucugouN.u u:au.u.:N.Nc

 

 

 

 

 

 

O.NN ON N N N.N N N.N. N N.N. .. ..N O .. NNNNNN

uo~.:~Ngo goguo

NO.N.N NNNN.N N.NN NO N.. . ..N. N N.NN N. N.N. .. N.O n . gu.x Neo.auogoa:.

18 ON o o c o ..N O Na. 2 3: N : anew

Nausea con.NONso

NNNO.N ONNN.. N.NN NO N N N N N.N. N. N.NN NN N.N. N . gu.x Neo.uu~souc.
O.NN ON N N N N N.O N N.N. N. N.n. N ..

.occomsua ugoNNNN

NNNO.N NNNN.N N.NN NO N.N N N N N.N N N.NN NN N.N. N. . gu.s Ncc.uuogoac.

O.Nn ON N N N N N.N. N N.N. N ..N. N .. acogua

Nuuca .oao.>.u=.

.NNON.N .NNN.N N.NN NO N N N.N N N.NN N. N.NN N. N.N N . Nu.z Nco.uuaguu:.

.o>u4 «Luzon u oNNonoN a oNNoNNNN a N.Ngax a N.NNNNNNNNNN a N.NcoaaugN a N.Ncoacogu o.aa.ga> o.aa.gu>

3:83:55 .5 .3... .38 2. 95> to, 23:88.:
NNNNNNNNN
no a z

.Nucoaa.umcou new NuNoLaN :u.3 Nco.uuagmu:_ No No.0:uaoogu No Nco.unougoa ucu .oogum we NN.N .N-N NNN<.

92

so. uNoNaNNNou Nu..NN uNu NNN .No.u.soguau N..No>zn .NNNNNN ugaou N..: NN.uuaLouN. N. NNNNN .NN.

.N.ooNuN uu~.N NNNNN. N. N.NN.uN.gN
.o>o. ouNue.NNcu. NouNogo...u “Nau.u.NN.N .

 

 

O.NN ON N.ON NN N.. . N N N N N N ..

Nguguo

ONON.N ON...N N.NN NO N.ON NN N.O N N.N N N.. . N N . Nu.3 NNo..uNNouN.
O.NN ON N N N.N. N N.N. .. N.O N N.O N ..

N.NooNNu.NN

NNN..N NON..N N.NN NO N.N N N.N. N N.NN N. N.NN N. N.O N . N..: «No.uuagouN.

O.NN ON ..N O N.N N N.N. N. ..N. N ..N O .. NNN-

..tas 8:8 9:

.c..NN.N NON..N. N.NN NO N N N.NN N. N.NN N. ..N N N N . N..: NNN.NNNNN.N.

O.NN ON N N N.N N N.N. .. N.N. N ..N O .. no.»

-.LNNNNN N..No>:N

N.NNN.N NNN..ON N.NN NO N.. . N.NN NN N..N O. N.. . N.. . . Nu.3 NNou.uNLouN.
O.NN ON N N N.N. N. N.N. N N N N.O N ..

NuNuNN assoc

.N.NN.N NNNN.N N.NN NO N.. . N.NO NN N.N. N N N N N . Nu.x NNo.uuNNauN.

NNN..N
.o>oN NNNNNN a NNNNNNNN a umNoNNoN a N.NNNN u N.NNNNNNNON. a N..Noacogm u N..Noacosm N.NN.NN> N.NN.NN>
853:5; .5 .32 .38. 2. to. g be. .8238...

 

 

on n z

.No.uNNN< .ooNUN-Noz .o NN>.NN»NNNNLNNN NNN N.NNNuN No o~.N .N-N NNN<.

93

Principals of smaller sized schools interacted with:

1.

Associate quadrant directors more frequently than did
principals in larger sized schools

Special services personnel more frequently than did
principals in larger sized schools

Disruptive students more frequently than did princi-
pals in larger sized schools

Individual angry parents more frequently than did
principals in larger sized schools

Principals of larger sized schools interacted with:

5.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

The superintendent of schools more frequently than did
principals in smaller sized schools

Adult education personnel more frequently than did
principals in smaller sized schools

Data processing personnel more frequently than did
principals in smaller sized schools

Pupil personnel more frequently than did principals
in smaller sized schools

Student organizations more frequently than did prin-
cipals in smaller sized schools

Fringe benefit personnel more frequently than did
principals in smaller sized schools

Court judges more frequently than did principals
in smaller sized schools

Juvenile authorities more frequently than did prin-
cipals in smaller sized schools

Police departments more frequently than did prin-
cipals in smaller sized schools

Comments were made on each of these findings:

1.

As shown in Table 7-A, Zl or 31.8% of the principals in larger

sized schools perceived that they interact more frequently with the

superintendent of schools than principals in smaller sized schools.

Twenty-two or 33.3% of the principals in smaller sized schools

94

perceived that they interacted very rarely with the superintendent of
schools in comparison to three or 4.5% of the principals in larger
sized schools. Apparently, principals in larger sized schools come in
contact with the superintendent more often than principals in smaller
sized schools, perhaps because of the problems faced by principals in
larger sized schools. 0n the other hand, it may be that elementary
principals feel relatively "left out" of involvements with decisions

at the superintendent's level. There may be ways which could be de-
vised for a useful higher frequency of interaction between the superin-
tendent and the elementary principals.

2. On the other hand, principals in smaller sized schools per-
ceived that they interact more frequently with the associate quadrant
directors than do principals in larger sized schools. These differ-
ences probably reflect the practice of the quadrant directors meeting
regularly with principals in smaller sized schools, either at breakfast
or luncheon meetings. They are also members of the same bargaining
team as principals in smaller sized schools.

3. Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they inter-
act more frequently with fringe benefit personnel than do principals in
smaller sized schools. This may be because of the frequency of in-
juries resulting from physical and other activities in the larger,
upper level schools, where more students and staff are likely to be-
come injured.

4. Principals in smaller sized schools perceived that they inter-
act more frequently with special services personnel than do principals
in larger sized schools. The office of special services personnel

verified the fact that principals in larger sized schools have security

95

personnel on staff. Principals in smaller sized schools have direct
communications with special services personnel when uncontrollable
situations threaten to occur.

5. Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they inter-
act more frequently with adult education personnel than do principals
in smaller sized schools. There seems to be more contact between the
adult education department and principals in larger sized schools be-
cause many of the programs under the supervision of the director of
adult education are housed in the larger sized schools. Many students
who have been suspended from larger sized schools attend alternative
educational classes which are also under the auspices of adult educa-
tion.

6. Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they inter-
act more frequently with data processing personnel than do principals
in smaller sized schools. Data processing's support is encouraged at
larger sized schools. They usually perform the following duties for
principals at larger sized schools: (a) schedule classes, (b) print
progress reports, (c) print case histories, and (d) provide student
forms. Principals in smaller sized schools may request specific ser-
vices from data processing as needs occur.

7. Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they inter-
act more frequently with pupil personnel services than do principals
in smaller sized schools. There seems to be a higher level of student
suspensions at the larger sized schools; and when disruptions occur
frequently from the same student(s), pupil personnel services are
usually called upon to decide whether those students should return to

their home school or be planned in alternative educational programs.

96

8. Principals in smaller sized schools perceived that they inter-
act more with disruptive students than do principals in larger sized
schools. Principals in smaller sized schools usually work without
assistance and are expected to deal with any and all concerns. Princi-
pals in larger sized schools have support systems on-site to deal with
problems considered unique to larger sized schools.

9. Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they inter-
act more frequently with student organizations than do principals in
smaller sized schools. It appears that this difference might be ex-
plained by the fact that larger sized schools are responsible for
establishing and developing many student organizations. Some of these
organizations include the following: interscholastic programs, debat-
ing teams, student councils, etc.

10. Principals in smaller sized schools perceived that they in-
teract more frequently with angry parents than do principals in larger
sized schools. It appears that parents are more active in school
activities when their children are younger. They attend parent-teacher
conferences, PTA meetings, and other school activities. Many appear
to be very concerned about academic matters and other school proce-
dures.

ll. Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they in-
teract more frequently with court judges than do principals in smaller
sized schools.

l2. Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they in-
teract more frequently with juvenile authorities than do principals in

smaller sized schools.

97

l3. Principals in larger sized schools perceived that they in-
teract more frequently with the police department than do principals
in smaller sized schools.

Because there are many more students enrolled in larger sized
schools and because they are older, it would appear that there might
be many more problems requiring assistance of such non-school agencies
as the courts, juvenile authorities, and the police, as indicated in
paragraphs ll, l2, and l3 above. By the time students arrive at the
secondary schools, they are older and more sophisticated. Many appear
to have tendencies to question policy, school rules, and in many in-
stances seem to defy authority. On the other hand, it may be that
authoritarian figures have difficulty dealing with the disruptive stu-
dent and may be more inclined to remove him/her from the school pre-
mise. It may be that curricula in secondary schools are not designed
to adequately meet the diverse needs of all students. These organiza-
tional deficiencies may contribute to student dropout and adjudication.
Table 8 summarizes the significant differences identified in the

statistical analyses above.

Rankings of Perceived Frequencies of
Interaction and Levels of Frustration

The discussions above report the differences which were found in
the responses of various categories of the principals to the stress
perception inventory. It remains to identify the rankings which the
total group of principals gave to the items in the inventory.

For this purpose, responses of "very frequent" and "frequent" were
grouped together. Similarly, responses of "infrequently" and "very

rarely" were grouped on the frequency scales. In the same way, for

98

..Nsmp. NNNN.NN

-xmm. .o No.uN.NuNmN N No. N. NNN N NN.NN. «mm. N.NNNUN NNN.N

Nm..msm N. N.NN.uN.NN NNN N.NoNuN NNN.N NNNNN. N. N.NN.NN.NN
No. mNoum Name NN. Nmmzamn NmNNauuo mucmcm...u NNNU...NN.N <

.mu..oN NN. N..; mNoE

NNNNNNNNN. NNNN Nm>.muNmN N.NoNuN NNN.N NNNNN. N. N.NN.NN.NN
.Nm...NoN.=N N..Nm>:n N..: mNoe

NNNUNNNNN. NNN. cm>.muNmN N.NoNuN um~.m NNNNN. N. N.NN.uN.NN
.NNNNNN ugaoo N..; aces

cmuumgmuN. ANN. NN>.NUNNN N.NoNuN NNN.N NNNNN. N. N.NN.UN.NN

.NNNNNNN
NNNNN N..: mNoE umpumNmpN. NNNN Nm>.muNmN N.NN.UN.NN N..NNN.2

.NNNNNNNN m>.p
-NNNN.N N..: mNoE NNNNNNNNN. NNNN Nw>.NuNmN N.NN.UN.NN N.NENN

.NNNNNNNN NNNN.NN>NNN.N N..NU
-.NNNN N..: mNos umuumcmpN. szu um>.wucmN N.NN.UN.NN N..NNN.2

.Nmu.>NmN .mNNoNNmN ..NNN N..; mNoE

NNNNNNNNN. ANN. Nm>.mucoa N.NNNNN Nw~.m NNNNN. N. N.NN.UN.NN
..mNNoNNmN NN.NmmooNN N.NN N..: mNoE

NNNUNNNNN. NNNN Nm>.monN N.NoNoN Nm~.m NNNNN. N. N.NN.NN.NN
.mNNoNNmN No.umuanm ..NNN N..: «Nos

NNNNNNNNN. NNN. NN>.NUNNN N.NoNuN Nm~.m NNNNN. N. N.NN.uN.NN
..mNNoNNmN Nmu.>NmN .m.umNN N..: mNoN

umuumNmpN. ANN. Nm>.muNmN N.NoNuN NNN.N NN..NEN N. N.NN.UN.NN
..NNNoNNmN N..NNNN NNN.N. N..: mNoE

NNNNNNNNN. NNN. NN>.NUNNN N.NoNum Nm~.m NNNNN. N. N.NN.NN.NN
.mNopomN.N .NNNNNNN N.N.uommm N..: «Nos

NNNUNNNNN. NNNN Nw>.mucmq N.NNNUN om~.m NN..NNN N. N.NN.UN.NN
.N.ooNuN No .NNNNNNN.NNNNN mNN N..N mNoN

umuumNmuN. ANN. Nm>.mucmq N.NoNoN NNN.N NNNNN. N. N.NN.NN.NN

 

NNUNNNN...N .NNN...NN.N .o NNNNNNNN.

New». xmm.
NNN .ooNum .o m~.N

mm.uNmNN
.ooNuN-NoN .o mm>.umu
-NNNNNNNN NNN .ooNum .o m~.N

N.Nmap.umNoo
NNN N.NNNNN NNN Noam

Nmu.>NmN .Nmuzum NNN me

Nmu.>Nmm NNNNNNN NNN Noam

. ..mpm ou.apm.u
.ooNuN NNN .ooNoN .o m~.N

 

NN.NN.NN> NNNNNNNNN NNN
NNNNNNNNNN. .o No..N.NommN

.NNNNN NNUNNNN...N .Nmu...NN.N .o NNNNNNNN. .o NNNeENN .N N.NN.

99

the level of frustration scales, "very high” and "high'I responses were
grouped together and "low" and "very low" were grouped.

Figure 2 indicates that more than 80% of all the principals and
assistants responding perceived that they devote themselves frequently
or very frequently to four of the l4 critical task items: maintaining
discipline (98.5%), community relations (92.6%), public relations
(89.5%), and promoting student achievement (83.6%). These data may
help identify where this group of educational leaders tends to place
its priorities. Fewer than 50% of the respondents see themselves fre-
quently involved with busing problems, reporting pupil absences, with
school faculty inadequacies, crime, school organization, or staff con-
tracts.

Figure 3 displays the levels of frustration perceived by the re-
spondents which they associate with the 14 critical task items. Four
of the items were marked by more than 50% of the respondents as highly
or very highly frustrating: carrying out federal guidelines (62.7%),
coping with parents' lack of interest (6l.2%), promoting student
achievement (59.2%), and maintaining discipline (55.3%). It is inter-
esting to note that two critical task items (promoting student achieve-
ment and maintaining discipline) are ranked by the principals as both
high frequency ang_high frustration level items. It may be that these
two items are among the top stress producing critical tasks in the job
experiences of Lansing school principals and assistants.

