A CRITICAL STUD? OF THE LEADER BEHAVIOR OF SCHWL ADMINISTRATORS {N CONFLECT WETH TEACHERS‘ UNIONS Thule {'m' We Emma c5 E3. D. MICHiGAN STATE BNEVERSITY David Raymsnd Cave 1967 TH E51: Michigan State . University 3 1293 1045 :3"! -This is to certify that the thesis entitled “ACRITICALSTUDY OF THE LEADER BEHAVIOR OF scHoo-Iy-ADMNISTRATORS IN CONFLICT .W'IaTH TEACHERS’ UNIONS” presented by David RaymondCave - has been accepted towards fulfillment . ' . of the requirements for m degree in Wu flag/WM Major professor Date MEM— 0-169 |\\|\\\\\U\\\ll\\\|\\\1\|\\\\|\|\H\\“\IHUIZMIZHUNHW L 1312A R Y , ..___ Wow—«MM_- ~4—w—m—..-__...-~ - - — -. A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE LEADER BEHAVIOR OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS IN CONFLICT WITH TEACHERS ’ UNIONS By David Raymond Cave AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOC TOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administration and Higher Education 1967 ABSTRACT A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE LEADER BEHAVIOR OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS IN CONFLICT WITH TEACHERS’ UNIONS by David Raymond Cave Purpose of the study. Since the Michigan legislature passed a law establishing the right of employees in the public sector to or- ganize for the purpose of engaging in collective negotiations or bar- gaining with their employers, many cases of conflict have occurred between school administrators and teachers’ unions. The image of public education has suffered immeasurable damage due to those severe conflicts which have already taken place within the brief history of collective negotiations between school administrators and teachers’ unions. This situation prompted the need for a critical study of some of the factors contributing to the conflict. One fac- tor was felt to be the leader behavior of school administrators. This research examines the present-day educational leader from several vantage points as he works and lives in situations of con- flict with the opposing teachers’ union. A major objective of this research was to identify those leader behavior dimensions which contribute to the presence of David Raymond Cave conflict. A second objective was to draw from the data recommenda- tions designed to reduce dysfunctional conflict. Methodology. News media helped to identify school districts in the state of Michigan in which there was conflict between school administrators and the teachers’ union. Letters were sent to the administrators in conflict districts requesting their cooperation in the research. One district was selected to serve as a pretest of the questionnaire and the interview procedure. Ten administrator-s undergoing conflict were selected to study. School board members, teachers’ union representatives, and the school administrator himself were asked to describe the leader be- havior of an ideal administrator by means of a Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. They were asked to respond again to the questionnaire to describe the type of leader behavior practiced by their administrator. Real scale scores were subtracted from the corresponding ideal scale scores to create “D” (difference) scores. By this means a measure was obtained of the difference between every respondent’s concept of an ideal administrator and his per- ception of his administrator. Statistical treatment of the data using analysis of variance established the significance of the scale scores David Raymond Cave over twelve dimensions of leader behavior. Interviews established some of the personal problems associated with the school adminis- trator’s leader behavior and provided additional data which could not be drawn frOm the questionnaire. Conclusions. Analysis of the data established that school administrators, school board members, and teachers’ union repre- sentatives similarly described the ideal leader behavior an admin- istrator should practice. This finding indicates that there is an excellent opportunity for resolving differences providing administra- tors are able to change their real leader behavior nearer to the ideal description as given by each of the three groups. Analysis of the data established that at the present time the leader behavior of administrators is in fact contributing to the presence of conflict with teachers’ unions. Those leader behavior dimensions which were determined by quadrant analysis to be contributing the most to conflict were (1) consideration, (2) initiation of structure, (3) integration, (4) demand reconciliation, (5) tolerance of freedom, and (6) production emphasis. Improvement in these leader be- havior dimensions is essential before conflict can be satisfactorily resolved. David Raymond Cave The research indicated that administrators are deficient in their knowledge and understanding of the behavioral sciences and the theories and techniques of conflict resolution. Appraisal of the traditional professional training programs for administrators in light of the research findings pointed up the need for a critical re-exami- nation of the curriculum and techniques for training administrators. A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE LEADER BEHAVIOR OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS IN CONFLICT WITH TEACHERS ’ UNIONS By David Raymond Cave A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOC TOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administration and Higher Education 1967 .. Copyright by DAVID RAYMOND CAVE 1967 ii “THE CLASH OF DOCTRINES IS NOT A DISASTER, IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY.” Alfred North Whitehead Science and the Modern World iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Through the past years of graduate work it has been the writer’s privilege to study under the guidance of many distinguished and dedicated educators. To all who contributed to the inception, development, and completion of this research the writer wishes to express his sincerest appreciation. Dr. William H. Roe, dean of the College of Education, Uni- versity of Connecticut, formerly on the faculty of Michigan State University, guided the writer during his graduate studies and as- sisted during the formative stages of the research design. Dr. Roe’s deep understanding of public school administration was of im- measurable help during this period. To Professor Clyde M. Campbell the author is especially in- debted. Through the years he has been a constant source of inspira- tion. He has devoted his professional life to teaching the concepts and principles of democratic school administration. To his credit he was one of the first to recognize the need to re-evaluate the theory of educational administration in light of the new climate imposed by the advent of collective negotiations in the teaching profession. iv Dr. John Useem, a distinguished sociologist, was responsible for kindling in the author an interest in studying organization struc- tures and the personalities who maneuver through the intricate pas- sages found there. Also to Dr. James Hundley, the author is grateful for his generous allocation of time and valuable suggestions for con- ducting the interview phase of the research. Dr. Loraine V. Shepard was most helpful to the author when he was reviewing the literature. To Mr. Harold Webb, executive secretary of the National Association of School Boards, to Mr. Charles Cogen, president of the American Federation of Teachers, and to Mr. Henry Linne, president of the Michigan Federation of Teachers, appreciation is extended for their expression, on behalf of their respective’organi- zations, of interest in seeing this research undertaken. Mr. David Wright, Mr. John Hafterson, and Mrs. Norma Ray were most helpful in assisting the author in treatment of data. Special knowledgment has been reserved for Dr. Archibald Shaw, who graciously consented to chair the author’s doctoral com- mittee. When several serious roadblocks threatened to keep the research from progressing, it was Dr. Shaw’s wise and patient counsel which suggested solutions. No expression of gratitude could be truly adequate. Appreciation is also extended to the United States Office of Education for its financial support which contributed to the comple- tion of the research. Finally, the last expression of gratitude is saved for a courageous group of school administrators whose names, out of deference, must remain anonymous. Without their help and interest in seeking ways to improve the leader behavior of school adminis- trators this research would not have been possible. Through their willingness to allow the author to probe into one of the most sensi- tive developments that has occurred in public school administration in this decade, it has been possible to bring together data that may be helpful both to other practitioners and to students of public school administration. . vi TABLE OF CONTENTS AC I + 53 N I * 3E3 -= ing E3 m 11 £28 A“ A,D,E,F,H J 3 - + a - All - a Q MEAN OF TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY SCORES Figure 17. Quadrant analysis of school administrators’ LBDQ-Ideal scores on the leader behavior dimensions tolerance of uncertainty and predictive accuracy. 104 administrators in school systems A, D, E, F, and H were below the mean, indicating that they regarded a tolerance of uncertainty as not being critical for an i_dga_1_ administrator. The last two dimensions to be defined by the Leader Be- havior Description Questionnaire are representation and role as— sumption. Representation, it will be recalled, is the determination of the degree to which the leader shall act as the “representative of the group.” In the present study this was interpreted to mean what the administrator’s leader behavior would be when meeting with the school board on behalf of the teachers. The second dimension is role assumption. This dimension seeks to determine to what degree the administrator exercises the leadership rather than surrendering it to others. In scoring these two dimensions it became apparent that the ideology of the school administrators and teachers’ union represen- tatives gave a low rating for the role assumption dimension. In Districts A, C, D, E, G, I, and J there was a positive image by school administrators of what the ideal leader behavior should be on the role assumption dimension. On the dimension of representation administrators in all dis— tricts but B, F, and H had a positive image of the ideal leader be- havior. Looking at the two dimensions another way, seven out 105 of ten administrators viewed the representation dimension positive and seven out of ten viewed role assumption negative. The administrators’ ideology on the dimensions of represen- tation and role assumption are presented in Figure 18. It would be expected that administrators who had negative ideologies on dimensions of leader behavior would tend to exhibit a behavioral pattern which would reflect that ideology. Six adminis- trators out of ten districts described their leader behavior on the representation dimension as being positive. All other administrators self-images of their real behavior received negative scores. ADMINISTRATORS: LBDO- Ideal REPRESENTATION 2 B C,J z 3 l + E g m I * 32.». :5 23¢ 3 ‘MO . m n ugu i V) H, ER A.D,E,G.I .. a‘ - + a‘ 8 — - l: MEAN OF REPRESENTATION SCORES Figure 18. Quadrant analysis of school administrators’ LBDQ-Ideal scores on the leader behavior dimensions representa- tion and role assumption. 106 If these same results were also reflected in the scores of school board members and also the teachers’ union representatives, there probably would not be conflict within the area encompassed by these two dimensions of leader behavior. Examination of the school boards’ ideology concerning the dimension of role assumption reflects a similar opinion. In nine out of the ten districts, board members described the ideal leader behavior positive. This being true, if the school administrator’s behavior approaches his ideological concepts, he probably will not be confronted with conflict with the school board members. On the dimension of representation, seven out of ten school board members described the _i_d_e_a_l administrator higher than the mean. When the LBDQ-Real scores of board members were exam- ined for representation, the administrators were scored positive in all districts except A, D, and E. Only in District A did the board members score their administrator negative on the dimension of role assumption. District A scored their administrator negative on both dimensions. A quadrant presentation of the board members’ LBDQ-Ideal and LBDQ-Real scores is shown in Figures 19 and 20. If conflict exists between school administrators and teachers’ unions on either the representation or role assumption dimension, 107 SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS: LBDQ-Ideal REPRESENTATION 3. E. F. G. 2 A'D H,I,J z 2 - + 2 E + + u: 5‘ 33g ‘2 III II grit; MI C m g - + .o a: - - 2 MEAN OF REPRESENTATION SCORES Figure 19. Quadrant analysis of school board members’ LBDQ-Ideal scores on the leader behavior dimensions representation and role assumption. SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS: LBDQ " Real REPRESENTATION P C I a.“ o, r. :- ++- + H II III SCORES n MEAN OF ROLE ASSUMPTION ROLE ASSUMPTION l + II) MEAN OF REPRESENTATION SCORES Figure 20. Quadrant analysis of school board members’ LBDQ-Real scores on the leader behavior dimensions representation and role assumption. 108 the first clue likely to appear would be as a significant difference in their respective ideologies. Examination of their respective scores reveals that administrators matched teachers’ union ideolo- gies five times out of ten on role assumption. Some of the scores were negative, but both the administrator and the teachers’ union role assumption were in agreement. For the dimension of representation (LBDQ-Real), school ad- ministrators and teachers’ union representatives agreed only three out of ten times. On the dimension of role assumption (LBDQ-Real), there was agreement only three out of ten times. It had been as- sumed, prior to administering the LBDQ, that the one dimension which would have been of great significance to the teachers’ union was the representation dimension. This assumption was proven to be in error. Perhaps the findings can best be explained by a remark made by a teachers’ union representative when he said, “We’ll do our own representing with the board of education. We tried it the other way with the superintendent supposedly looking out for us and it just didn’t work.” A comparison of the LBDQ-Ideal for school administrators and teachers’ union representatives is presented in Figures 21 and 22. 109 ADMINISTRATORS: L BDQ ‘Ideal REPRESENTATIOI B C,J E - + 3 g 11 1 Egg, 3 23¢ 2 m It 323 MI F H AIDIEI Sm” -' ’_ 6.11 -a 3 + 2 MEAN OF REPRESENTATION SCORES Figure 21. Quadrant analysis of school administrators’ LBDQ-Ideal scores on the leader behavior dimensions representation and role assumption. TEACHERS’ UNION REPRESENTATIVES: LBDQ-Ideal nsvnestunnou g. 5' 3 E + + '- 3; I! I 3%: 3 :35 < a, F, E. m It 5’33 L‘.‘ G. I A.$.J 3 2 : _ 3 MEAN OF REPRESENTATION SCORES Figure 22. Quadrant analysis of teachers’ union representatives’ LBDQ-Ideal scores on the leader behavior dimensions representation and role assumption. CHAPTER V SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS The purpose of this research was to study the leader be- havior of school administrators engaged in conflict with teachers’ unions to determine whether the styles or forms of leader behavior were in any way contributing to the presence of conflict. Conflict between school administrators and teachers’ unions was brought into focus, partly as a result of enabling legislation which allowed em- ployees in the public sector to organize for the purpose of collec— tive negotiations with their employers. As a result of this develop- ment many educators now feel that theories of educational adminis- tration will undergo significant changes. Part of the conflict is related to the power struggle being carried on between the rival National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. School administrators have often been caught in the middle of this controversy and have found them- selves a convenient opponent for both groups. There have been, however, forms of conflict directed at administrators which cannot 110 2: (j) 111 be attributed wholly to a power struggle between two rival organi- zations. Some of the complaints voiced by teachers’ union repre- sentatives were that school administrators were “unapproachable” or that the organizational climate imposed by the administrator was “stifling” or that the administrator was “controlled” by the school board. Administrators were accused of such things as coercion, interfering with teachers’ organizations, discrimination, domination, and refusing to bargain or negotiate with employees. In hearings, the LMB has striven to eliminate whatever abuses and misunder- standings there may have been in an attempt to keep educational processes moving. The basic hypothesis of this research was that clashes be- tween school administrators and teachers’ unions are due, in large part, to the conflicting perceptions of the school administrator’s leader behavior, as described by the administrator himself, the school board, and members of the teachers’ union. It was expected that there would be some significant differ- ences in how the administrator and the teachers’ union representa- tives would describe the administrator’s leader behavior. The specific hypotheses to be tested were: 1. School administrators, school board members, and teach- ers’ union representatives will tend to agree in their 112 descriptions of what constitutes ideal leader behavior of an administrator. 