Figure 4 displays the ten items from among the 36 role-set rela-
tionship items which the principals and assistants marked as requiring
high frequency of interaction. These 10 items range from nearly three-

fourths of the principals seeing themselves as interacting frequently

100

.Nemu. xmm. .Nu.u.Nu O. No. NNNNNNNNN No.uumcm.N. .o NN.UNNNNNNN NN>.NNNNN

.NNNNNN N..: Nuuogucou NN.NN.N.N.ENN NNN NN..N..onz

..u.N.N.N .ooNum «N. .o NNNNUNNNN NNN NN..N~.NNNNN NN. N. NN.NNN.U.NNNN

.EN..NNNN> NNN NE.NN N..: NN..NNN

.Nu...um. .ooNum mg. .o Nm.uN=NmNNN. 0N. NN.souNm>o NNN N..: NN..NNN
.NNUNNNNN ..NNN NN..NonN

.NEN.NNNN NN.NNN N..: NN..NNN

..oNNNN .ooNuN NN. NN.NNNN.N.2NN NNN NN.NNN.N

.NmN..NN.:N N.N.N NNN .Ncoom. .NN NN.NNNNN

..NNNNNN. No Nun. .NNNNNNN N..: NN.NoN

.NNNNNoNN NN.NN.N>NN NNN NNN..UNNN .NNo.uuNN.NN. NN.N.>N~NNN
..NNEN>N.NUN NNNNNNN NN..osoNN

.NNN..N.NN N..NNN NN.ENN.NNN

.NNo..N.mN N..Nsesou NN.N.N.N.NE NNN NN.NN..NN.NN
.oN..N.oN.N NN.N.N.N.NE NNN NN.NN..NN.NN

.O.
.N.

O O O

PNMQWONwO‘O—N
r-I—F-

.N NNNN.N

 

 

O.

N.NN

 

 

 

N.

N.NN

N.

 

 

N.NN

 

 

 

.. o. N N N N N O N N

 

 

N.OO

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.NO

 

N.NN N.NN N.NN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.NN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.NN .mvwmk

 

N.NN

 

 

lOl

.NNNNNN N..: N.NNNNNNU NN.NN.N.N.NNN NNN NN..N..oNoz

..N.N.N.N .ooNUN NN. .o NNNNNNNNN ONN NN.NNN.NNNNN NN. N. NN..NN.U..NNN

.NEN.NNNN NN.NNN N..: NN..NNN

.NNUNNNNN ..NNN NN..NonN

.NENNNNNN NN.NN.NNNU NNN NNN..UNNN .NNN..UNNNNN. NN.N.>NNNNN
..NNNNN .ooNuN NN. NN.NNNN.N.ENN NNN NN.NNN.N
.NNo.NN.mN N..NNN NN.ENN.NNN

.N....uo. .ooNuN «N. .o mm.uNNNmNNN. N..: NN.Eoucm>N
.EN..NNNN> NNN NE.Nu N..: NN..NNN

.NNN.NN.NN N..N:EENN NN.N.N.N.NE NNN NN.NN..NN.NN
.NN..N.uN.N NN.N.N.N.NE ONN NN.NN..NN.NN
..NNEN>N.NUN .NNONNN NN..oEoNN

..NNNNNN. No Nun. .NNNNNNN N..: NN.NoN

.NNN..NN.=N .NNNNN. use NN.NNNNN

.Nsmu. NNN. .Nu...cu No. N.m>m. NN..NN.NNN. NN>.wuNmN NNNNNNNN .N NNNN.N

 

O.
N.N.

 

 

 

N.

O.NN

 

 

 

N.NN

 

 

.. o. m N N N N O N N

 

 

N.NN N.NN

 

 

 

N.NN

 

N.ON

 

 

 

 

 

 

O.Nm N.NN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.NN

 

 

 

N.NN

 

 

N..N

 

 

 

 

 

N.NN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

97°C 95.5 94.0 ._.
9l.0 9
88.l 8u.] 86.6
,____.
79.l
76.l 73.6
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0
Figure 4. Perceived frequencies of interaction responses for role-
set relationships.

l. Interactions with secretaries.
2. Interactions with lunchroom personnel.
3. Interactions with tenured teachers.
4. Interactions with building custodians.
5. Interactions with disruptive students.
6. Interactions with socio-economically disadvantaged students.
7. Interactions with support personnel.
8. Interactions with lower achievers.
9. Interactions with instructional aides.
l0. Interactions with individual parents who are supportive.

103

with supportive parents (73.6%) up to 97% interacting frequently with
their secretaries. Clearly the school secretary is an important figure
in the performance of the school principal in carrying out his/her pro-
fessional functions.

Figure 5 displays the lC) items from among the role-set relation-
ship items to which the respondents ascribed the highest levels of
frustration. Only one of these items (disruptive students--58.8%) was
ranked by more than 50% of the principals as frustrating or very frus-
trating. This item was also ranked as a high frequency item by a large
majority of the principals (88.l%). Hence, dealing with disruptive
students--along with the critical tasks of maintaining discipline and
promoting student achievement--appears to emerge as another potentially
key, job-related stressor for Lansing principals and assistant princi-
pals. All other role-set relationship items in the instrument used
for this research were ranked by fewer than 50% of the respondents as
highly frustrating. These findings suggest that with the possible
exception of dealing with disruptive students, Lansing principals gen-
erally encounter low levels of frustration in their role-set relation-

ships.

Summary

This chapter has presented statistical analyses of the input from
the questionnaires, applied to six hypotheses, plus identified rankings
which the total group of principals gave to the items on the inventory.
Table 8 summarized the statistically significant differences found
among the independent variables. Figures 2 through 5 displayed the

relative rankings of associated frequencies and frustration levels

58.8

1

 

 

N—l

03014:. (A)

000’)

45.3

2

 

 

.L._.

Figure 5.

3

 

)———Jv

 

‘ fl

4

 

 

relationships.

104

5

 

L.— ,

 

26.9

6

 

 

 

 

l—I

'flu

Perceived levels of frustration with
Perceived levels of frustration
students.

Perceived levels of frustration
disadvantaged students.
Perceived levels of frustration
Perceived levels of frustration
Perceived levels of frustration
maintenance personnel.
Perceived levels of frustration
personnel.
Perceived levels of frustration
Perceived levels of frustration
Perceived levels of frustration

23,9

 

 

 

 

with
with
with
with
with
with
with

with
with

 

23.9

 

 

 

 

disruptive students.
abused and neglected

socio-economically
lower achievers.
salespeople.
physical plant and
evaluation services
tenured teachers.

building custodians.
support personnel.

 

 

20.9

10

 

Perceived levels of frustration responses for role-set

 

105

afforded by the principals as a total group. Three items in particular
emerge as potentially high job-related stressors: maintaining disci-
pline, promoting achievement, and dealing with disruptive students.
Chapter V will summarize the results of the analyses made in this
chapter and will include conclusions and implications derived from the
responses to the questionnaire plus recommendations for further action

and research.

CHAPTER V

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
This chapter will serve as a brief review of the nature of the
investigation and how it was conducted. The findings, conclusions,
and implications of this research will be presented as well as recom-

mendations for further research.

Summary of Findings

 

Responsibility has been described as an important source of job-
related stress for people in leadership roles. Being responsible for
people frequently means that one has to spend time attending meetings
and interacting with others. The reasons for stress vary among
building principals who perform such leadership roles. However, per-
forming critical job tasks and interacting with certain groups of
people have been cited as the parts of the leadership role which elicit
the most st~ess.

There seems to be a need for identifying and assessing job-related
sources of stress forbuilding-level principals. Research questions
concerning job-related sources of stress have been proposed. Although
research is limited on this subject, many psychologists suggest that
interaction with certain groups of people can be very frustrating. They
Suggest that both physical and mental disabilities can result from such

interaction.

106

107

This investigation provides a means by which stress awareness can
be assessed. It can also provide information about the relationships
between building level principals and how their role-set relationships
may or may not contribute to stress.

The concept of job-related stress is being explored by the medical
community across the nation. Many educators, business people, and
other professional employee groups will become more aware of this
phenomenon in the next few years. It is h0ped that this investigation
can provide a basis for increasing the awareness of job-related stress,
as well as assessing this type of stress for building principals. It
is also hoped that this investigation will provide new directions for
additional research about stress and its effect on building level prin-
cipals. V

The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions of job-
related stress among the Lansing School District's principals and
assistants. Participants were requested to indicate their perceived
frequencies of interaction with regard to role-set relationships and
the performance of critical job tasks. They were also requested to
indicate their perceived levels of frustration associated with role-
set relationships and performing critical job tasks.

The major findings that have emerged from this study are the
following: (a) frequency of interrelationship patterns reveals a
number of specific differences especially between the tasks of admin-
istering elementary schools and administering larger secondary schools;
(b) no evidence emerges that perceived frustration levels vary across
independent variable groupings; (c) as a group, Lansing principals per-

ceive themselves as most frustrated in their role-set relationships

108

with disruptive students; and (d) they also interact frequently with
and are highly frustrated by their critical tasks of maintaining
discipline and promoting student achievement.

To try to determine whether there might be relationships between
the independent and dependent variables selected for this study,
answers were sought to the following six basic questions:

1. Do members of ethnic minority groups functioning in

the principal's role perceive stress significantly

differently than do majority principals?

2. Do female principals perceive stress differently
than male principals?

3. Do principals with more education and training in
administration perceive stress significantly dif-
ferently than those who do not have these attributes?

4. Do principals who are older perceive stress signif-
icantly differently from those who are younger?

5. Do principals in schools with larger populations
perceive stress significantly differently than
principals in smaller sized schools?
6. Do principals who have more job experience perceive
stress differently than principals who are less ex—
perienced?
Table 8 in Chapter IV summarized the significant differences found

by testing the hypotheses based on these research questions.

Conclusions

 

As a result of the information obtained in this study, the follow-
ing conclusions were drawn.

Lansing principals and assistants frequently interacted with a
variety of role-set relationships and frequently performed certain cri-
tical job tasks. These perceptions of the high frequency of interac-

tion did not result in significant levels of frustration. The major

109

conclusions drawn as a result of the stress perception inventory were
as follows:

1. Minority principals responded more often to the student and
parent category. They perceived themselves as interacting more with
physically disadvantaged students and angry parents.

2. Sex differences occurred for female principals. They per-
ceived themselves as interacting more with physically and mentally
abused students.

3. Being a principal in a small School (lower level school) ver-
sus being a principal in a large school (higher level school) revealed
a multitude of differences in the role-set relationships involved.
Principals in larger sized schools perceived themselves as interacting
more frequently with:

A. The superintendent of schools

Fringe benefit personnel

C. Adult education personnel

D. Evaluation services personnel
E. Data processing personnel

'F. Pupil personnel

G. Organized student groups

H. Court judges

I. Juvenile authorities

J. Police department
Principalsin smaller sized schools found themselves interacting more
.with: I

A. Associate quadrant directors

B. Special services personnel

110

C. Disruptive students

D. Angry parents
The greater variety of role-set relationships that principals in larger
sized schools report in comparison to the relatively small numbers of
role-set relationships that principals in smaller sized schools report
could suggest that responsibilities are greater for principals in
larger sized schools.

4. Age, experience, and training of principals do not appear to
generate significant differences for Lansing principals.

5. The three most prominent job related stressors appear to be
connected with (a) maintaining discipline, (b) promoting student
achievement, and (c) dealing with student disruptions.

Lansing schools represent a multi-ethnic population and are con-
sidered as belonging to a middle-sized, urban school district. It is
a commonly held belief that urban school districts have a higher pro-
portion and greater variety of problems including lack of discipline
and low student achievement. Principals in Lansing could be interna-
lizing many of these beliefs, which results in perceptions that their
job responsibilities are increasing. Principals are also being re-
quired to become more involved in the instructional program by making
five or more classroom visitations per week. Performance evaluations
of principals are going to be based on whether or not the achievement
level of students has increased. It may be concluded that these job-
related stressors have possibly created a group of very sensitive in-

dividuals.

111

Implications for Future Research

 

It is hoped that researchers conducting investigations concerning
awareness of stress and who have knowledge about how people perceive
stress may observe a step in a new direction in this research--a step
forward in identifying sources of job-related stress. This investiga-
tion has not only provided a new approach to identifying and assessing
levels of stress, but also has based this approach upon defined objec-
tives and theoretical foundations which can be used as a basis for
further study in this area.

Presented below are the implications for future research that seem

practical as a result of the findings of this investigation.

The findings of this study indicated that principals and assis-
tants in the Lansing (Michigan) School District expressed both high
levels of perceived frequencies of interaction and perceived levels of
frustration in (a) establishing and maintaining discipline, (b) promot-
ing student achievement, and (c) dealing with disruptive students.

First, the study indicates that principals and assistants appear
to have primary concerns for the development of students who experi-
ence dissatisfaction with the current system. It might be productive
to consider how time and resources of the system could be freshly
marshalled to address these concerns.

It is possible that principals and assistants working very closely
with staff and parents might wish to concentrate on planning and
evaluating cognitive skill areas by conducting periodic curriculum re-
view sessions. To be more effective in promoting student achievement,
more focus may need to be placed on evaluating and assessing curriculum

materials on a yearly basis to ensure that high academic standards will

112

be maintained. Because of the current emphasis in technical areas,
representatives from businesses and other manufacturers could be in-
vited to work closely with principals and assistants in designing cur-
riculum goals that will promote student achievement and prepare stu-
dents for the world of work.

There was a noticeable overlap between perceived frequencies of
interaction and levels of frustration dealing with disruptive stu-
dents. Principals and assistants might consider further steps in
assertive discipline, values clarification, and human relations work-
shops to better cope with this issue. If principals are to be more
effective in dealing with disruptive students, special skills may need
to be developed among teaching staffs. Central administration staff
may need to provide various incentives for principals and assistants to
enroll in university classes, attend district-wide inservice workshops
on discipline and dealing with disruptive students, and visit other

school districts.

Recommendations for Further Research

 

The findings of one study cannot include all of the areas that are
perceived as stressors for building level principals. It was the in-
tent of this study to explore how the demographic characteristics of
race, sex, education and training, age, experience and size of school
related to perceptions of stress for Lansing School District principals
and assistants. Although some correlations between the variables were
found, some were not significant which raises a number of questions

which might prompt further exploration.

113

l. How effective is the instrument used in this study in measur-

ing perceptions of stress among building level principals?

The stress perception inventory is a modification of a job-related

tension index which included the combination of instruments used in

three studies: (a) Swent study, (b) Peabody study, and (c) the Goldman

interpretation of intra- and extra-organizational referents. The

inventory could be used to test its effectiveness in the following

ways:

1)

5)

A study to determine whether minority persons func-
tioning in the principal's role assigned in school
districts in the state of Michigan perceive in-
creased levels of stress when interacting with cer-
tain groups of role-set relationships

A study to determine whether minority persons func-
tioning in the principal's role assigned in selected
urban school districts perceive levels of stress
when performing certain critical tasks

A study to determine whether minority persons func-
tioning in the principal's role assigned in non-
urban school districts perceive increased levels of
stress when interacting with role-set relationships
and performing certain critical tasks

A study to compare perceptions of stress for princi-
pals assigned to court-ordered desegregated schools

and those assigned to non-court-ordered desegregated
schools.