2. School administrators and school board members will tend to disagree with teachers’ union representatives on their descriptions of an administrator. 3. Teachers’ union representatives will describe their ad- ministrator’s leader behavior as being less effective than will either the administrator or school board members. 4. School board members’ descriptions of the leader behavior of their administrator will tend to be the same as the de- scriptions they will give to describe the leader behavior of the ideal type of administrator. 5. School board members will tend to describe the leader behavior of their school administrator as being more ef- fective than the administrator will describe his own leader behavior. The research was also important since, as a result of col- lective negotiations, practices in school administration are under- going revolutionary changes. The traditional roles of school ad- ministrators and teachers’ organizations are in the process of being redefined. The incidence of conflict during the early stages of this transitory period was an indication that a serious problem existed which should be answered realistically. In order to make the correct diagnosis factual information was required. As a preliminary step to studying the leader behavior of school administrators in conflict with teachers’ unions, a review of the literature was made. The review sought out leadership 113 theories and related research. The historical deveIOpment of the interest in leadership was traced. It was found that empirical re- search on the subject of leadership is a relatively new undertaking. The Ohio State University leadership studies, upon which the pres- ent research was based, were discussed. It was also necessary to review the subject of conflict and conflict resolution. The review determined that surprisingly little effort has been devoted to de- veloping a sociology of conflict and conflict resolution. The plan of the study required that each school administrator included in the sample had to be experiencing a degree of conflict with the teachers’ union. Identification of the school districts where conflict was present was provided by newspaper reports and by interviews with educators, union officials, and Labor Medi- ation Board members. Letters were then sent to twenty-six school administrators in districts thus identified, explaining the nature of the research and asking for their cooperation. From the original twenty-six possibilities, only eleven administrators indicated a willingness to participate. One of the eleven was selected to familiarize the re- searcher with problems and procedures relating to the question— naire. The information concerning the leader behavior of this administrator is not reported in the research data. 114 The following facts were considered important to the study: (II Administrators were faced with a type of conflict never before experienced in public schools. (2) There has been a growing mili- tancy on the part of teachers’ organizations. (3) The legal require- ments established by enactment of Public Act 379 have seemingly produced a new climate for interpersonal relations with teachers’ groups. (4) The skills required to function effectively in the arena of labor relations were not included in the professional training of present-day school administrators. (5) There is an increasing ur- gency for conflict resolution in a more complex social setting. (6) The supply of professionally trained teachers is at an all-time low in relation to the demand and has aided teachers in the creation of an opposing power bloc. The test instrument is an outgrowth of an earlier investiga- tion of leader behavior conducted by Andrew Halpin and the Ohio State University leadership studies. The questionnaire is called the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (Form XII) and is designed to describe twelve dimensions of leader behavior. In accordance with the research design, the school administrator, school board members, and representatives of the teachers’ union were to respond to the questionnaire. Each participant was asked to answer the questionnaire twice. The first time the questionnaire 115 was answered the respondents were asked to describe the leader behavior of an ideal administrator. This questionnaire was desig- nated LBDQ-Ideal. The second time the questionnaire was answered each of the three groups was required to describe the leader be- havior of the school administrator (this included the administrator’s description of his own leader behavior). This questionnaire was designated LBDQ-Real. The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire contains 100 items. The school administrator, school board members, and repre- sentatives of the teachers’ union comprised the sample. School board members’ and teachers’ union representatives’ scores were averaged within their respective groups to reflect one score for each group. This allowed a one-to-one comparison and enabled a triangulation analysis of the three groups. The dimensions of leader behavior described by the question- naire were: (1) representation,l(2) demand reconciliation, (3) toler- ance of uncertainty, (4) persuasiveness, (5) initiation of structure, (6) tolerance of freedom, (7) role assumption, (8) consideration, (9) production emphasis, (10) predictive accuracy, (11) integration, and (12) superior orientation. Scores were tabulated for each respondent’s questionnaires for both the LBDQ-Ideal and LBDQ-Real. A third set of scores 116 were created by subtracting the LBDQ-Real scores from the LBDQ- Ideal scores. These created scores were called “D” (difference) scores. Several tests were made to determine whether the three groups agree as to what constitutes an ideal administrator and whether they agree on their descriptions of the administrator. Generally speaking, school administrators, school board members, and teachers’ union representatives described the ideal leader behavior in a similar way. The fact that they were in par- tial agreement regarding ideal leader behavior improves the chances for conflict resolution. It was hypothesized that descriptions of what the administrator’s real leader behavior would be would dif- fer in the three groups. The data supported this hypothesis. Teachers’ union representatives, when describing the leader be- havior of the school administrator, strongly disagreed with descrip- tions of the leader behavior given by school board representatives. This finding was not totally unexpected. The extent to which it differed from the mean was far greater than had been expected. Earlier research determined that there was a tendency of school board members and teachers’ groups to rate the leader behavior of an administrator oppositely. This finding supported the theory that school administrators differentiated in their behavior. 117 In the present research there was such a variation from the mean in the description of leader behavior by teachers’ union rep- resentatives that it would tend to indicate the leader behavior of the administrator does in fact contribute to conflict. There is some validity in the observation that different people or groups will view situations and circumstances differently. It was also discovered that teachers’ union representatives will describe their administrator’s leader behavior as less effective than will either the administrator or board members. This finding supported one of the hypotheses. It was hypothesized that school board members’ descriptions of the leader behavior of the school administrator would tend to be the same as the description they would give in describing the leader behavior of an ideal type of administrator. However, when this hypothesis was tested, it was rejected. This would indicate that school board members are not particularly defensive of the leader behavior of their school administrator. Analysis of the data supported the hypothesis that school board members would tend to describe the leader behavior of their school administrator as being more effective than the administrator would describe his own behavior. The data supported the hypothesis 118 and suggested that administrators view themselves as further from the ideal than do their board members. A quadrant analysis of the data was made (based on Halpin’s quadrant scheme). The quadrant analysis enabled the twelve dimen- sions of leader behavior to be divided into two groups. One group comprised leader behavior dimensions which would tend to be di- rected toward teachers. The second group of leader dimensions were generally directed toward the school board. Leader behavior of the ten school administrators was found to differ from one dimen- sion to another, with no clear-cut pattern. The leader behavior of the administrators was generally described by the teachers’ union representatives as being ineffectual. The findings supported Halpin’s earlier research that superiors and subordinates tend to evaluate leader behavior oppositely. This result indicates that the different group attitudes impose a measure of role conflict on administrators. The fact that boards of education hire and fire administrators may be all the reason an administrator needs to differentiate in his behavior. The unanimity of the leader behavior descriptions given by the teachers’ union representatives throughout the ten districts was more significant than had been anticipated. 119 The evidence indicated that administrators saw themselves as being less effective than is desirable. The most crucial aspect of conflict between administrators and teachers’ union representatives was described as not being the lack of professional preparation of administrators in the field of collective negotiations as much as the delimiting factor of their ineffectual leader behavior. There have been many hurriedly organized programs designed primarily to acquaint administrators with the law which established collective negotiations, the mechanics of collective negotiating, state agencies which have an active role to play in the process, and other subjects related to labor relations. The relationship of leader behavior and the presence of conflict has not received the attention it deserves in the collective negotiations process. One of the problems encountered by administrators is the dual role in which they find themselves. Behavior differentiation is an administrator’s way of life. Not all of the leader behavior dimensions were found to be significant in a conflict situation. The dimensions superior orien- tation and representation, for example, were not significant. Other dimensions which were found to be of a lesser importance to 120 teachers were tolerance of uncertainty, predictive accuracy, role assumption, and persuasiveness. There was an indication that, while salary was one of the things that triggered conflict in collective negotiations, there were usually underlying causes which were of greater significance. In- effectual leader behavior was often mentioned as one of the leading causes. PA RT TWO IMPLICATIONS F OR ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY AND PRACTICE 121 CHAPTER VI ADMINISTRATORS’ LEADER BEHAVIOR AND CONFLICT Leader Behavior in Relation to Conflict The preceding chapter reported the results of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaires. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the significance of leader behavior in relation to conflict with teachers’ unions. It is interesting to note that in a recently released text on the subject of professional negotiations the subject of conflict between administrators and teacher organiza- tions is not mentioned. The text does, however, contain a wealth of material dealing with the mechanics of professional negotiation-- the legal status, elements which make up professional negotiations agreements, the administrator’s role in professional negotiations, and other related topics. The most crucial aspect of collective negotiations has not been with the mechanics of collective negotiations, although this is cer— tainly vital, but rather with leader behavior. Today, educational 122 123 administration is involved in an emotionally charged atmOSphere. The decision-making process, which administrators had previously practiced, is now open to more criticism. The so-called “good old days” for administrators have disappeared from the present scene. Teachers’ groups are giving voice to their opinions and demanding to be heard on everything from wages, hours, and working condi— tions to policy-making and textbook selection. As a result of the changes that have taken place in collec- tive negotiations and, in an attempt to bring administrators up to date, seminars in procedures and techniques have been conducted by labor relations professors. Government-sponsored agencies have sought to interpret the new collective bargaining law, and officials of the Labor Mediation Board have explained their function in the resolution of disputes. Each and every one of these events has been of value to educational administrators. Although these groups may aid in the resolving of conflict after it has reached the point where compro- mise is necessary, it appears that the cause is being neglected and only the effect is being acted upon. To what degree can the proc- ess of collective negotiations be successful if there is ineffectual leader behavior on the part of a school administrator? While it is a subject for additional research, the leader behavior of the teachers’ 124 union representatives is also important to the conflict resolution process of collective negotiations. Administrators have been cast in a dual role. The follow- ing is an excerpt from the 1963-64 National Education Association handbook Guidelines for Professional Negotiation: [The superintendent’s] role in professional negotiation is a dual one. He is the executive officer of the board, responsible for administering adopted policy. At the same time, he has a re- sponsibility as a member and leader of the professional staff. . . .1 The administrator has been somewhat by-passed in many of the collective negotiations procedures; i.e., the teachers’ union rep- resentatives have often dealt directly with the school board. Ad- ministrator duality, as expressed by the previous quotation, has not been in all cases evenly divided. Duality implies that the administrator would be of equal importance to the school board and . to the teachers’ union in the collective negotiations process. Col- lective negotiations, to date, have not allowed the administrator to pursue an effective leadership role. This could be due, in part, to a basic ineffectiveness of the administrator or to the collective negotiations model being followed. In either case the administrator 1Guidelines for Professional Negotiation (Washington: Office of Professional Development and Welfare, National Education Asso- ciation, 1963), p. 14. 125 is not functioning properly. In the next chapter this subject will be pursued further and a procedure suggested to improve the adminis- trator’s leader role. In discussing the changes taking place in school administra- tion, Lieberman and Moskow point out: There are several misconceptions concerning the impact of col- lective negotiations on the role of school administrators. One is that collective negotiations downgrades the role of school administrators or reduces the need for effective school admin- istrators. Nothing could be more erroneous. Collective ne- gotiations puts a higher premium on effective administration than the traditional relationships between teachers and admin- istrators ever did.1 It still cannot be concluded that administrators in conflict districts, on which this research is based, are ineffectual. The data do, however, dramatically emphasize that an administrator’s behavior, as appraised by the three groups, does not converge into a single description of his real behavior. Each group evaluated the effect of differentiated behavior, and it cannot be said that any one de- scription is more valid than the other. Each is valid from its own frame of reference. The data confirmed that several leader behavior dimensions did not have significance in conflict districts. These dimensions 1Myron Lieberman and Michael Moskow, Collective Negoti- ations for Teachers (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966), pp. 354-55. 