A study to compare the perceptions of stress among
majority principals assigned in urban school dis-

tricts and majority principals in non-urban school
districts.

A study to compare perceptions of stress among ma—
jority principals in court-ordered desegregated
schools and majority principals in non-court-
ordered desegregated schools.

A study to compare perceptions of stress among
females functioning in the principal's role who
are assigned to urban school districts and those
who are not.

H4

2. What other factors, personal and professional, are possible
correlates of stress?

While the present study explored sex, age, race, and education,
future studies of perceived levels of stress might be directed toward
the examination of specific personality characteristics that would tend
to contribute to stress. The interrelationship between basic person-
ality structure and social orientation suggest further study as fol-
lows:

l) A study to determine whether there are unique per-
sonal qualities associated with perceptions of
stress for females and males .

2) A study to determine if there are special factors
associated with urban school districts that would
tend to be stressors for principals

3) A study to determine whether there are certain
skills a principal should possess that would en-
able him/her to deal with stressful situations

more successfully than those without these attri-
butes

APPENDIX A

LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS

Dear Colleague,

I am a doctoral candidate in the Department of Curriculum, College of
Education, Michigan State University. Dr. Ben Bohnhorst is directing
my research, and my committee members are Drs. Richard Gardner, George
Logan, and Roy Wesselman.

My interest in the principalship and leadership roles has led me to
select as a research project "An Exploratory Study on Perceptions of
Stress among Lansing Elementary Secondary Principals and Assistants."

The research that I am conducting centers around two important find-
ings. First, the literature suggests that,as a consequence of role
performance, principals tend to encounter conflicts of various forms
which results in the experience of stress. Secondly, most demands
made on principals are based upon interaction and involvement with an
increasing number of relationships.

Considering this, the enclosed survey is being distributed to you and
other principals in the Lansing School District.

H0pefully, you will assist in contributing to research in the field

by completing this entire instrument and returning it by December l8,
l98l, in the school courier envelope. For all instruments not returned
by that date, I will be making follow-up calls during the week of
January 4-8, l982. I realize that this is a busy time for all of us;
but in order to do a valid study, I must have all surveys returned.

Any information provided will be held strictly confidential in any and
all reports of results. Also, all participants will receive an ab-
stract of the study.

Thank you for your support and assistance. I appreciate your agree-
ing to participate in my study during our conversation last spring.

Sincerely yours,

Ruby L. Helton
Doctoral Candidate

115

APPENDIX B

ROLE STRESS PERCEPTION INVENTORY

ROLE STRESS PERCEPTION INVENTORY

Part One: Demographic Information

 

DIRECTIONS: Please respond to each item. ALL INFORMATION WILL BE
HELD STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.

Your gender:

Female
Male
Age:
30 and under
31 - 4l
42 - 52
53 - 63
64 or over

Racial background:
Minority
Majority
What is your current position?
Elementary principal
Elementary assistant principal
Junior high principal
Junior high assistant principal
Senior high principal
Senior high assistant principal

116

117

Please indicate your educational background in the categories below.

Earned Degree Held Major Field Minor Field

 

 

 

B.S.
B.A.

 

M.A.
M.S.

 

Ed.D.
Ph.D.

 

How many years of experience have you had as a building principal?

Less than 2 ll - l5
2 — 5 l6 - 25
6 - 10 26 and over

How many years of experience have you had as an assistant building
principal?

Less than 2 ll - l5
2 - 5 l6 - 25
6 - 10 26 and over

Prior to becoming a building principal, did you hold one of the follow-
ing positions?

Secretary Assistant principal

Teacher Central level administrator
Administrative Coach

intern Other

How many years of experience did you have in the area checked above
prior to becoming a building principal?

Less than 2 ll - l5

2 - 5 l6 - 25

6 - lO 26 and over

118

What are the specific grade levels in your school?

K - 6 6 - 9

K - 5 7 - 9

K - 4 l0 - 12
K - 5 and 6

What was the fourth Friday count in your building on Friday, October 2,
l98l?

lOO - 499 1500 - 1999

500 - 999 over 1999

1000 - 1499

119

Part Two: Role Task Percpetions

 

DIRECTIONS: Please read carefully each statement listed under "task
items" below and respond to each item in the columns to
the right. In part lA, please mark the column that ex-
presses your perceptions of the amount of time you devote
to each task. In part lB, indicate whether you perceive
each item to be "very high," "high,“ "low," or "very low"
as a source of frustration in your work.

Carrying out federal guidelines and deal-
ingflwith governmental restrictions

1A

Frequency of

Interaction

18

Level of
Frustration

 

 

very frequently
frequently
infrequently
very rarely

very high)
high
low

very low

 

 

 

Planning and administering the séhool
budget

 

Dealing with busing problems

 

Participating in the organization and
structure of the school district

 

Dealing with andiovercoming the inade-
quacies of the school facility

 

Reporting pupil absences

 

Establishing and maintaining community
relations

 

Negotiating and administering contracts
with staff

 

Performigg public relations

 

Establishing and maintaining discipline

 

Promoting student achievement and reducing
student drop out rates

 

Dealing with crime and vandalism

 

Coping with parents' lack of interest or
opposition

 

Supervising instruction practice and
developing curricular programs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

120

Part Three: Role-Set Relationships

DIRECTIONS: Please read each statement carefully and respond to each
item below. In parts 2A and 2B, please mark the answer
that best expresses your perception of time spent and
source of stress.

2A 28

Frequency of Level of
Interaction Frustration

 

 

>5

:3

: >3

3 >, 4': .33

O' 0- : (D .C

Q) +4 Q) S- 03 3

S- C 3 m 'l- O

H- 0) cr 5. .c: ,—

3 2 >5 >5 5 >3

:3 E :2. s a e a a:

INTERACTIONS WITH DISTRICT STAFF > - - > > E — >

 

 

Interactions with the superintendent

of schools

Interactions with the assistant

sgperintendent of schools

Interactions with the directors of

elementary and secondary schools

Interactions with the associate

guadrant directors

Interactions with special education

services

Interactions with the physical plant

and maintenance personnel

Interactions with the office of

fringe benefitspersonnel

Interactions with Special services

personnel

Interactions with adult education

personnel

Interactions with evaluations

personnel

Interactions with data processing

personnel

Interactions with pupil personnel

Interactions with personnel services
BUILDING FACULTY AND STAFF

Interactions with new teachers

Interactions with tenured teachers

Interactions with support personnel

(counselors, teachers, consultants,

speech therapists, etc.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

121

Interactions with instructional aides

2A

Frequency of
Interaction

 

very frequently
frequently
infrequently
very rarely

28

Level of
Frustration

 

 

very high
high
low
very low

 

 

Interactions with secretaries

 

Interactions with lunchroom personnel

 

Interactions with building custodians

 

STUDENT SERVICES
Interactions with disruptive students

 

Interactions with abused and neglected
students

 

Interactions with academicially
talented students

 

Interactions with low achievers

 

Interactions with members of student
organizations

 

Interactions with physically dis-
advantaged students

 

Interactions with socio-economically
disadvantaged students

 

Interactions with socio-economically
advantaged students

 

PARENTS AND CONSTITUENTS
Interactions with individual angry
parents

 

Interactions with individual parents
who are supportive

 

Interactions with organized parent
groups

 

Interactions with other organized
community groups

 

REPRESENTATIVES OF NON-SCHOOL AGENCIES
Interactions with court judges

 

Interactions with juvenile authorities

 

Interactions with police department'
personnel

 

Interactions with salespeople

 

Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS

January ll, 1982

Dear Colleague,

During the week of December 7 - ll, l981, I sent all Lansing princi-
pals and assistants an inventory on stress. Currently, we are in the
midst of millage, budget cutbacks, new federal legislation, etc.