126 were superior orientation and representation. The relationship of an administrator to the school board (superior orientation), as seen by the teachers’ union representatives, was of lesser consequence. In a conflict situation this finding is interesting because the way an administrator relates to his school board could certainly have far-reaching effects upon teachers, who are in subordinate positions. It can only be surmised that teachers feel that under the new law they are protected and that what the administrator does in his inter- personal relations with the school board is his own concern. The second leader behavior dimension, which was revealed . as not being significant, was representation. Neither the LBDQ— Ideal nor the LBDQ-Real scores showed significance. This finding was not expected. In the traditional educational system (prior to collective negotiations) teachers had to rely on their administrator to represent them to the school board. Considering the overall climate of educational administration, effective administrators did a reasonably good job of representing teachers. However, there were undoubtedly some administrators who, either through undue concern for themselves or through fear of reaction on the part of school boards, did very little to represent teachers. It would be this type of administrator who would lead a teachers’ union repre- sentative to explain his lack of interest in the representation 127 dimension. “We’ll do our own representing with the board of educa- tion,” he said. “We tried it the other way with the superintendent supposedly looking out for us and it just didn’t work.” These were only two leader behavior dimensions out of the twelve identified by the LBDQ. The other dimensions were found to have significant differences in the descriptions of the adminis- trators, by school board members, teachers’ union representatives, and the administrators themselves. Within the ten districts there was considerable variation concerning the teachers’ union repre- sentatives’ descriptions of particular administrators as related to the specific dimensions. For example, administrator B was de- scribed by the teachers’ union representatives as being highly ef- fective (++) on the dimensions representation and role assumption. The same administrator, however, was described on the dimensions consideration and initiation of structure as being ineffective (--). On the dimensions tolerance of uncertainty and predictive accuracy, and superior orientation and persuasiveness he was scored in Quad- rant II (+-). The administrator in this quadrant is characterized as being undisturbed by uncertainties (tolerance of uncertainty) and as having a low ability to anticipate or predict forthcoming events (predictive accuracy). His relationship with the school board mem- bers is described as being satisfactory (from the teachers’ vantage 128 point), while he is low in his ability to use persuasion effectively. He is least effective (--) on the dimensions consideration and initia- tion of structure, integration and demand reconciliation, and toler- ance of freedom and production emphasis. No two administrators followed exactly the same pattern. While an administrator may not be meeting the expectations of teach- ers’ unions regarding his leader behavior on a specific dimension, he could be rated high on another dimension. Nearly all the admin- istrators were described by teachers’ union representatives, on six out of the twelve dimensions, as being ineffectual. These dimensions are: (1) consideration and initiation of structure, (2) integration and demand reconciliation, and (3) tolerance of freedom and production emphasis. While the other dimensions are important, they appear to be of lesser importance, in light of the data, to the overall descrip— tions of leader behavior. The division of the leader behavior dimensions, in terms of their basic orientation, was thoroughly investigated. The first three combinations of leader behavior dimensions of the administrator are directed toward the teacher. The combinations which appear to have lesser importance to the teachers (tolerance of uncertainty and pre- dictive accuracy, and representation and role assumption) are di- rected toward the school board. 129 [SCHOOL BOARD] I TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY PREDICTIVE ACCURACY REPRESENTATION ROLE ASSUMPTION SUPERIOR ORIENTATION PERSOASIVENESS I DDMINISTRAIORJ —> ”"G‘mw" -—> [TEACHERS j CONSIDERATION INITIATION OF STRUCTURE DEMAND RECONCILIATION TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM PRODUCTION EMPHASIS Figure 23. Orientation of leader behavior. 130 In an article which appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, Hugh A. Doherty of the Alberta (Canada) Teachers’ Association, re- flecting on the causes of strikes which have occurred in his province during the past twenty-one years, said, “Salary triggered the action initially but there was always more to it.”1 This same observation was made by several of the teachers’ union representatives who were interviewed in the course of this research. One example of an administrator’s behavior in a face-to-face meeting with a union representative was described as ending “just short of fisticuffs.” Whether or not the administrator would have actually carried out this action is difficult to say, but at least the implication was strong. The emotions of both the administrators and teachers’ union representatives have been running high. The pattern of col- lective negotiations to date has placed the school administrator in an adversary role. Labor relations “experts” have stated that this is the only way collective negotiations can function. If the experts are right that collective negotiation is essentially an ad- versary relationship for the participants, then prescribed codes of behavior will be more or less dictated by established precedents. 1Lucia Monat, “Teachers on the March,” Christian Science M, August 6, 1965. 131 If, on the other hand, there is a certain uniqueness to collective negotiations in the field of education, then precedents established in the private sector of collective bargaining may not be applicable. An entirely new pattern may have to be designed and accepted by those engaged in educational negotiating processes. In the previous chapter the data established that there are wide differences in the perceived behavior (LBDQ-Real) of school administrators. The idea leader behavior expected of a school ad— ministrator was found to be nearly the same in the opinions of school administrators, school board members, and the teacher’s union representatives. As long as there is general agreement among the three groups concerning an administrator’s leader be- havior, the next major task is to encourage conditions which will bring about appropriate behavioral changes. Topological Analysis for Conflict Resolution Lewin, Coch, and French conducted experiments designed to show “the efficacy of group discussion and of participation in group decisions in the lowering of resistance to change.”1 Floyd Mann lWarren Bennis et al. (eds.), The Planning of Change (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962), p. 172. 132 conducted research on “feedback training” in which the results of research into “attitudes towards authority and leadership behavior within the group effectively brings about a change in [these] atti- tudes.”1 A topological representation (Figure 24) of the conflict between school administrators and teachers’ unions will perhaps shed further light on the problem. A school administrator (A) who sincerely wants to eliminate conflict with the teachers’ union representatives (Tu) will find that certain barriers (B) must be overcome. The barriers, in this case, are the leader behavior (LBDQ-Real) dimensions (C, IS, I, DR, TF, and PE). In the ideal (LBDQ-Ideal) descriptions both the school administrators and the teachers’ union representatives were in general agreement (no significant differences over ten of the twelve dimensions of leader behavior). Only the dimensions initi- ation of structure and role assumption were found to have signifi- cant differences on the idedi scale. Lewin,2 in Resolving Social Conflicts, points out that con- flicts generally do not become really serious unless there is a divergent meaning of the factors which influence harmony. In the tOpological representation under consideration there is considerable 1Ibid. 2Lewin, op. cit. 133 —>.--—» c IS I DR n: PE / DESIRABLE LOCOMOTION A: Administrator DR: Tu: Teachers ’ union representatives TF: C: Consideration PE: IS: Initiation of structure B: I: Integration Demand reconciliation Tolerance of freedom Production emphasis Barriers between A and Tu Figure 24. Leader behavior barriers to conflict resolution. 134 divergence. Before conflict resolution can effectively take place, the administrator (A) must find ways to overcome the barriers (B) to the satisfaction of the teachers’ union representatives (Tu). Be- cause of the complexity of the situation it would be difficult to say how much emphasis should be placed upon improvement in a specific dimension. As an administrator’s leader behavior was modified, in the tolerance of freedom dimension (due to a possible “halo” effect), he may find that his leader behavior in the production emphasis di- mension has become more acceptable. This deve10pment is only speculative but would be a decided possibility. Another topological representation of the conflict illustrates areas of concerns shared by administrator and teachers’ union rep- resentatives (Figure 25). In this illustration both the administrator and the teachers’ union representatives would benefit from a lessen- ing of conflict. The administrator would benefit from a reduction of built-up tensions and improved administrative efficiency. The teach- ers’ union representatives would benefit from an improved climate in which collective negotiations could function. One activity which concerns only the administrator (OuA) is his orientation to the school board. The teachers’ union represen- tatives also engage in activities which concern only themselves; i.e., (OuTu) activities which concern only the union members. To the 135 ’Tu <- E -> ’A ITu I I I 0am 1cTu {Tu {Tu ’Tu + C '* ’A 1cTu A Tu A: Adminis- fTu: Force corre- trator sponding to teachers’ union Tu: Teachers’ representatives’ union rep- interest in con— resenta- flict resolution tives C: Conflict reso- E: Environ- lution ment OuA: Activities which fA: Force cor- concern only the responding administrator to admin- istrators’ OuTu: Activities which interest in concern only the conflict teachers’ union resolution representatives Figure 25. Analysis of shared concerns. 136 degree that these factors exert a dominance over the respective groups, there will be reduced force applied in the shared area. If an administrator is able to successfully differentiate his leader be- havior between the school board and the teachers’ union representa- tives and can modify this behavior into acceptable standards, he should be able to achieve conflict resolution. Lewin has suggested that “whether a conflict may be solved, to what degree, and in what way, depends entirely upon the constellation of the particular [situ- ation] and the meaning of conflict for it.”1 He goes on to say that “the frequency and seriousness of conflicts [in an organization] depend mainly on the general atmosphere. For the solution of con- flicts, the atmosphere again seems to be the most important factor.” If this statement is assumed to be true, then certain responsibilities are automatically placed on the participants in the shared area as depicted in the previous illustration (Figure 24). The administrator must recognize the need and initiate appropriate behavioral modifi- cations. The teachers’ union representatives, on the other hand, must make a genuine effort to assist the administrator by being re- ceptive to his positive behavioral changes and by correspondingly making changes in their own behavior. In this way each will 1Ibid., p. 101. 2mm. 137 reinforce the other’s positive behavior and the climate will improve. If the conditions as depicted in Figure 24 are normalized, then the results as illustrated in Figure 26 can be expected. The school administrator must recognize that, in order to initiate improvements in his interpersonal relations with the teach- ers’ union representatives or, for that matter, with any organized group, he must be the instigator. In this sense he must be willing to relinquish a certain amount of freedom. Lewin, in discussing the individual in relationship to the group, says: Relinquishing of a certain amount of freedom is a condition of membership in any group. It is therefore important for every group to know on what basis the balance between individual and group needs is established. Compliance with the rules of the group may be more or less enforced, or may result from a strong “we-feeling.” Experiments show that the latter is much more characteristic of certain democratic atmospheres than of cer- tain autocratic atmospheres. They further show that “we- feeling” makes for less tension and conflict. The readiness to consider the other member’s views and goals and to discuss personal problems rationally leads to quicker solution of con- flicts.1 One remaining problem for administrators concerns the form that resolved conflict will take and in what direction it will travel. It is in this domain that his skill and effectiveness will be crucial. 1Ibid., p. 102. 138 TF PEL TF PEF g m 1| Em)» / ACTUAL LOCOMOTION —8 I_-- -— A: Administrator TF: Tolerance of freedom Tu: Teachers’ union repre- PE: Production sentatives emphasis C: Consideration B: Barriers IS: Initiation of 1: Sections of bar- structure riers passed I: Integration CR: Conflict reso- lution DR: Demand rec - onc iliation E : Environment Figure 26. Conflict resolution. 139 Summary At the present time there is little information available con- cerning the leader behavior of school administrators in regard to their controversy with teachers’ unions. The trend has been to quickly gain knowledge of the mechanics of negotiating. The re- lationship of leader behavior to conflict resolution has been over- looked. School administrators were found to differentiate in their leader behavior. They behaved one way when dealing with their school boards and another way when dealing with the teachers’ unions. Due to the climate of school administration undergoing change at a rapid pace, attitudes of teachers are also changing. Teachers appear to have lost faith in permitting the administrators to repre- sent them to the school boards and prefer instead to do their own representing. While no two administrators followed exactly the same pat- tern of leader behavior, it was determined that in the opinion of the teachers’ unions six of the twelve dimensions were more im- portant to them and that administrators were not meeting their leader behavior expectations. 140 The pattern of collective negotiations to date has placed the school administrator in an adversary role. More study is neces- sary to try to determine whether this model is the best one to be used in educational administration. Topological analysis of conflict demonstrated that before an administrator can manage conflict he must overcome barriers which stand in his way. The fact that administrators and teachers’ unions do have areas of shared concerns offers an avenue for conflict resolution. The atmosphere surrounding conflict is most important. Effective leader behavior of school administrators can be the moving force in achieving conflict resolution. CHAPTER VII ADMINISTRATOR SELECTION Methods of Selection One of the crucial tasks facing any school board is the se- lection of its chief executive officer. The type of administrator chosen determines, to a large extent, the educational and organiza- tional climate which permeates the entire operation. If the admin- istrator is a dynamic individual his administrative techniques will tend to be dynamic. If he is anything less, the administrative pat- tern will reflect this image. John W. Gardner, secretary of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, wrote an essay on the subject of leadership. In it he says: We are no longer in much danger, in this society, from Men of Destiny. But we are in danger of falling under the leadership of men who lack the confidence to lead. And we are in danger of destroying the effectiveness of those who have a natural gift for leadership.1 1John W. Gardner, “Anti-leadership Vaccine,” Introduction to Carnegie Annual Report, September 30, 1965. 141 142 One of the administrators studied in this research stated that he no longer felt comfortable about “drOpping in” to visit a teacher while she was teaching. Another administrator cited the fact that he was reluctant to talk to teachers or ask them to assume any new duties because he did not want to take a chance on having unfair labor practices charged against him. And still another adminis- trator, who formerly socialized with some of his teachers, felt the pressure to withdraw from this activity. “Things are not the same any more,” he said. There are, today, three questions being asked by those concerned with this situation: (1) Is the role of adminis- trators being redefined? (2) Have collective negotiations imposed new and more stringent boundaries on administrator leadership? (3) Is the problem, in truth, related to John Gardner’s statement that “we are in danger of falling under the leadership of men who lack the confidence to lead”?1 The advent of collective negotiation has not imposed a cli- mate which negates the need for effective leadership. In fact, just the opposite is true. The need for leaders with the confidence and ability to lead is more crucial in the field of public school admin- istration than ever before. 