These have been cited in the research literature as prime contributors
to stress among principals. If you have returned this inventory,
please disregard this reminder and accept this note as an expression
of my gratitude for your c00peration. If for some reason you have
not yet returned the inventory, please so so. Return it to Riddle
School by Friday, January 22, 1982.

 

Sincerely,

Ruby Helton
Doctoral Candidate
College of Education

122

APPENDIX E

LEVEL OF FRUSTRATION TABLE

127

 

 

 

OO. NO N.O. O. N.. . N.NO Om 0.0N N. O.O m ONONOOLO LO.
-NO.NN=u NN.No.m>OO ONO mu.»
-uONN NN..ONN.ON. NN.N.>NON=N .O.
NN. NO N.N O N.. . N..N .N N.ON NN N.NN N. uNmNmuN.
.o NOO. .NNNONON N..: NN.NoN .N.
No. NO N.N N N.NN O. N.ON NN O.NN N. O.N. N Em..OO
-NO> ONO OE.Nu N..: NN..OmN .N.
No. NO N.N N O.N. N N.ON NN N.NN NN O.N. .. OONON “NO ....NO NN.ONOON ONO
NNOEO>O.NOO .NOONNN NN.uosoNN ...
No. NO N.. . N.O N N.NN ON O.NN N. N.NN N. ON..N.uN.O
.N.e.OO=.Os ONO O=.Om..OOOOO .O.
OO. NO N.. . N.ON N. N.ON ON N.ON O. ..N. N ONO..O.ON u..O=N .N.eNONNOa .O
No. NO N.O N N..O NN N.NN ON N.N N N.N N ..ONN N..: N.OONNNou
NN.NONN.N.EOO ONO No.uO.uoNOz .N
NN. NN N.N N O.N. N N.OO NN N..N .N O.N. N NNo.uO.ON N..NNNENO
NN.N.O.N.ON ONO NN.NN..NONON .N
OO. NO O.O O ..N. N. N.NO ON ..N. O. O.O. N OOUOOOOO ..OON OO..OOOON .O
NN. NO N.N N O.NN N. N.NN NN O.NN N. N.N N N....OON .ooNUm
ON. .o NO.OONNOOON. ON.
NN.EouNN>o ONO N..: NN..OON .N
No. NO N.N N N.ON N. N.NO NN N.O. N. N.N N .u.NuN.O .ooNuN
ON. .0 ONN.O:NNN ONO No.N
-ON.NONNo ON. N. No..ON.u..NON .O
OO. NO N.O O N.ON O. N.ON ON N.N. N. N.O O ONO.OONO ON.OOO N..: N:..OOO .O
No. NO N.. . N.O. N. N.NN ON N.N. N. N.O. N. NONONN .ooNoO ON.
NN.NONN.N.NOO ONO NN.NNO.N .N
NN. NO N.. . N.N N O.NN N. N.NO NN O.N. N. mmN..NO.NN .ONOOO. Ono NN.NNNON ..
N ... N w. w. INN N w. W M W TOT mZOHHNmumun— v.92. mgom
.Opo. .ONNN ONNNNNON N.ONON N..NONNONNN. N..NONNONN N..NNNNONN
oz NNO> NNO>

 

.No.NON.NNNN .o .O>ON .N x.ONONNN

128

oo.
oo.

No.
No.
No.

No.
oo.
oo.
oo.
oo.
No.
No.
No.
oo.
oo.
oo.
00.

No
NN

NN
NN
NN

NO
NO
NN
NN
No
NO
NO
NO
NO
NN
NN
NN

LOO
FLO

LO
q.

v—V

NNM

N..N
N..N

O.N.
N.NN
N.ON

N.NN
N.NN
N.NN
O.NN
N.NN
N.NN
N.NN
N.NN
N.NN
N.NO
N.NN
N.NN

NN
mm

N.
O.
mN

ON
NN
NN
N.
mm
mm
Nm
N.
ON
NN
Om
Nm

N.NO
N.NO

N.NN
N.NN
N.NO

N..N
N.NO
N..N
N.NO
N.Nm
N.NO
N.ON
N.NO
N.NO
N.NN
N.NO
N..N

NN
om

Nm
Nm
Nm

.N
.m
NN
mm
mm
mm
MN
.m
mm
mm
NN
NN

N.N
N.N.

N.O.
N.N.
N...

N.NN
N.N.
N.N.
«.NN
N.N
N...
N.N
N.NN
N.N
N..
N..

N.
N.

N.N
N.N
N..
N.N
N.N
N..
N.N
N.N
N.O
N.O
N.O

FQ‘NLD Nfi'VI—¢

NN

MMMQ‘N

 

 

OO.NOOONOOO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. ..N
OOO.O .ONo.O

-ONNOON. NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .Nm
.ONNoONON

ONONNNO NO.3 ONo.OOONOON. .NN
ONONOOOO

OONNNOO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .NN

ONONOOOO 3ON NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .hm

mm<NN Nz< >NNNN<N N2.NN.NN .N
OOOO>NOO

.ONNOONON NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .NN
OOOO>LOO .ONNOONON

..NNN NOO3 ONN.OOONOON. .NN
.ONNOONON NNOOOOOONN

OOOO N.O: ONN.OOOLOON. .NN
.ONNOONON OOO.>NOO No.O

-O:.O>O NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .NN
.ONNOONON No.OOu=OO

O.:OO NO.3 mNOOOOONOON. .NN
.ONNOONON OOO.>NOO

.O.OONO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. ..N
.ONNOONON OONONON

ONN.ON NOO3 ONN.OOONOON. .NN
.ONNOONON OONONOONOOE ONO ONO.N

.OOOONNN ONO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .N.
NNOOO No.OOu=OO .O.OONO

ONO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .N.
ONNOOON.O ONONOONN OOO.O

-oOOO ONO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .N.
N.OONOO No ONOONOONONONNO ONOO

-OOOOO ONO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .N.
N.OONOO No ONOO

-NOONONONNO NOO3 ONN.OOONOON. .N.

um<NN NN.NNN.N N..: N2N.NN<NN.2. .<

 

NZOHHNNUNNN N.:mzo.h<4mm HmmnmNom

125

No.
NO.
co.
No.
No.
oo.
oo.
No.

No.
No.

oo.
co.

No.
No.
00.

NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN

NN
NN

NN
NN

NN
NN
NN

N.O
N.N
N.N
N.O
N.N

NOON

F

O.N.
N.N

N..N
N.NN
N..

N.O.
N.NN

N.N
N..
N.N
N.N

N.NN

N
N
.N
ON

C.
O.

O.

O.NN
N.N

N.NN
N.NN
O.N.
N.NN
N.NN
N...

N.N
N..
N.O.
N.N
N.O
O.N.

N.
N

N.
O.
..
N.
NN

..