1Ibid. 143 When a vacancy occurs in the office of the chief executive in the typical school system, a search is made by the school board for a new administrator. In the largest school systems the board may employ the services of a professional recruiter to assist in the search for executive talent. In smaller school systems, the school board assumes this duty. The search often starts with visits to college placement offices. Knowledge of interested and qualified prospects might be available from professors of school administra- tion. Word-of—mouth recommendations may sift down to the school board regarding administrators in other systems who may be inter- ested in changing positions. In some cases the replacement may come from within the system itself by upgrading an assistant super- intendent or a principal. Applications may be sent to the school board by persons who have heard that a vacancy exists. A list of candidates is then made from all these possibilities. Each of the prospects is put through an initial screening process. Those remaining are further screened by using a more rigorous criterion. Finally, the prospects are narrowed to those who are asked to appear for interviews. In the initial meeting, general impressions of each of the candidates are noted by individual board members. Although the board members are already familiar with the candidate’s background, from the earlier screening, he is usually 144 asked to give it verbally. He may be taken out to dinner, at which time his behavior will be scrutinized and he will be further ques- tioned regarding educational matters, his family life, and other in- terests. He is, essentially, being “tried on for size.” After the semifinal round of interviews for the serious contenders has been completed, a further interview may be arranged at which time the person who was tentatively selected by the board members will once again be interviewed. The interview will be more casual and designed to determine whether the previous impressions were accurate. The board subsequently decides, and the position is offered to the candidate. If he accepts, the school board an- nounces that the school district has a new chief executive. While other procedures may be used by school boards to select new administrators, the foregoing description is an approxi- mation of the general pattern exercised. The process sounds rather involved and, on the surface at least, it appears that the school board has been most careful to select “the” man for the job. In all likelihood they have selected a person for their executive officer who has previously administered several school systems, who is middle-aged or older, and who has enjoyed some degree of success in his previous positions. The process seems to have all the 145 elements of a logical, well-defined plan of selection. The board members are proud and impressed with their choice. The administrator arrives at his office and proceeds to get his “feet on the ground.” Usually, during the first months while he is building confidence, an administrator moves cautiously. Later he may begin to make drastic changes and move in a bolder fashion. He starts to exercise the power of his position. This is countered by a resistance on the part of the teachers’ union. The adminis— trator may then be threatened with charges of unfair labor practices. As his confidence becomes shaken he seeks to discover what he has done wrong and has trouble finding the answers. He reviews the events leading up to the crisis and consoles himself that the prob- lem is related to increased teacher militancy more than to his own leadership style. Previously he had been a successful adminis— trator. Now his administration is virtually collapsing around him, leaving him bewildered. The school board members are privately wondering if they had, indeed, made an error in their selection. They do not re- member having had this much trouble with previous administrators and wonder what could have gone wrong. T. N. Whitehead, in de- scribing how a leader is selected, said: 146 . . leadership in its simplest form has certain well-marked characteristics whether it be found in industry, among primitive tribes, or in the cities of modern society. In the first place, the leader is selected by the joint inclinations of the candidate himself and of the society or group of which he is a member. Secondly, he is selected for his skill in specific activities. His skill, in a simple community, is usually a manual technical skill. Thirdly, the exercise of the given skill, and the objec- tive promoted, accord with the social sentiments of the group.1 Strictly speaking, the typical selection process employed by the school board does not follow the basic principles by which leaders should, be selected. Reduced to its simplest form, the typical admin- istrator selection process is: We (the school board) select you (the administrator) to lead them (the teachers). Prior to organizing for collective negotiations, teachers said very little (at least openly) about the school board’s selection of an administrator. The problem now is that teachers are openly rejecting the type of leadership that school boards have provided. In a truly democratic society this event is not totally unexpected. If we return to the point where a vacancy occurred in the office of the chief executive of the school district, perhaps another procedure for selecting an administrator can be explored. The revised pro- 7 cedure would be as follows: The school board requests the teachers 1T. N. Whitehead, Leadership in a Free Society (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936), p. 68. 147 union representatives to select several teachers who would be will- ing to work with school board members on a selection committee to screen applicants for the administrative position. The board mem- bers and the teachers’ representatives establish the criteria they will use to screen the candidates. Except for refining the criteria as the screening process narrows the list of candidates, the proce- dure could continue as before. The final act of the committee would culminate in a recommendation to the school board of the candidate selected as being the best qualified. This method for administrator selection would be a drastic change from the present procedure employed by school boards. The plan, however, does have some merit. The analysis of data estab- lished that the descriptions of an ideal administrator given by the teachers’ union representatives, school board members, and the administrators themselves were essentially the same; i.e., no sig- nificant differences occurred among the three groups. This being true, the criteria for selecting the administrator should be readily resolved. Inclusion of the teachers on the selection committee should go a long way toward overcoming a serious weakness in the present procedure. The administrator who is selected would know from the start that the teachers had had a voice in his appointment. This 148 fact alone should impress him with the desirability of working closely with the entire organization. Participation by the teach- ers and school board in the selection of the administrator could be an important step toward conflict resolution. School boards have traditionally been reluctant to give up duties and responsibilities that have become synonymous with the office. From the moment there were rumblings in the distance regarding collective negotiations, school boards started prepar- ing for organized resistance. Administrators, who also feared the unknown, made similar preparations. In short, they were de- termined that teachers were not going to be permitted to take over. The evidence indicates that teachers do not want to take over. Teachers are merely trying to assume their rightful place in the total educational profession. It would also seem reasonable to expect that the new movement will embrace other areas in addi- tion to collective negotiations. The strengthening of the entire teaching profession can only lead to improved education. Improved education is the shared goal of administrators, school boards, and teachers. Leader behavior within these groups can be the moving force. Administrators are in an advantageous position to exert statesmanlike leadership. 149 Cooperative administrator selection will not be a solution to conflict in itself if other important considerations are not incorpor- ated in the criteria. One factor which has often been overlooked is the matching of the administrator to the organizational climate he is to administer. The most effective administrator may fail if he is faced with an organizational climate which is not ready for his style of leadership. Halpin gives the following example to illus- trate this point: Suppose that a new principal has been assigned to an elemen- tary school. He is young and intelligent, and he has had good experience and training. He possesses Thrust, and he is highly considerate. He moves into the school with every intention of maintaining an Open Climate such as he had maintained in the school from which he came. But what happens to him if the teachers are not prepared to deal with an Open Climate? Sup- pose that the teachers in this school have contended for the past ten years with a principal whose behavior typifies that which characterizes a Closed Climate. We must recognize the strong possibility that the very Openness of the new principal’s behavior presents the teachers with a severe psychological threat. When the members of a group have been deprived of freedom for a long period of time they seldom are quite ready to deal with it, especially if it be made available to them too abruptly.1 Organizational Climate The organizational climate dilemma is somewhat analogous to the long-standing riddle: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? 1Halpin, op. cit., p. 199. 150 Can an Open climate be achieved within an organization before changing the executive leadership? Or, will the change come after the acceptance of an open-climate type of leader? There appears to be no ready answer for this perplexing problem. The solution may lie somewhere between the two extremes. Initially the leader- ship may have to come from within the organization. In any event, the problem is hinged very delicately and requires diligent attention in order to bring about the desired changes. Cameron Hawley, former executive turned novelist, describes how it may be necessary to go through several changes of manage- ment while an organization is undergoing a transformation: . a company needs a different management technique during different stages in its development. While it’s going through a period of major expansion, breaking into new ground, there’s no doubt that it takes a two-fisted dictator with a whip in both hands to make things go. . . . However, when that period is over future success depends upon efficiency of operation and maintenance of position. Then you need a different kind of man- agement.1 The selection of an administrator requires that those who are doing the selecting have a factual understanding of the organization. They should also have a clear understanding of the direction in which the 1Cameron Hawley, Executive Suite (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1952), p. 10. 151 organization should be moving and then strive to match the prOper administrator to the task to be done. The selection committee, in addition to having a realistic understanding Of its own organizational climate, should also try to evaluate the climate in which the candidate is presently employed. His length of tenure and basic leadership style should also be con- sidered. If the administrator has been in his present position for a period of time--say two or three years--the organizational cli- mate should bear witness to his contribution. If, for example, the recruiting committee has determined that the school system has an open climate, then any candidate being considered should have a leadership style which would harmonize with an open climate. If the organizational climate is at the other extreme--i.e., a closed climate--and change is desired in the direc- tion of an open climate it might be poor judgment to select an ad- ministrator who is essentially an open-climate administrator. To bring about an orderly and planned change from the closed climate to an Open climate, over a period of time, it may be necessary to hire several administrators. Each administrator would have a specific set of tasks to perform to move the system toward the desired climate. Administrator effectiveness is relative to the situation in which it functions. Chris Argyris (quoted also 152 in Halpin, page 205) describes effective leadership as “reality- centered leadership.” Effective leadership depends upon a multitude Of conditions. There is no one predetermined, correct way to behave as a leader. The choice of leadership pattern should be based upon an accurate diagnosis of the reality of the situation in which the leader is imbedded. If one must have a title for effective leader- ship, it might be called reality-centered leadership. Reality- centered leadership is not a predetermined set of “best ways to influence people.” The only predisposition that is prescribed is that the leader ought to first diagnose what is reality and then to use the appropriate leadership pattern. In making his diag- nosis, he must keep in mind that all individuals see reality through their own set of colored glasses. The reality he sees may not be the reality seen by others in their own private world. Reality diagnosis, therefore, requires self-awareness and the awareness of others. This leads us back again to the proper- ties of personality. A reality-oriented leader must also keep in mind the worth of the organization.1 There are two remaining problems confronting administrators and school boards which will be discussed in the next chapter. The first problem concerns those already in an administrative position who have determined that their leadership style and the organiza- tional climate leave something to be desired. The second problem concerns the school board. They, too, recognize that there is a leadership problem which resolves around their executive officer. They are also aware that the organizational climate is not all that 1Chris Argyris, Personality and Organization (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), p. 207. 153 it should be. The next chapter will focus on administrator training and will discuss possible solutions to these problems. Summary Contrary to the beliefs of many educators, the need for ef- fective administrators has been increased, rather than decreased, as a result of the collective negotiations movement and the accom- panying conflict. A typical selection procedure for hiring a school administrator was explained and examples of the problems which can sometimes erupt from following this procedure were given. An al- ternate procedure for selecting an administrator was suggested whereby representatives from the teaching staff would be given the opportunity to participate as members of an advisory committee. The organizational climate and the role of the administrator as a change agent in school districts are important to successful conflict management. Problems still confronting school administra- tors who recognize weaknesses in their leadership style and or- ganizational climate need to be studied. School boards must also be cognizant Of problems related to leadership deficiencies and weaknesses in the organizational climate. CHAPTER VIII ADMINISTRATOR TRAINING Problems of Training Leaders Since collective negotiations have become a fact Of life for school administrators, many programs have been hurriedly instituted to educate the school administrator in their subtleties. The State Department of Public Instruction, colleges and universities, admin- istrator associations, research groups, and the Labor Mediation Board have all participated in the dissemination of information on how to negotiate. It is generally agreed that administrators do need additional help. The number of administrators trained or having ex- perience (prior to the adoption of PA 379) in collective negotiations is practically nil. Since the passing of PA 379, most of the ex- perience gained by administrators has been in an atmosphere of “crisis-type” negotiating, with emotions running high. The value of the experiences gained in the process of collective negotiations, to date, appears to be questionable. Lacking a theoretical model from which to operate, the whole issue was thrust upon administrators, 154 155 school boards, and teachers. While this lack has imposed a serious handicap, the most difficult problems brought to light show glaring inadequacies in the leader behavior of school administrators. Methods of Training Students One of the recurring criticisms of the traditional adminis- trator training programs in colleges and universities is that the training is not representative of the experiences encountered by practicing administrators. Administrators have long been critical Of the professional preparation they receive. Many courses in edu- cational administration have been derisively called “Mickey Mouse” courses. D. E. Griffiths found, “In a study carried out at a large university, the dean reported that there were ten different depart- ments teaching various varieties of educational administration, and they duplicated each others’ Offerings to the extent of 90 per cent.”1 While these criticisms have been heard for some time, there has been little of a constructive nature offered to the universities on how to solve the problems. The logical source of positive sugges- tions for improvement in administrator training programs should 1Daniel E. Griffiths, Administrative Theory (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1959), p. 72. 156 come from administrators themselves, yet this has not happened. School administrators who cannot remedy problems confronting them are hardly in a position to offer prescriptions, in the way of posi- tive suggestions, to the universities. If the administrator, while he was still a student, could have taken courses designed to help him get a basic understanding of his own behavioral tendencies and to develop effectiveness in human re- lations, he would be better equipped to handle the problems confront- ing him. The results of the LBDQ-Real, dramatically established that as far as the teachers’ union representatives are concerned administrators are not meeting the leader behavior expectations held by the teachers. Kenneth D. Benne offers the following comments on traditional training programs for administrators: Traditional methods of administrator training have erred in two principal ways. First, they have understressed the arts of diagnosing action situations in terms of their manageability and changeability. Second, they have tended to separate diag- nostic training from prescriptive training on how to act in par- ticular practical situations.1 Though students in educational administration have been in contact with many groups throughout their college training, the evidence 1Kenneth D. Benne, Case Methods in the Training Of Admin- istrators (“Boston University Human Relations Center, Research Papers and Technical Notes,” NO. 28). 157 indicates that when they embark on their professional careers they do not know how to work effectively with people. They do not have a basic understanding Of the behavioral sciences or how to apply them. For although college professors do instruct students on the subject of various leadership styles, up to the present time students have found it difficult to correlate the theories to which they have been exposed with their own self-image. For example: How does one diagnose the climate of an organization? What messages can be found in nonverbal communication? What can we learn from the be- havior Of others? These and other similar questions are of vital importance to the practicing administrator and should be thoroughly treated in the administrative training program. What are the techniques which will bring about changes in an organization? What are the hidden mean- ings that can be extracted from written messages that are exchanged within an organization? The training program could include experi- ences designed to give students the opportunity to be critical of administrative situations and processes. Thus, by working effec- tively with people, students will go through a period of self-discov- ery and learn to apply acceptable behavioral patterns. 158 Problems of Practical Application One technique which has proven beneficial for administrators involved in dealing with grievances of employees is to study typical cases which have been decided by labor mediators. The issue in- volved is argued from the viewpoint of employees and also that of management. The logic of the two points of view can be examined and a position taken on the facts as they are presented. After the case has been decided, students could then place their evaluation upon it. A critique of the case may establish how the grievance might have been avoided by better administrative techniques. The LBDQ was concerned with twelve dimensions of leader behavior. Analysis of the data divided the twelve dimensions into two groups. The first group included the dimensions which could be considered as being directed toward the teachers. The second group identified dimensions of leader behavior which were primarily directed toward the school board. This finding emphasizes the du- ality of behavior required of the administrator. The training pro- gram should include, in addition to the theory of each dimension, experience in the application. 159 Some of the more common techniques developed by small- group researchers include T-group training, simulation, role-playing, group discussion, and problem-solving. The task of training practicing administrators may use many of the same techniques suggested for training college students who are studying to become school administrators. The training can progress on the assumption that administrators desiring additional training recognize that their leader behavior needs improving. The problem of training practicing administrators has certain complexi- ties which will handicap the training program, but it also has some advantages. One problem in the training program is that administrators have had a longer period of time to develop an ineffectual leader- ship style. Administrators, until the passage of PA 379, were able to administer the schools for the most part without fear of having their leadership style challenged or even openly criticized. An autocratic school administrator easily develOped in this atmosphere. Expediency in administrative processes often resorted to by the new administrator became a way of life for them. The seeming indiffer- ence on the part of teachers only served to reinforce adoption of the technique. Many administrators who have followed an autocratic leadership style will find it difficult to break the habit. The ability 160 to adapt to the changing climate of school administration will be crucial if an administrator is to survive. In a short time, the autocratic administrator will be a thing of the past. Each administrative style will need to be diagnosed in order to help effect the desired change. Halpin gives a warning which may be well heeded in the training of practicing administrators: Having diagnosed the superintendent’s leadership skills, what can we do to help him improve these skills? It is re- grettable that there is no pat answer; we must read the notes as well as we can and let our own psychological insights sug- gest the tune. Role-playing can help, and professional coun- seling can accomplish a great deal. Practice in situational analysis and case-study methods are often useful. But the training task is formidable; nor are we always sure that the training methods achieve what was intended in the first place.1 Halpin2 also warns against accepting what the administrator says about himself concerning the changes he thinks have taken place as a result of training. Research findings from an Air Force study and also a study on educational administrators verified that an ad- ministrator’s impression of his own behavioral changes did not nec- essarily agree with descriptions of his behavior given by others. Halpin suggested that direct associates’ perceived descriptions were an acceptable measure of an administrator’s leader behavior changes. 1Halpin, Op. cit., p. 124. 21bid. 161 The acknowledgment of this premise could be useful in training pro- grams. A fact which became apparent when the data of the present research were being analyzed was how various administrators were stronger in some dimensions than they were in others. Because of this fact, it would be necessary to adjust the training program to the individual administrators. If, for example, an administrator’s leader behavior on the dimension initiation Of structure was described as being satisfactory (above the mean) it would not be necessary to dwell very long on this dimension in his training program. Conversely, if the admin- istrator’s leader behavior on the dimension consideration received a low score (below the mean) greater emphasis should be placed here. A valuable technique which can be used to help administra- tors gain an awareness of themselves is known as sensitivity train- ing. Several procedures are used, but the major one is called the T-group, with T standing for training. The typical setting can be illustrated by the diagram in Figure 27. The number of administrators studied in the present research happened to coincide with the recommended number which makes up a T-group. The letters assigned to the diagram could be considered 162 T: Trainer A through J: Administrators Figure 27. T-group. 163 as the T-group structure if the administrators who participated in the research were also participating in T-group training. The ad- ministrators would be brought together in a situation structured similarly to the diagram; i.e., face to face. From that point on, as far as the participants are concerned, there appears to be a complete lack of structure. The trainer does not offer suggestions on what should be taking place. Instead, he acts the part of a casual bystander. He makes absolutely no effort to lead or con- trol the group in any way. After a few moments the participants begin to act uneasy and look for a cue as to what is going on. Some members grow impatient, others become bored, while still others may experience psychological anxiety. This lack of an au- thority figure creates a power vacuum. In a short time some of the members begin to communicate with others who are in close prox- imity. For example, A will start to talk with B, C with D, and so on. The conversation, after an initial exchange, may then be directed toward the whole group. One of the members might ask, “What are we supposed to be doing?” When no answer is given, someone else may make a move to initiate “something” or to assume control of the group. At this point the trainer will suggest that the group discuss the reasons and motives of the one who has sought to lead the group. The members are asked to express exactly how they feel about the 164 behavior of the aggressor. Those who criticize are, in turn, criti- cized. After a period of time has elapsed, during which the mem- bers express themselves, the trainer can step in to establish control of the group and explain what has taken place. “The keynote of the , T-Group,’ as explained by H. A. Shepard, “is interpersonal uncer- tainty, and training is learning to reduce uncertainty by consensual validation Of experience.”1 The value of sensitivity training is that it provides individuals with a greater awareness of others’ behavior and also their own. An understanding of group processes is gained through direct experience. The role Of authority and its relation to group cohesion takes on meaning. In other words, the members are involved in a practical demonstration of group dynamics. Another technique that has proven valuable, and is an out- growth of behavioral research, is role-playing. If, for example, the task is teaching leadership styles, then trainers who are experts in portraying the different styles are put into structured situations. The “actors” proceed to demonstrate to administrators how it would be practiced by the autocrat or democrat or a combination of other leadership styles. After the demonstration a critique is 1Herbert A. Shepard, The T-Group as Training in Observant Participation (“Theory of Training” Series, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). 165 conducted to point out the delicate distinctions in what the trainees have Observed. Simulation is another technique which has been used to ex- pose students tO conditions which are designed to duplicate, as nearly as possible, actual situations. One Of the more common techniques used in simulation training is the “in-basket” method. By this method various problems are presented to the student. He analyzes the problems and makes decisions as to how he thinks the problems should be solved. As in other training methods, a cri- tique at the end of the session is used to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the student’s decision-making process. Alternate solutions are discussed and weighed against the decisions reached by the student. One of the most serious deficiencies in administrators is. that they are not effective agents of change. Vance Packard says: Our times call for . . . leaders who can be effective agents of change. Such a leader must understand the social and political environment in which he operates and the motiva- tions of the maple upon whom he depends for success. As a minimum target, he must prevent an alienation of his institution from society. As an Optimum goal he can help lead his institu- tion and society in a direction that best serves the long-range interest of everyone.1 1Packard, ep. cit., p. 288. 166 At this point one may only speculate what the status of conflict would be in collective negotiations, had administrators acted as effective agents of change. If this had been their role, it is unlikely that widespread conflict could have reached such serious proportions. The problem of preparing administrators to accept such changes has not been generally incorporated into professional training programs. The greatest handicaps to be overcome by administrators are lack of understanding and tolerance. Halpin says: . . the most immediate step which a person can take toward understanding his own behavior and that of others is to balance the applied, technical, and professional courses which he takes with a rich liberal arts program. He further states: p /” ii / Perhaps I should add in passing that those of us who have been responsible for training executives, whether in in- , dustry, government, or education, are appalled by one glaring flaw in most of the candidates: they are culturally illiterate. In most colleges and universities the liberal arts are gen- erally introduced early in a student’s program. After two years there is a sharp drop in liberal arts courses. By the time a student reaches graduate school, liberal arts training is almost nonexistent. After he completes his formal training and accepts his 1Halpin, Op. cit., p. 275. 21bid., p. 274. 167 first job his interests become narrower. Whatever reading he does is generally limited to professional journals, newspapers, or popular “escape” literature. This is not the type of exploratory experiences which could possibly enable an administrator to become an effective change agent. Assuming that administrator training is modified to provide administrators with the qualities just outlined, the problem of how to plan for effective changes in a social setting still remains. Dr. Lewis Ward (quoted in an interview with Vance Packard) stated that “one of the functions of the executive of any organization is to lead his organization in the changes that are occurring. . . .”1 Admin- istrators have not been leading in the changes taking place regard- ing collective action by teachers. There is a saying that appears on the walls and desks of many administrators which facetiously asks the question: “Do you understand the problem or are you part of it?” Many administrators who get a chuckle out of this saying are the very ones who should take it seriously. Before any change can take place, reCOgnition Of the problem is necessary. After the problem has been defined it is essential to evaluate the forces that are the components Of the problem, weighing each one 1Packard, loc. cit. 168 carefully. In order to effect change it is necessary to make modifi- cations in the forces and countervailing forces interacting on each other. David Jenkins suggests three ways in which forces can be changed. “The component forces can be modified in the following way: (1) reducing or removing forces; (2) strengthening or adding forces; (3) changing the direction of the forces.”1 The importance of theory was very aptly stated by T. C. Allbutt: The man of affairs without science is like the physician who has fallen out of the anatomy and physiology he may have known; within limits he may be a shrewder and abler practitioner than an academic professor; but this he will be at the cost Of being stationary. . . . To principles, sooner or later, the sub- tlest craftsman has to how his head; for, even while his hand is on his tools, by theory contingencies and complications are being detected and eliminated, and processes shortened and economized.2 At the present time, in the field of education, there is no satisfactory administrative model for collective negotiations. In its absence the model developed for industrial relations has been more or less adopted. The results to date have been anything but satisfactory. Change, in the form of collective action by teachers, 1David H. Jenkins, “Social Engineering in Educational Change: An Outline of Method,” Progressive Education, XXVI, No. 7 (May, 1949), 196. 2 T. C. Allbutt, On Professional Education (London, 1906). 169 has been thrust upon educational administrations. And the time has now come to develOp principles, both in theory and practice. If ad- ministrators are, in fact, going to be leaders of educational organi- zations it is imperative that they should be intellectually prepared and professionally equipped to determine in which direction they should lead. Summary Since collective negotiations with teachers’ unions have be- come a fact of life for school administrators, there have been many so-called crash programs designed to quickly improve the adminis- trator’s effectiveness. While these programs were admittedly impor- tant in helping the administrator with his immediate problems related to the negotiating process, there has been an almost complete lack Of adequate programs for training administrators to be effective change agents, to have an understanding of organizational climates, and, most important, to understand the relationship of his leader behavior to the presence of conflict. The evidence indicates that many present-day administrators do not function effectively in face-to-face relationships. College administrator training programs need to place a greater emphasis on the behavioral sciences. CHAPTER IX CONCLUSIONS The purpose of studying the leader behavior Of school admin- istrators who were undergoing conflict with teachers’ unions was to try to identify styles or forms of leader behavior which were con- tributing to the presence of conflict. Of the twelve leader behavior dimensions identified by the Leader Behavior Description Question- naire, six dimensions were found to be of greater importance to the teachers’ union than were the other six. These leader behavior dimensions were consideration, initiation of structure, integration, demand reconciliation, tolerance of freedom, and production empha- sis. This finding would indicate that school administrators under- going conflict with teachers’ unions might well question themselves on their leader behavior on these dimensions. If realistically an- swered, it is likely that the administrator will find that his behavior leaves something to be desired in several of the leader behavior dimensions. 