N.ON
N.NO
O.N.
N.NN
N.NN
N.NN
N.NN
N.Nm

N.NN
N.NO

N.O.
N.NO

N.NO
N.NN
N.ON

mN
.m
N.
O.
Nm
NN
N.
NN

ON
NN

o.
NN

.m
ON
MN

N.NN
N..O
N.N.
O.N.
N.NN
O.N.
N...
N.NO

N.NN
N.NN

..NN
N.NN

N.NO
N.NN
O.NN

NN
NN
N.
..
N.
..

mm

Nm
Nm

NN
ON

NN
Nm
N.

OONOONOO OONOONO>OO N..Ou.

 

-EONouOuo.uoO NO.3 mNo.OuONOON. .NO
mONOONOm OONOONO>OOO.O N..OO.

-EONouOno.OOO NO.3 mNo.OuONOON. ..O
OONOONOO OONOONO>OOO.O

N..OO.ONNN NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .NO
ONN.OONONONNO

ONOONOO NO.3 ONOOOOONOON. .Nm
ONO>O.NOO

3o. NO.3 mNo.OOONOON. .NN
OONOONOO OOONO.OO N..Ou.

-EOOOOO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .NN
OONOONOO OOOOO.NON ONO

OOONNO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .Nm
OONOONOO O>.O

-NNNO.O NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .NN

NNN.>NNN OszNNN .N
ONOOOOOONO

NN.O..=O NON: ONO.OOONOON. .OO
.ONNOONON

EoogNuNN. NO.3 mNo.OuONOON. .mm

OO.NOOONOOO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .Nm
OOO.O .ONo.O

-ONNOON. NO.3 ONOOOOONOON. ..m
.ONNOONON

ONNNNNO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .Nm
ONONOOOO

OONNNOO NOON mNo.OuONOON. .NN

ONONOOOO zON NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .NN

 

mm<hm oz< >NNNN<N Nz.NN.:N

.N

126

oo.
oo.
oo.
No.

No.

oo.
oo.
No.
00.

NN
NN
NN
NN

NN
NN
NN
NN

N.N O
N.NN O.
N..N .N
N..O NN

N.NN NO

N.O. o.

N.N N
N.N N

N.N

N.NN
N.NO
N.NN

N.NN

N.NO
O.NN
O.N.
N.Nm

N

NN
NN
N.

NN
N.

NN

N.Nm
N.NN
N.NN
N.Nm

N.
N.

NN
Nm
Nm
ON

0.

N.N
N.N
N.O

O.N.
N.NN
O.NN
O.N.

N
O

N
m

MW..ONON ..N

O.NOON OO.OO NOO3 ONOOOOONOON. .NN
ONOEONONOO

Ou..oa ONO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .NO
OOOOONONONO

O..NO>:N NO.3 mNo.OOONOON. .NO
OONONN Ogaou NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .NO

mm.uzmw< Noozumuzoz no NN>.N<NZNNNNNNN .N

N

O.
N.
m.

ONNONN NOONNEEOO OO~.NONNo
NONOo NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .NO

ONNONN ONOOON
OO~.NONNo NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .NO

O>.ONoNN=m ONO ON: OONONON
.O:O.>.ON. NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .OO
OONONON NNNNO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .NO
N.2NN..NNZNN Nz< NNZNNON .N

 

No.
oo.
oo.
oo.

oo.

oo.

oo.
No.
No.
No.
oo.
oo.
ON.
ON.

NN
NN
NN
NN

NN

NN

NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN

N.N
N.N

N..

N.N

N..

N.N
N.N
N.N
N.N
N..
N..
N.O
N.N

NOO

N.OO
N..N
N.NN
N.O.

N.NN

O.N.

N..O
N.NN
O.N.
N.NO
O.NN
N.N

N.NN
O.N.

om
.N
NO
0.

N.

m.

NN
Nm
..
NN
N.

NN
m.

N.OO
N.OO
N.ON
N.NN

N.ON

N..O

N.Nm
N.NN
N..O
N..O
N.NN
N.NN
N..O
N.NN

om
om
NN
ON

ON

NN

NN
0N
NN
NN
N.
ON
NN
Nm

N.N
O.N.
N.O
N.NN

O.N.

O.NN

N.N
N.N
O.NN
N.N
O.NN
N.NN
O.N.
O.N.

O
..

NN

N.

N.

N.
NN
m.

N.O
N.N
N.N
N.O
N.N.
N.NN
N.O
N.N

O.

N.
N.

ONNONN NOONNEEOO

NONOo NO.2 ONN.OOONOON. .NO
ONNNNN ONONON

OONONONNO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .OO
O>.ONONN:O ONO oNz OONONON

.O:O.>.ON. NO.: ONN.OOONOON. .NO
OONONON NNNNO

.O:O.>.ON. NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .NO

NNZNNN.NN2NN Nz< NNZNNON .N

 

OONOONOO
OONOONO>OO N..OO.EONouO
-o.uom NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. ..O
mONOONOO
OONOONO>OOOOO N..OOOEONOOO
-OOOOO NOOZ ONN.OOONOON. .NO
OONOONOO OONOONO>OOOOO
N..OOOONNN NO.3 mNoOOuONOON. .NN
ONo.OON.NONNo
ONOONOO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .NN
ONO>OONOO
2o. NOO3 ONN.OOONOON. .NN
OONOONON OOONO.OO N..Ou.
-EOOOOO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .NN
OONOONOO OOOOO.NON ONO
OOONNO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .NN

OONOONOO
O>.ON=NO.O NO.3 ONN.OOONOON. .Om
ON0.0oOm:u
ON.O..=O NON: ONONOOONOON. .OO
.ONNOONON

500L505: 5H .25 mcowuummecH .Nm

130

No.
No.
No.
oo.

oo.

NN
NN
NN
NN

O.N. N

N.ON mN
N.NN Om
N.NO .m

N.NN NN

N.N

N.NN
N.ON
N.NN

N.NN

O

mN
NN
O.

N.NN
N.N
O.N.
O.N.

N.N
N.O
N.N
N.N

-- L.ONON

O O.NNONOO.OO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON.

m ONOEONONOO OO..ON
ONO NO.3 ONN.OOONOON.

N OO.O.NONO=O
O..NO>:N NO.3 ONN.OOONOON.

O OONONN
Ogaou NO.3 ONONOOONOON.
NN.N2NN< Noozumuzoz NN NN>.N<.2NNNNNNN

.NN
.NO

.NO
.NO

.NO
.N

APPENDIX F

APPROVAL LETTER FROM UCRIHS

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

UNIVERSITY comIn'TEI-z ox RESEARCH INVOLVING EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN - 43324
HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS)

238 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

(fiflSfidwb June 2, l981

Ms. Ruby L. Helton
Department of Curriculum
College of Education

Dear Ms. Helton:

Subject: Proposal Entitled, "Stress and Instructional Leadership
as Functions of Meeting Role Demands among Lansing
Elementary and Secondary Principals”

The above referenced project was recently submitted for review to the UCRIHS.

We are pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects
appear to be adequately protected and the Committee, therefore, approved this
project at its meeting on June l, l98l.

In approving this project, however, the Committee did attach two conditions,
namely: i. the letter to the principals will include a statement that the
results of the study will be submitted to the Superintendent of Schools in
aggregate form only, and 2. that respondents or non-respondents will not be
identified in anyway. Please acknowledge your acceptance of these conditions
by telephone or memo at your early convenience.

Projects involving the use of human subjects must be reviewed at least annually.
If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for
obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval prior to the anniversary date noted above.

Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If we can be of any
future help, please do not hesitate to let us know.