170 171 One of the problems which became evident as the research developed was related to inadequacies in the professional training of the administrators. Not one of the administrators who partici- pated in the study had formal training in collective negotiations or bargaining. None appeared to be familiar with the techniques for analyzing and resolving social conflicts. Most of the administrators failed to recognize the importance of their leader behavior to the presence of conflict. No planned courses of action for conflict resolution could be discerned. Most administrators viewed the presence of conflict as just a sign of the times and voiced no re- sponsibility for the situation. The paradox of the situation is that all administrators appeared to be genuinely interested in establish- ing a relationship that everyone concerned could live with. Reactions by the administrators to PA 379 ranged from “a terrible law” to “we can learn to live with it.” Neither position will establish the type of administrative relationship with teachers which will improve education or the professionalism Of the educators. If the law is not in the best interest of education and the educators who must live within its terms, then the law should be modified in the same way in which it was adopted. While the law appears to have certain inherent weaknesses, it is not the law which has been at the source of the trouble. Examination of the cases which have 172 come before the Labor Mediation Board reveals that many of the cases involve charges directly related to behavioral deficiencies on the part of administrators. The law was designed to work both ways; i.e., administrators and school boards to have the same pro- tection granted to the teachers. To date there are few cases in which action has been instituted against the behavior of the leader- ship of the teachers’ organizations. This, however, was not the point of this research. Administrators are the chief executive Of- ficers of their school boards and as such are responsible for the entire operation of the schools. Under the present organizational structure this includes maintaining a harmonious organizational cli- mate. The events over the past several years indicate that, in district after district in the state of Michigan, crisis administration has become a way of life. The Governor was so concerned about the crises that he called all sides in the various disputes to come to his office in an effort to assure the Opening of the public schools in the fall Of 1966. One prominent writer has suggested that we have institutionalized conflict by adopting the type of legislation we have in Michigan. Conflict as such cannot be institutionalized unless conditions prevail which allow it to erupt. While the issues facing administrators as a result of collec- tive negotiations are complex, they are not insurmountable. Obviously, 173 adequate professional training is necessary. A greater awareness of self on the part of administrators, which has been missing to date, is necessary. The role an administrator must play in effect- ing planned change instead of forced change cannot be too strongly emphasized. Greater understanding Of the behavioral sciences ap- pears to be a crucial requirement. The mechanics of effective collective negotiations, while im- portant, do not appear on the basis of this research to be the most important factor in changing dysfunctional conflict into con- structive conflict. That change can only come from the effective leader behavior of administrators and teachers’ union representa- tives alike. It would also appear that the initial move must come from the administrators. The Observation that “salary usually triggered the conflict but there was usually more to it” was found to be true in every case studied. One can only conclude after studying the leader behavior of practicing school administrators that changes in the professional preparation of future administrators must undergo extensive revision. This will be necessary in order to adequately prepare administra- tors to become effective in a rapidly expanding and complex admin- istrative climate. 174 Unexpected Findings One of the most unexpected findings concerned the leader be- havior dimension representation. It was expected, prior to analyzing the data, that this dimension would have been of great interest to the teachers’ union representatives. The data, however, did not support this thought. The dimension initiation of structure was not described by the three groups in the same way on the LBDQ-Ideal scale. This finding was not expected and would indicate an area of potential con- flict due to the disagreement over what the ideal leader behavior should be. This is a dimension which would need to be clarified before conflict resolution could be effected. The only other dimen- sion upon which the three groups disagreed on the LBDQ-Ideal concerned role assumption. This dimension would also require clarification before agreement on descriptions of a leader’s LBDQ— Real score would be possible. The last unexpected finding relates to the researcher. He was a practicing administrator for eight years prior to undertaking this study and was conditioned to a management point of view regard- ing employee relations. Because of this experience he was aware of certain biases and guarded very carefully to keep the research as objective as it was humanly possible to do. The inescapable feeling 175' was, however, that the researcher would encounter an element of radicalism and irresponsibility when confronting teachers’ union members. This expectation never materialized. The researcher found instead that without exception union representatives were in- tensely interested in improving education and the professional status of educators and were searching for ways to improve the dialogue with school administrators. If there were a criticism to be made, it would have to be levied against administrators and teachers’ union representatives alike. The researcher found a serious weakness in communication between the two groups, for which responsibility seemed to be shared. Recommendations Colleges and universities responsible for the professional training of school administrators need to take a critical look at the present curriculum in light of the dynamic changes taking place in the field of public school administration. The evidence indicates that there are serious weaknesses in the professional preparation of most practicing school administrators. There are voids in their training in the practical aspects of conducting effective collective negotiations. Even if, through the natural evolution Of collective negotiations, the administrator’s role is modified so that he is not 176 the representative of the board who actually conducts the negotia- tions proceedings, he still must be technically prepared to be able to make recommendations in light of the total conditions which pre- vail. The research established that there were definite shortcom- ings in the leader behavior of the school administrators who were studied. In light of these findings it would seem necessary to broaden the experiences of future administrators in the behavioral sciences in order to insure greater understanding. There was also a lack of understanding of conflict theory and techniques for effective conflict resolution. More training is needed in both the theory and practical application Of conflict reso- lution. The present dysfunctional effects of conflict need to be remedied by training future administrators on how to resolve con- flict through constructive methods. There is also a need to train administrators to become effective change agents. This aspect of training has been totally neglected. The understanding Of organiza- tional structures and the climates found therein need greater em- phasis in the training period. One administrator who was relatively new to school adminis- tration could only be described as naive to the intricacies of or- ganizational understanding. It does not make sense to subject 177 someone who is seemingly administrator material to responsibilities for which he is totally unprepared. There would seem to be no surer way Of guaranteeing administrator failure. One way in which this problem could be attacked would be to make it mandatory for potential administrators to serve an intern period. During this time appropriate course work along the lines previously mentioned should supplement the internship experiences. Efforts should be made to provide for special certification of administrators. The complexities Of modern school administration demand that the requirements be up- graded. For practicing school administrators the training program would be slightly different. The training would consist, in addition to the practical aspects of conducting effective collective negotia- tions, course work designed to broaden the administrator’s under- standing Of the behavioral sciences, organizational climate, and the role of the administrator as a change agent. Suggestions for Further Research Earlier in the text of the research there was a quotation which in effect said, “The results tell us as much about the de- scribing groups as they do about the behavior of the superintendents in question.” Assuming this statement to be true, it indicates that 178 research is warranted on the describing groups patterned after the research design used to study the administrator. During the course of the present research the author noted a newspaper report of a school board which had hired a profes- sional person whose only responsibility was to effect planned change. Research into how school administrators can become effective change agents would seem to be a valuable contribution. Further research concerning conflict between administrators and other teachers’ organizations would enable comparisons to be made. A comparison of this kind may further define the leader be- havior dimensions explored in the present research. The author was impressed with the research cited earlier called “The Robbers’ Cave Experiment.” The possibility of conducting research involving conflict in the administrator-staff relationships to study conflict and conflict resolution should prove to be fruitful for adding to adminis- trative theory. The present research was concerned only with school admin- istrators in conflict with teachers’ unions. It would be extremely valuable to compare school administrators who have been able to establish harmonious relationships with the teachers’ union or with other teachers’ groups and then make comparisons of the contrasting leader behavior styles. 179 The findings of the present research established that some Of the leader behavior dimensions appeared to be directed toward teachers, while others were inclined to be directed toward the school board. Assuming this finding to be true, research concern- ing role differentiation of school administrators on the dimension Of leader behavior identified by the Leader Behavior Description Ques— tionnaire would enable those dimensions to be definitively identified. Although this researcher found it to be very difficult to se- cure an adequate number of administrators willing to participate in such a controversial subject, additional research with a larger sample would undoubtedly shed more light. BIBLIOGRAPHY 180 181 Books Allbutt, T. C. On Professional Education. London, 1906. American Federation Of Teachers, Commission on Educational Re- construction. Organizing the Teaching Profession: The Story of the American Federation of Teachers. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1955. Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964. Barzun, Jacques, and Henry F. Graff. The Modern Researcher. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1962. Bendix, Reinhard, and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.). Class, Status and Power. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1953. Bennis, Warren G., Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (eds.). The Planning of Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. Borgatta, Edgar F., and Henry J. Meyer (eds.). Sociological The- ery. New York: A. A. KnOpf, 1956. Brookover, Wilbur B., et al. A Sociology of Education. New York: American Book Company, 1955. Campbell, Roald F., and Russell T. Gregg (eds.). Administrative Behavior in Education. New York: Harper, 1957. Campbell, Roald F., and J. M. Lipham (eds.). Administrative Theory as a Guide to Action. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960. Cartwright, Dorwin, and Alvin Zander (eds.). gioup Dynamics. Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson and CO., 1953. Cooley, C. H. Social Organization. New York: Scribner, 1909. Cozer, Lewis A. The Functions of Social Conflict. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1956. 182 (ed.). Makers of Modern Social Science--Georg Simmel. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965. Crow, Edwin L., Frances A. Davis, and Margaret W. Maxfield. _S_t_d- tistics Manual. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1960. Culbertson, Jack, and Stephen Hendey (eds.). Preparing Adminis- trators: New Perspectives. Columbus, Ohio: University Council for Educational Administration, 1962. Diamond, Solomon. Information and ErrorLan Introduction to Statis- tical Analysis. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959. Dixon, Wilfrid J ., and Frank J. Massety, Jr. Introduction to Statis- tical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book CO., Inc., 1951. Good, Carter V., A. S. Barr, and Douglas Scates. The Methodology of Educational Research. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., 1941. Gouldner, A. W. (ed.). Studies in Leadership. New York: Harper, 1950. Grieder, Calvin, and William Everett Rosenstengel. Public School Administration. New York: The Ronald Press CO., 1954. Griffiths, Daniel R. Human Relations in School Administration. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1956. . Administrative Theory. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., 1959. Halpin, Andrew W. (ed.). Administrative TheorLof Education. Chi- cago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1958. . Theory and Research in Administration. New York: The Macmillan CO., 1966. Hare, A. Paul, Edgar Borgatta, and Robert Bales (eds.). Small Groups. New York: A. A. Knopf, 1955. 183 Hawley, Cameron. The Executive Suite. Boston: Houghton Mifflin CO., 1952. Hoslett, S. D. (ed.). Human Factors in Management. Parkville, MO.: Park College Press, 1946. Hunter, Floyd. Community Power Structure. Chapel Hill: Univer- sity of North Carolina Press, 1953. Jowett, B. (trans). Plato’s The Republic. New York: The Modern Library. Katz, Daniel. Public Opinion and Propaganda. New York: The Dryden Press, 1954. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965. Knight, Edgar W. Readings in Educational Administration. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1953. KOOpman, G. Robert, Alice Miel, and Paul J. Misner. Democracy in School Administration. New York: D. Appleton-Century CO., 1943. Lewin, Kurt. Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics. New York: Harper, 1948. . Resolving Social Conflicts. New York: Harper Brothers, 1956. Lieberman, Myron. The Future of Public Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960. Lieberman, Myron, and Michael H. Moskow. Collective Negotiations for Teachers. Chicago: Rand McNally and CO., 1966. Marriott, W. K. (trans). Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince. New York: E. P. Dutton and CO., 1908. Metcalf, Henry C., and L. Urwick (eds.). Dynamic Administration. New York: Harper and Row, 1940. 184 Moehlman, Arthur B. School Administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin CO., 1951. Packard, Vance. The Pyramid Climbers. New York: McGraw-Hill Book CO., Inc., 1962. Rhyne, Charles S. Labor Unions and Municipal Employee Law. Washington: National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, 1946. Scott, Walter Dill, et al. Personnel Management. New York: Mc- Graw-Hill Book CO., Inc., 1941. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sci- ences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book CO., 1956. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. New York: Macmillan CO., 1950. Smith, H. L., and L. M. Drueger. A Brief Summary Of Literature on Leadership. Bloomington: Indiana University Bureau of Cooperative Research, 1933. Stinnett, T. M., Jack H. Kleinmann, and Martha L. Ware. Profes- sional Negotiation in Public Education. New York: The Macmillan CO., 1966. Stogdill, Ralph M. Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature. Provincetown, Mass., 1947. Vosloo, Willem B. Collective Bargaining in the United States Fed- eral Civil Service. Chicago: Public Personnel Association, 1966. Wahlquist, John T., et al. The Administration of Public Education. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1952. Walton, Richard E., and Robert B. McKersie. A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. New York: McGraw-Hill Book CO., 1965. Whitney, Frederick Lamson. The Elements of Research. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1950. 185 Wolff, Kurt. The Sociology of Geog Simmel. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1950. Wolff, Kurt, and R. Bendix (trans). Georg Simmel, Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1955. Young, Kimball. Sociolog. New York: American Book CO., 1942. Periodicals “Alliance of AFT and AFL-CIO,” Michigan Education Journal, XLII (April, 1965), 7-10. Becker, Harry. “The Role of School Administrators in Profes- sional Negotiations,” American School Board Journal, May 9, 1965, pp. 9-10. Bell, G. B., and R. L. French. “Consistency of Individual Leader- ship Position in Small Groups of Varying Membership,” i. Abnor. Soc. Psychol., XLV (1950), 764—67. “The Relationship between Leadership and Empathy,” i. Abnor. Soc. Psiycholq XLIX (1954), 156-57. Borgatta, E. F., A. S. Couch, and R. R. Bales. “Some Findings Relevant to the Great Man Theory of Leadership,” Amer. Sociol. Rev., XIX (1954), 755-59. Campbell, Clyde M. “The Administrator Treads a Perilous Path between School Board and Professional Staf ,” Nation’s Schools, XLIX, NO. 3 (March, 1952), 49-50. Carter, L. F., et al. “The Behavior Of Leaders and Other Group Members,” J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., XLVI (1951), 589-95. Cattell, R. B. “New Concepts for Measuring Leadership, in Terms of Group Syntality,” Hum. Relat., IV (1951), 161-84. 186 Cohodes, Aaron. “How New York’s Gross Lives and Learns with Unions,” Nation’s Schools, LXXV, NO. 5 (November, 1964), 47-49. Coladarci, Arthur P. “Administrative Success Criteria,” Phi Delta Kappan, XXXVII (April, 1956), 283-85. Eby, Kermit. “What Schoolmen Should Know about Unions,” Ameri- can School Board Journal, CXVIII (February, 1949), 21-22. Elam, Stanley. “Who’s Ahead, and Why: The NEA-AFT Rivalry,” Phi Delta Kappan, XLVII (September, 1964), 12-15. Garber, Lee O. “How to Free Superintendents from Negotiation Hazards,” Nation’s Schools, LXXVII (March, 1966), 139. Gibb, C. A. “The Principles and Traits Of Leadership,” J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., XLII (1947), 267-84. . Klaus, Ida. “Labor Relations in the Public Service: Exploration and Experiment,” Syracuse Law Review, X (Spring, 1959), 183 -202. Landis, Elwood W. “Charges of Unfair Labor Practices, When Do They Block Teachers and When Do They Help Teachers?” Michigan Education Journal, XLIII (February, 1966), 10-13. “Legal Tools for Educators, Acts 282 and 379,” Michigan Education Journal, XLIII (October, 1965), 3-4. Lieberman, Myron. “Teachers’ Strikes: Acceptable Stragegy?” Phi Delta Kappan, XLVI (January, 1965), 237-40. . “Who Speaks for Teachers?” Saturdey Review, XLVIII (June 19, 1965), 64-75. Maier, N. R. F. “An Experimental Test of the Effect of Training on Discussion Leadership,” Hum. Relat., VI (1953), 161-73. McKee, Clive B. “Know Your Climate--the Key to Effective Bar- gaining,” Personnel, XXXIV (July-August, 1957), 52-62. 187 Moskow, Michael. “Teacher Organizations, an Analysis of the Is- sues,” Teachers College Record, LXV'I, NO. 5 (February, 1965), 453-63. “Recent Legislation Affecting Collective Negotiations for Teachers,” Phi Delta Kappan, XLVI], NO. 3 (November, 1965), 136-41. O’Brien, John M. “IBM’s Approach to Executive Evaluation,” Over- view, October, 1960, pp. 65-66. “Opinions On NEA, AFT Roles,” Phi Delta Kappan, XLVII, No. 2 (October, 1965), 90. Peabody, Robert L. “Perceptions of Organizational Authority,” Administrative Science Quarterll, VI (March, 1962), 463-82. Rock, M. L., and E. N. Hay. “Investigation of the Use of Tests as a Predictor of Leadership and Group Effectiveness in a Job Evaluation Situation,” J. of Soc. Psychol., XXXVIII (1953), 109-19. Seeman, M. “Role Conflict and Ambivalence in Leadership,” Amer. Sociol. Rev., XVIII (1953), 373-80. “Summing up Education News,” Michigan Education Journal, XLIV (October, 1966), 4. Talbot, Allan R. “Needed: A New Breed of School Superintendent,” Harpers, CCXXXII (February, 1966), 81-87. Van Dusen, A. C. “Measuring Leadership Ability,” Personnel Psy- chol., I (1948), 67-79. Wildman, Wesley A. “Collective Action by Public School Teachers,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XVIII, No. 1 (October, 1964), 3-19. ~—————. “Implications of Teacher Bargaining for School Organiza- tion,” Phi Delta Kappan, XLVI, No. 4 (December, 1964), 152- 58. 188 Wildman, Wesley A., and Charles R. Perry. “Group Conflict and School Organization,” Phi Delta Kappan, XLVII, No. 5 (Jan- uary, 1966), 244-51. Wollett, Donald H. “The Public Employee at the Bargaining Table: Promise or Illusion?” Labor Law Journal, XV, No. 1 (Jan- uary, 1964), 8-15. Bulletins, Pamphlets, and Monographs Articles Selected by the Personnel Management Program Service of the School of Labor and Industrial Relations, Michigan State University, June, 1966. Bidwell, Charles E. “Some Causes of Conflict and Tensions among Teachers,” Administrator’s Notebook, Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, IV, NO. 7, March, 1956. Bridges, Edwin M. “Teacher Participation in Decision-Making,” Administrator’s Notebook, Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, May, 1964. Brown, Alan F. “Conflict and Stress in Administrative Relation- ships,” Administrator’s Notebook, Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, March, 1962. Campbell, Clyde. “Through Storms We Grow,” The Community Schools, IV, November, 1965. Chase, Francis S. “How to Meet Teachers’ Expectations of Leader- ship,” Administrator’s Notebook, Midwest Administration Cen- ter, University of Chicago, Vol. I, NO. 9, April, 1953. Guetzkow, H. “An Exploratory Empirical Study of the Role of Con- flict in Decision-Making Conferences,” International Social Science Bulletin, V (1953) 286-300. Halpin, Andrew W. Leadership Behavior of School Superintendents. “School Community DevelOpment Study Monographs,” No. 4. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1957. 189 Halpin, Andrew W., and Don B. Croft. “The Organizational Climate of Schools,” Administrator’s Notebook, XII, Midwest Adminis- tration Center, University of Chicago, October, 1965. Hemphill, J. K. Situational Factors in Leadership. “Ohio State University Educational Research Monographs,” NO. 32, 1949. Hemphill, John. “Leader Behavior Associated with the Administra- tive Reputations of College Departments,” Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Research Monograph 86. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1957, p. 74. Jenkins, William. A Review of Leadership Studies with Particular Reference to Military Problems. “AAF Avaiation Psychology Abstract Series,” NO. 190, September 20, 1945, pp. 74-75. Leadership. Department of the Army, Field Manual. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1951. Michigan Labor Mediation Board. “Trial Examiner’s Decision and Recommended Order--Case No: C66-E-46,” June, 1966. Midwest Administration Center, “Attitudes of Teachers and Adminis- trators,” Administrator’s Notebook, University of Chicago, Ill, No. 1, September, 1954, pp. 1-4. Moore, Harold E. “The Plan for Litchfield Park,” The Community Schools, V, September, 1966. Moskow, Michael H. “Needed Research in School Administration,” Paper presented before the New England Conference on Edu- cational Research, Rhode Island College, Providence, R.I., November 27, 1964. Moyer, Donald C. “Leadership That Teachers Want,” Administra- tor’s Notebook, Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, Vol. III, No. 7, March, 1955. Public Personnel Association. “Government Labor Relations in Transition,” Personnel Report No. 662. 190 Stogdill, Ralph M., and Carroll L. Shartle. Methods in the Study of Administrative Leadership. Research Monograph No. 80. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State Univer- sity, 1955. Washburne, Carleton. “Whose Man Is the Superintendent?” The Community Schools, IV, July, 1966. Newspapers Chicago Teachers’ Union, 1964. Christian Science Monitor, 1965-1966. Detroit Free Press, 1965-1966. Flint Journal, 1965 - 1966 . Michigan Education Journal News, 1966. UAW Solidarity, 1966. APPENDIXE S 191 APPENDIX A LETTERS AND PROSPECTUS 192 193 (Letter to administrators) 12293 Margaret Drive Fenton, Michigan Date Dear Sir: Your school system is one in which there has been reported a de- gree of activity by the American Federation of Teachers. I am presently engaged in a study at Michigan State University on the behavior of leaders. As a part of this study I am seeking the co- operation of school administrators in the completion of a question- naire. The questionnaire has been developed and used in research at Ohio State University under the auspices of the Personnel Re- search Board. Enclosed is a description of the project with a statement of what is required of those who participate in it. A summary of the findings is scheduled to be ready in the Spring of 1967. It is my sincere hope that after studying the prospectus you will want to participate along with other interested school administrators. Please return the enclosed form at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, David R. Cave 194 Your name: School District: City: Date: Interview Appointment Form It is planned to complete the administration of the field work (admin- istration of the questionnaires) during the period between September and October. Will you please indicate three choices of dates that would be convenient for you to have me visit your school? Date Time (lst choice) Date Time (2nd choice) Date Time (3rd choice) As soon as this inquiry form is returned a time and date will imme- diately be set for the visit to administer the LBDQ. Please return this form in the attached self—addressed envelope. Sincerely yours, David R. Cave. 195 (Letter from National School Boards Association) COPY National School Boards A550. 1233 Central Street Evanston, Illinois Mr. David R. Cave 12293 Margaret Drive Fenton, Michigan Dear Mr. Cave: I have been delayed in replying to your recent letter as I tried to catch up on my work following our Annual Convention. I would certainly agree with you that the subject of how superintend- ents can establish working relations between teachers, superintendents and their boards of education is an important one to which greater at- tention needs to be given in the preparation programs of future school administrators. If you are successful in getting approval for your study I should like very much to hear of your program and know of your plans inasmuch as this is a subject in which I am very much interested. Sincerely, Harold V. Webb Executive Director HVW: as cc: Dr. Julius Barbour COPY 196 (Letter from American Federation of Teachers) COPY American Federation of Teachers 716 N. Rush Street Chicago, Illinois April 20, 1965 Mr. David R. Cave 12293 Margaret Drive Fenton, Michigan Dear Mr. Cave: I was pleased to learn of the project that you are undertak- ing for a doctoral thesis at Michigan State University. In the light of the battles that are being fought between school administrators and teacher unions, and even more particu- larly in the light of the unfought battles that need to be undertaken because of repressive school management and that are suppressed by those administrators, I believe that your proposed study of the conflict between school administrators and teacher unions is most timely and would fill a much needed gap in our information. I certainly would appreciate seeing a copy of your thesis when it is completed. With best wishes , Sincerely yours , CHARLES COGEN President AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS CC:mir oeiu-28 afl-cio COPY I I , 197 I I I IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIII I “III III, m, ,,.. (5,, ,,,,,,, I IIIII II .II III! III :3: " III IIl‘I . Michigan State University , III III IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII I’IIIIIIIIIII I II II ‘ East Lansinguflza MetropoIitan Educational Research Association I (Letter requesting cooperation) The purposes of the Metropolitan Educational Research Association include establishing and conducting cooperative educational studies, demonstrations and research of particular value to metropolitan dist- ricts. One of the first activities of the Association has been to de— velop a one-day conference on professional negotiations for school administrators. This conference will focus on the sophistication needed by school administrators in professional negotiations. The conference is scheduled to be held May 20, 1966. Through the development of this program we have become aware of a study in the area of professional negotiations being conducted by a graduate student at Michigan State University. Mr. David Cave’s study is related to leader behavior in school districts currently en— gaged in the development of professional negotiation units. It would be helpful if your district would participate in this timely study. Please be assured that the identity of all participating indi- viduals and school districts will be handled in a confidential manner. Mr. Cave will be contacting you in a short time requesting your par- ticipation. Your cooperation will be appreciated. Sincerely, Kenneth H. Summerer Assistant Executive Secretary MERA A COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE 0F METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN MICHIGAN IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 198 (Letter requesting cooperation) I hope very much that you can take part in the study proposed in the enclosed letter. This is a highly important new arena in which school administrators must develop competence and security. We all need to learn as much as possible from one another. Mr. Cave’s study will protect absolutely the identity of all individuals and school systems involved. But if it is to have the value we for- see for those administrators in the state and nation who have not yet had to face this problem, we need the widest possible base. Walter Scott has nearly completed his study which is basically aimed to suggest better university preparation programs for superintendents. The Cave study does not duplicate Scott’s work, but is designed to be of more immediate help when completed. Your participation will help us all find ways to face these new pres- sures with more confidence. Sincerely yours , Archibald Shaw, Chairman Department of Administration and Higher Education College of Education Michigan State University 199 A PROSPECTUS OF THE STUDY OF THE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATORS In recent years there has been a dynamic change taking place in the personnel relations aspect of many school systems. Teachers, as a group, have been pursuing new avenues in their quest for a greater voice in such recognition. This situation has caused re- evaluation and modification of long standing administration-teaching staff relations. The administrator is confronted by a dual leadership responsibility. He is hired by and responsible to his board of edu- cation. He must also be responsive to the members of his own pro- fessional staff. Research has shown that leaders faced with similar dual responsibilities are often in a position of potential role conflict. In order to improve in-service training programs for admin— istrators and to develop more effective techniques for selecting and training future administrators, it would be highly desirable to obtain dependable knowledge about the leadership behavior of school admin- istrators involved in the current conflict with teachers‘ unions. This study is concerned specifically with the following five questions: 1. Do the members of the board and the representatives of the teachers' union agree in their descriptions of the ad- ministrator’s leader behavior? 2. Do they agree on how they expect an educational admin- istrator to behave as a leader? 3. In what way do their descriptions of how the administrator does behave differ from the ideology of how they believe he should behave? 4. What is the administrator’s perception of his leadership behavior? How does he believe that he should behave? 5. In what ways do the administrators’ perceptions and ex- pectations differ from those of the board members? From those of the representatives of the teachers’ union? The technique of analyzing possible differences between board members’ and staff members’ descriptions of the leader’s behavior and of comparing these descriptions with parallel expectations of how 200 the leader should behave, has proven fruitful in industrial and mili- tary investigations conducted as part of the Ohio State Leadership Studies and has provided important and practical cues for improving leadership skills. Andrew Halpin undertook, as an extension of the Ohio State Leadership series, a study of the Leader Behavior of School Administrators. As an integral part of his study the LBDQ (Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire) was developed. It is a refinement of this instrument that is being used in this study. In broad terms, then, the purposes of the present study are as follows: 1. To increase basic knowledge about the leadership be- havior of educational administrators in order that in- service training programs may be improved and to develop better methods of selecting and training future administra- tors. 2. To enable administrators to see leader behavior as the board of education and representatives of the teachers’ union see it and to allow for comparison of these per- ceptions with how they expect the administrator to behave as a leader. This information will suggest to administra- tors ways to improve their leadership skills. The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire developed by the Personnel Research Board, Ohio State University, will be the instrument used to gather data. The questionnaire is in multiple- choice format and contains items which describe leader behavior. The following are illustrative: 1. He is easy to understand. 2. He tries to increase the interest of staff members in staff problems. 3. He maintains definite standards of performance. Plan of the Study School systems in which there has been an element of conflict between administrators and the teachers' union (A.F.T.) will comprise 201 the sample. Two forms of the Leader Behavior Description Ques- tionnaire (LBDQ) will be used. This will include: A description by members of the board of education of: 1. How the administrator should behave (LBDQ-Ideal). 2. How the administrator behaves (LBDQ—Real). A description by the administrator of: 1. How he believes he should behave (LBDQ-Ideal). 2. How he believes he behaves (LBDQ-Real). A description by the representatives of the teachers’ union of: 1. How the administrator should behave (LBDQ-Ideal). 2. How the administrator behaves as a leader (LBDQ-Real). Procedure Both forms of the questionnaire can be completed in from 30 to 40 minutes. The researcher will visit the participating school districts to administer the questionnaires. The school administrator is at the focus of this study. It concerns his behavior and the expectations others have of him. It is, therefore, imperative that the findings be handled in the strictest professional confidence. How is this to be accomplished? 1. The questionnaires will be collected by the researcher as soon as they are completed. 2. No one will see any completed questionnaires other than those he fills out himself. 3. The data will be processed at Michigan State University. Immediately upon receipt of the completed questionnaires a code letter will be assigned designating the administrator being studied. Thereafter, the data will be analyzed en- tirely in terms of these code letters, with absolutely no references to the names of the individual respondents or the participating school districts. 