-.

Sincerely,

7 ’6'] L4 t{;_€(’,/L

Henry E. Bredeck
Chairman, UCRIHS

 

HEB/jms

cc: r. Ben Bohnhorst

l3l

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Cooper, G., & Marshall, J. Understanding executive stress. New York:
Petrocelli Book Company, 1977.

 

Englehart, M. D. Methods of educational research. Chicago: Rand
McNally and Company, 1972.

 

French, F. R., & Caplan, R. D. Organizational stress and individual
strain. New York: AMACOM, Marrow Edition, 1973.

 

Goldman, S. The schooljprincipal. New York: Center for Applied Re-
search, 1966.

 

Gross, N., & Mason, w. Explorations in role analysis. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958.

 

Kiev, A., & Kohn, V. Executive stress. New York: AMACOM, 1979.

 

Klein, w. M. Workers under stress. Lexington: University of Kentucky
Press, 197T.

Levinson, H. Executive stress. New York: Harper Rowe, 1979.
Lipham, J. Administrators and supervisors. In H. Halberg (Ed.), The

research basis for_pplicy. California: McCutchan Publishing—Cor-
poration, 1982.

 

Marcson, S. Autonation, alienation, and anome. New York: Harper Rowe
and Company, 1979.

Mehrens, N., & Lehmann, I. J. Standardized tests in education: Relia-
bility and test selection. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1969.

 

 

Norfolk, D. Executive stress. London: Associated Business Programs,
1977.

Pelletier, K. Mind as a healer, mind as a slayer: A holistic approach
to presentTng stress disorders. New York: Dell Publishing Com-
pany, 1979.

 

Selye, H. The stress of life. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company,
1976.

 

132

133

Southern States Cooperative Program in Education Administration.
Better teaching in school administration. Nashville, TE: George
Peabody College for Teachers, 1955.

 

Terry, G. Principal of management. Homewood, IL: Ronald D. Irwin
and Company, Inc., 1969.

 

Yates, J. Managerial stress. New York: ANACOM, 1973.

Articles and Periodicals

 

Alley, R. Stress and the professional educator. Action in Teacher
Education, Fall 1980, g, 1-9.

 

Bahan, K. Stress: How you get it and how you can get rid of it.
Living Today Times Union, January 22, 1980.

 

Bean, J., & Wolfman, B. Superwoman: Ms. or myth: A study on role
overload: A report to the National Institute of Education.
Washington, DC: ERIC Document Reporduction Service, EDl85432 M,
1980.

 

 

Block, R., & Miller, J. The new Mexico principalship yesterday and
today. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Edu-
cation Research Association, San Francisco, April 1979. ERIC
Document Reporduction Services, ED 175143.

Brookover, W., & Lezotte, L. Changes in school characteristics coin-
cide with changes in student achievement. East Lansing: Michigan
State University, College of Education, Institute for Research on
Teaching, May 1979.

Brooks, A. Mental stress at work. The Practioner, March 1973, 233,
500-508.

 

Brown, R., & Carlton, P. How to conquer stress when you can cope with
it and when you can't. National Elementary School Principal,
March 1980, 59, 38.

Burgoyne, G. 8. Stress motivation and the phenomenon of stress. In
D. Gowler & K. Legge's Managerial stress. New York: John Wiley
and Company, 1972.

Caplan, R. D., & Cobb, D. S. Job demands and worker health, main ef-
fects and occupational differences, NIOSH Report.

Channing, L. Bete and Company. A scriptographic booklet. Greenfield,
MA: 1975.

 

Cogan, J. G. Global education: Opening children's eyes to the world,
Principal, November 1981, 51.

134

Dallas, J. D. Crisis administration. NASSP Bulletin, February 1978,
62, 13-62.

 

Davis, R. P. Mental health program for Sacramento Unified School Dis-
trict's elementary principals. Sacramento, CA: Sacramento Uni-
fied School District, 1973.

Devroy, A. Reagan budget sacrifices. Lansing State Journal, February
7, 1982.

 

Dodd, P. Role conflicts of school principals. Harvard School of Edu-
cation: Final Report #4, 1975.

Dreeban, R., 8 Gross, N. The role behavior of school principals, 1965
National Principalship Study final report #3.

Eaton, M. T. Mental health of the older executives. Geriatrics, 1969,
124-126.

 

Fields, M. Stressor agents and stress reaction among nurse faculty
members. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New Mexico University,
1980.

Fox, F., & Berry, M. S. The trapped administrator: Affects of job
insecurity and police resistance upon commitment to a course of
action, Science Quarterly, September 1979, 24, 449.

 

French, J. R., Mueller, E. I., & Tupper, C. J. Workload of university
professors. Unpublished research, University of Michigan, 1965.

Gmelch, W., & Swent, J. B. Stress at the desk and how to creatively
cope. Eugene, OR: ERIC Document Reproduction Services, ED 146698
1978.

Herlicky, B., & Herlicky, D. Loneliness of educational leadership.
NASSP Bulletin, February 1980, 69, 7-12.

 

Kahn, R. L. Role stress. Mental health and work organizations. Chi-
cago: Rand McNally and Company, 1977.

 

Kay, E. Middle management. In J. O. Toole (Ed.), Work and the quality
of life. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1974.

Kranjewski, R. J. The principal and instructional supervision. The
National Elementary Principal, January 1978.

 

McClellan, B. Hidden agendas what trustees are made of. Independent
School, May 1978, 22, 27-30.

 

Manuso, J. S. Executive stress management. Personnel Administration,
November 1979, 24, 23-26.

 

Messenger, M. H. Loneliness and the elementary principal. Principal,
Fall 1981, 22, 13.

135

Mills, J. Breakdown: A journey through stress. Readers' Digest,
January 1982, 49-53.

 

Norman, B. Career burnout. Black Enterprise, July 1978, 45.

 

Poppenhagen, B. A comparison of elementary school principals to
junior/middle and high school principals on perceived job related
tension. Minnesota: ERIC Document Reproduction, ED 144226, 1978.

Reed, S. What you can do to prevent teacher burnout. National Ele-
mentary Principal, March 1979, 58, 62-70.

 

Rogers, V. What polls don't tell us about education. Principal, May-
June, 1977, 55, 44.

Rogus, J. T., & Martin, M. The principal and staff development.
Clearning House, September 1979, 55, 28-31.

Shank, J. Treating people right: The job at the top beloved,
beleagured, and too often beheaded. Independent School, October
1979, 52, 13-14.

 

Snoek, J. D. Role strain in diversified role sets. The American
Journal of Sociology, 1964, 6_1_, 362-72.

 

Swanda, J. The impact of managerial systems in role conflict and role
ambiguity: An analytical model for organizational modification.
South Bend, IN: Bureau of Business and Economic Research, 1975.

Swent, J. B. Occupational sources of stress among Oregon school ad-
ministrators. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ore-
gon, 1978.

Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. How to choose a leadership pattern.
Harvard Business Review.

Thatcher, J. Life stressors related to school principals. Principal,
Fall 1981, 11, 9-10.

Vanderpol, M. School administrators under stress. Principal, March
1981, 5Q, 39. .

Vetter, E. Role pressure and the school principal, Principal, March
1981, 5Q, 39.

Wayson, W. Power, power, who's got the power? Principal, March 1979,
58, 3-12.

Youngs, B. B. Anxiety and stress--how they affect teachers teaching.
NASSP Bulletin, November 1978, 52, 73-83.