4. The results will be reported only in terms of intergroup trends and relationships. 202 When the study has been completed and the data have been analyzed, a report on the findings will be available. The report will describe the dimensions of leadership behavior upon which this research has been focused. Reference will be made to related in- dustrial, military, and educational studies based upon this same ap- proach and, insofar as the data permit, implications for the improve- ment of leadership skills will be indicated. APPENDIX B LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE 203 204 (Cover sheet for Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire) (LBDQ -Ideal) Purpose of the Questionnaire On the following pages is a list of items that may be used to de- scribe the leader behavior of your superintendent. Each item de— scribes a specific kind of behavior, but does not ask you to judge whether the behavior is desirable or undesirable. Although some items may appear similar, they express differences that are impor- tant in the description of leadership. Each item should be consid- ered as a separate description. This is not a test of ability or consistency in making answers. Its only purpose is to make it possible for you to describe, as accurately as you can, the be- havior of your superintendent. Note: The term “group,” as employed in the following items refers to a department, division, or other unit of organization that is super- vised by the person being described. The term “members” refers to all the people in the unit of organ- ization that is supervised by the person being described. Instructions This form (LBDQ-Ideal) is identical with the first form as far as the questions you will be answering. However, there is one important difference. As you respond to the individual items you are to an- swer them to indicate how you believe your administrator should be- have in his position as an educational leader. 205 (Cover sheet for Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire) (LBDQ -Real) Purpose of the Questionnaire On the following pages is a list of items that may be used to de- scribe the leader behavior of your superintendent. Each item describes a specific kind of behavior, but does not ask you to judge whether the behavior is desirable or undesirable. Although some items may appear similar, they express differences that are important in the description of leadership. Each item should be considered as a separate description. This is not a test of ability or consistency in making answers. Its only purpose is to make it possible for you to describe, as accurately as you can, the leader behavior of your superintend.ent * Note: The term “group,” as employed in the following items, re- fers to a department, division, or other unit of organization that is supervised by the person being described. The term “members” refers to all the people in the unit of organ- ization that is supervised by the person being described. 206 COPY LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE--Form XII Originated by staff members of The Ohio State Leadership Studies and revised by the Bureau of Business Research Published by Bureau of Business Research College of Commerce and Administration The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio Copyright 1962 207 DIRECTION S : AWNH He acts as the spokesman of the group. A B C D He waits patiently for the results of a decision. A B C D He makes pep talks to stimulate the group. A B C D He lets group members know what is expected of them. A B C D He allows the members complete freedom in their work. A B C D He is hesitant about taking initiative in the group. A B C D He is friendly and approachable. A B C D He encourages overtime work. A B C D . He makes accurate decisions. A B C D He gets along well with the people above him. A B C D . He publicizes the activities of the group. A B C D . He becomes anxious when he cannot find out what is coming next. A B C D . His arguments are convincing. A B C D . He encourages the use of uniform procedures. A B C D . He permits the members to use their own judgment in solving problems. A B C D . He fails to take necessary action. A B C D . READ each item carefully. . THINK about how frequently the leader engages in the behavior described by the item. . DECIDE whether he (A) always, (B) often, (C) occasionally, (D) seldom, or (E) never acts as described by the item. . DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters (A B C D E) following the item to show the answer you have selected. A = Always B = Often C = Occasionally D = Seldom E = Never . MARK your answers as shown in the examples below. Example: He often acts as described A B C Example: He never acts as described A B C Example: He occasionally acts as described A B C UUU manta HEM mmmmmm til M51111 [311m 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 208 He does little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group. He stresses being ahead of competing groups. He keeps the group working together as a team. He keeps the group in good standing with higher authority. He speaks as the representative of the group. He accepts defeat in stride. He argues persuasively for his point of view. He tries out his ideas in the group. He encourages initiative in the group members. He lets other persons take away his leadership in the group. He puts suggestions made by the group into operation. He needles members for greater effort. He seems able to predict what is coming next. He is working hard for a promotion. He speaks for the group when visitors are present. He accepts delays without becoming upset. He is a very persuasive talker. He makes his attitudes clear to the group. He lets the members do their work the way they think best. He lets some members take advantage of him. He treats all group members as his equals. He keeps the work moving at a rapid pace. He settles conflicts when they occur in the group. His superiors act favorably on most of his suggestions. He represents the group at outside meetings. He becomes anxious when waiting for new developments. He is very skillful in an argument. He decides what shall be done and how it shall be done. He assigns a task, then lets the members handle it. He is the leader of the group in name only. He gives advance notice of changes. He pushes for increased production. >>I>I> 11> >> >> > >>>> >>>> >>>> 11> >>>I>I>I> >>I> 01510151 m 0101 mm 01 51015151 wwmw wwww t1! wmwwww 010151 0000 0 00 00 0 0000 0000 0000 0 000000 000 UUUU U UU DO U UUUU UUUU UUUU U UUUUUU UUU 515151 51515151 51 515151515151 51515151 5151 5151 51 51515151 51 51515151 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 209 Things usually turn out as he predicts. He enjoys the privileges of his position. He handles complex problems efficiently. He is able to tolerate postponement and uncertainty. He is not a very convincing talker. He assigns group members to particular tasks. He turns the members loose on a job, and lets them go to it. He backs down when he ought to stand firm. He keeps to himself. He asks the members to work harder. He is accurate in predicting the trend of events. He gets his superiors to act for the welfare of the group members. He gets swamped by details. He can wait just so long, then blows up. He speaks from a strong inner conviction. He makes sure that his part in the group is understood by the group members. He is reluctant to allow the members any freedom of action. He lets some members have authority that he should keep. He looks out for the personal welfare of group members. He permits the members to take it easy in their work. He sees to it that the work of the group is coordinated. His word carries weight with his superiors. He gets things all tangled up. He remains calm when uncertain about coming events. He is an inspiring talker. He schedules the work to be done. He allows the group a high degree of initiative. He takes full charge when emergencies arise. He is willing to make changes. He drives hard when there is a job to be done. > >>> >>> >Z>I> > > IP > > >>>K> 11> >>>> >>> >>> w 515151 515151 1115351 (D m 51 DJ 01 51515101 on 01510151 515101 515151 0 000 000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 000 000 U UUU UUU DUO U U U U U UUUU U UUUU GOO GOO 51515151 51 51515151 515151 515151 51 515151 51 515151 515151 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 210 He helps group members settle their differences. He gets what he asks for from his superiors. He can reduce a madhouse to system and order. He is able to delay action until the proper time occurs. He persuades others that his ideas are to their advantage. He maintains definite standards of performance. He trusts the members to exercise good judgment. He overcomes attempts made to challenge his leadership. He refuses to explain his actions. He urges the group to beat its previous record. He anticipates problems and plans for them. He is working his way to the top. He gets confused when too many demands are made of him. He worries about the outcome of any new procedure. He can inspire enthusiasm for a project. He asks that group members follow standard rules and regulations. He permits the group to set its own pace. He is easily recognized as the leader of the group. He acts without consulting the group. He keeps the group working up to capacity. He maintains a closely knit group. He maintains cordial relations with superiors. >§>>>> >> >> > >I>I>>D> 21> >> > >>> wmwww 0303 mm on wwwww m mm (D mww 00000 00 00 0 00000 0 00 0 000 UUUUU CD DO U UUUUU U UU U UUU 5151515151 51 5151 515151 [11 5151 5151 5151515151 APPENDIX C STATISTICAL TABLES AND CHARTS 211 212 Table 4. Scores on leader behavior dimension scales. Teachers’ Adminis- SCh°°1 Union Average Standard District Board Scores . trators Repre- Deviation Members (3 groups) sentatives SCORES ON CONSIDERATION SCALE Ideal A 45.00 44.67 44.00 44.56 0.4157 B 48.00 45.67 42.00 45.22 2.4696 C 50.00 38.33 40.33 42.89 5.0942 D 43.00 39.00 44.67 42.22 2.3779 E 43.00 45.00 43.00 43.67 0.9428 F 44.00 43.00 42.00 43.00 0.8165 G 45.00 45.00 45.67 45.22 0.3143 H 47.00 44.67 43.67 45.11 1.3966 I 38.00 43.67 42.00 41.22 2.3779 J 44.00 45.67 43.00 44.22 1.0999 Avg. 44.70 43.47 43.03 43.73 SD. 3.1000 2.5263 1.4640 2.5581 Real A 42.00 41.00 21.00 34.67 9.6724 B 35.00 45.33 24.67 35.00 8.4371 C 39.00 30.33 16.33 28.56 9.3386 D 41.00 32.67 23.67 32.44 7.0780 E 38.00 40.00 32.33 36.78 3.2470 F 41.00 40.00 32.67 37.89 3.7152 G 44.00 41.33 28.33 37.89 6.8439 H 44.00 43.00 24.00 37.00 9.2014 I 38.00 41.33 21.33 33.56 8.7489 J 44.00 45.00 32.33 40.44 5.7499 Avg. 40.60 40.00 25.67 35.42 SD. 2.9052 4.6284 5.2957 8.1822 213 Table 4 (Continued) School Teachers’ Average . . Adminis - Uni on Standard District Board Scores . trators Repre- Dev1ation Members . (3 groups) sentatives Difference A 3.00 3.67 23.00 9.89 9.2749 B 13.00 0.33 17.33 10.22 7.2128 C 11.00 8.00 24.00 14.33 6.9442 D 2.00 6.33 21.00 9.78 8.1301 E 5.00 5.00 10.67 6.89 2.6713 F 3.00 3.00 9.33 5.11 2.9856 C 1.00 3.67 17.33 7.33 7.1544 H 3.00 1.67 19.67 8.11 8.1891 I 0.00 2.33 20.67 7.67 9.2416 J 0.00 0.67 10.67 3.78 4.8788 Avg. 4.10 3.47 17.37 8.31 SD. 4.2297 2.3152 5.0935 7.5806 SCORES ON INITIATION OF STRUCTURE SCALE Ideal A 47.00 41.00 39.33 42.44 3.2923 B 42.00 46.67 38.33 42.33 3.4102 C 47.00 42.33 42.33 43.89 2.1999 D 45.00 43.67 39.67 42.78 2.2662 E 41.00 44.67 38.67 41.44 2.4696 F 41.00 44.67 39.67 41.78 2.1140 G 48.00 45.33 43.33 45.56 1.9116 H 41.00 44.00 42.33 42.44 1.2273 I 46.00 44.33 41.67 44.00 1.7847 J 43.00 44.67 44.00 43.89 0.6849 Avg. 44.10 44.13 40.93 43.06 SD. 2.6627 1.4847 1.9310 2.5677 214 Table 4 (Continued) . . School Teachers’ Average District Admims- Board Umon Scores Standard trators M Repre- Deviation embers . (3 groups) sentatives Real A 39.00 37.67 31.33 36.00 3.3444 B 36.00 43.00 34.00 37.67 3.8586 C 47.00 37.33 35.00 39.78 5.1950 D 37.00 37.67 24.00 32.89 6.2913 E 40.00 37.67 32.67 36.78 3.0591 F 36.00 41.67 29.67 35.78 4.9015 O 45.00 38.33 31.00 38.11 5.7176 H 41.00 41.00 28.00 36.67 6.1283 I 39.00 41.67 31.67 37.44 4.2281 J 41.00 45.00 31.67 39.22 5.5866 Avg. 40.10 40.10 30.90 37.03 S.D. 3.4482 2.5822 2.9741 5.2861 Difference A 8.00 3.33 8.00 6.44 2.1999 ‘8 6.00 3.67 4.33 4.67 0.9813 C 0.00 5.00 7.33 4.11 3.0591 D 8.00 6.00 15.67 9.89 4.1663 E 1.00 7.00 6.00 4.67 2.6247 F 5.00 3.00 10.00 6.00 2.9439 G 3.00 7.00 12.33 7.44 3.8233 H 0.00 3.00 14.33 5.78 6.1724 I 7.00 2.67 10.00 6.56 3.0103 J 2.00 -0.33 12.33 4.67 5.5042 Avg. 4.00 4.03 10.03 6.02 S.D. 3.0332 2.1471 3.4783 4.0842 215 Table 4 (Continued) Teachers’ . . Adminis - SChOOl Union Average Standard District Board Scores . . trators Repre- Dev1ation Members . (3 groups) sentatives SCORES ON INTEGRATION SCALE Ideal A 25.00 21.00 22.00 22.67 1.6997 B 19.00 22.33 20.33 20.56 1.3699 C 25.00 20.67 22.33 22.67 1.7847 D 23.00 21.00 22.67 22.22 0.8749 E 22.00 22.00 20.00 21.33 0.9428 F 20.00 24.33 19.67 21.33 2.1257 G 24.00 23.33 23.00 23.44 0.4157 H 22.00 23.67 19.67 21.78 1.6405 I 22.00 23.33 19.67 21.67 1.5154 J 24.00 24.00 20.67 22.89 1.5713 Avg. 22.60 22.57 21.00 22.06 S.D. 1.9079 1.2828 1.2824 1.6933 Real A 21.00 19.00 11.33 17.11 4.1663 B 15.00 22.00 10.67 15.89 4.6693 C 20.00 16.00 10.00 15.33 4.1096 D 21.00 17.33 10.33 16.22 4.4250 E 19.00 19.00 15.00 17.67 1.8856 F 19.00 21.67 13.67 18.11 3.3259 G 21.00 20.00 14.33 18.44 2.9355 H 21.00 21.00 9.33 17.11 5.4997 I 18.00 21.67 14.00 17.89 3.1309 J 25.00 23.67 15.00 21.22 4.4333 Avg. 20.00 20.13 12.37 17.50 S.D. 2.4495 2.2121 2.1211 4.2789 216 Table 4 (Continued) School Teachers’ Average Adminis- Union Standard District Board Scores trators Repre- Deviation Members . (3 groups) sentatives Difference A 4.00 2.00 10.67 5.56 3.7052 B 4.00 0.33 9.67 4.67 3.8394 C 5.00 4.67 12.33 7.33 3.5382 D 2.00 3.67 12.33 6.00 4.5297 E 3.00 3.00 5.00 3.67 0.9428 F 1.00 2.67 6.00 3.22 2.0787 G 3.00 3.33 8.67 5.00 2.5963 H 1.00 2.67 10.33 4.67 4.0643 I 4.00 1.67 5.67 3.78 1.6405 J -1.00 0.33 5.67 1.67 2.8803 Avg. 2.60 2.43 8.63 4.56 S.D. 1.7436 1.3170 2.7058 3.5143 SCORES ON DEMAND RECONCILIATION SCALE Ideal A 21.00 23.33 21.67 22.00 0.9813 B 25.00 23.33 21.00 23.11 1.6405 C 25.00 19.33 22.00 22.11 2.3147 D 22.00 22.00 24.00 22.67 0.9428 E 18.00 23.33 19.67 20.33 2.2278 F 19.00 24.33 22.00 21.78 2.1830 G 22.00 24.33 23.33 23.22 0.9558 H 21.00 24.00 22.67 22.56 1.2273 1 25.00 24.00 21.33 23.44 1.5476 J 24.00 25.00 22.67 23.89 0.9558 Avg. 22.20 23.30 22.03 22.51 S.D. 2.4000 1.5308 1.1686 1.8634 217 Table 4 (Continued) Teachers’ . . Adminis - SChOOl Union Average Standard District Board Scores . . trators Repre- Dev1ation Members . (3 groups) sentatives Real A 16.00 18.33 12.00 15.44 2.6152 B 19.00 22.67 16.00 19.22 2.7262 C 18.00 16.00 20.33 18.11 1.7708 D 17.00 19.67 10.67 15.78 3.7745 E 17.00 19.00 15.00 17.00 1.6330 F 14.00 21.00 13.67 16.22 3.3811 G 19.00 20.33 16.00 18.44 1.8122 H 20.00 23.67 12.67 18.78 4.5731 I 20.00 22.00 17.00 19.67 2.0548 J 24.00 24.00 15.33 21.11 4.0855 Avg. 18.40 20.67 14.87 17.98 S.D. 2.5768 2.3898 2.6340 3.4822 Difference A 5.00 5.00 9.67 6.56 2.1999 B 6.00 0.67 5.00 3.89 2.3147 C 7.00 3.33 1.67 4.00 2.2278 D 5.00 2.33 13.33 6.89 4.6851 E 1.00 4.33 4.67 3.33 1.6555 F 5.00 3.33 8.33 5.56 2.0787 G 3.00 4.00 7.33 4.78 1.8526 H 1.00 0.33 10.00 3.78 4.4082 I 5.00 2.00 4.33 3.78 1.2862 J 0.00 1.00 7.33 2.78 3.2470 Avg. 3.80 2.63 7.17 4.53 S.D. 2.2716 1.5380 3.2085 3.1039 218 Table 4 (Continued) School Teachers’ Aver e Adminis- Union ag Standard District Board Scores . . trators Repre- Dev1ation Members . (3 groups) sentatives SCORES ON TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY SCALE Ideal A 36.00 41.00 36.67 37.89 2.2167 B 49.00 40.00 37.33 42.11 4.9914 C 39.00 33.67 36.67 36.44 2.1830 D 35.00 37.67 43.00 38.56 3.3259 E 36.00 37.00 40.00 37.67 1.6997 F 37.00 38.00 35.00 36.67 1.2472 G 46.00 40.67 40.33 42.33 2.5963 H 38.00 43.67 38.33 40.00 2.5963 I 42.00 44.00 41.67 42.56 1.0304 J 46.00 42.00 40.67 42 .89 2.2662 Avg. 40.40 39.77 38.97 39.71 S.D. 4.7582 3.0480 2.4242 3.5981 Real A 35.00 39.00 22.00 32.00 7.2572 B 39.00 37.00 25.33 33.78 6.0267 C 35.00 28.33 22.33 28.56 5.1735 D 33.00 39.67 26.00 32.89 5.5799 E 35.00 34.33 33.33 34.22 0.6849 F 34.00 37.33 30.67 34.00 2.7217 G 39.00 38.00 28.00 35.00 4.9666 H 34.00 41.00 29.33 34.78 4.7945 I 39.00 41.67 30.67 37.11 4.6851 J 41.00 35.33 30.67 35.67 4.2251 Avg. 36.40 37.17 27.83 33.80 S.D. 2.6533 3.6705 3.6125 5.3931 219 Table 4 (Continued) Teachers’ . . Adminis- S°b°°1 Union Average Standard District Board Scores . . trators Repre- Dev1ation Members . (3 groups) sentatives Difference A 1.00 2.00 14.67 5.89 6.2202 B 10.00 3.00 12.00 8.33 3.8586 C 4.00 5.33 14.33 7.89 4.5893 D 2.00 -2.00 17.00 5.67 8.1786 E 1.00 2.67 6.67 3.44 2.3779 F 3.00 0.67 4.33 2.67 1.5154 G 7.00 2.67 12.33 7.33 3.9534 H 4.00 2.67 9.00 5.22 2.7262 1 3.00 2.33 11.00 5.44 3.9378 J 5.00 6.67 10.00 7.22 2.0787 Avg. 4.00 2.60 11.13 5.91 S.D. 2.6458 2.2251 3.6246 4.7250 SCORES ON PREDICTIVE ACCURACY SCALE Ideal A 20.00 19.00 20.33 19.78 0.5666 B 23.00 21.33 20.00 21.44 1.2273 C 25.00 19.67 22.00 22.22 2.1830 D 21.00 20.33 20.67 20.67 0.2722 E 21.00 21.00 17.33 19.78 1.7285 F 20.00 22.33 20.00 20.78 1.0999 G 24.00 21.67 20.67 22.11 1.3966 H 21.00 22.33 21.00 21.44 0.6285 I 25.00 19.00 21.00 21.67 2.4944 J 20.00 23.67 22.33 22.00 1.5154 Avg. 22.00 21.03 20.53 21.19 S.D. 1.9494 1.4640 1.2927 1.7055 220 Table 4 (Continued) Teachers’ . . Adminis- SChOO’ Union Average Standard District Board Scores . . trators Repre- Dev1ation Members . (3 groups) sentatives Real A 15.00 16.67 12.67 14.78 1.6405 B 17.00 21.33 16.00 18.11 2.3147 C 20.00 17.67 19.67 19.11 1.0304 D 20.00 19.00 10.33 16.44 4.3404 E 19.00 18.67 15.33 17.67 1.6555 F 17.00 19.00 14.33 16.78 1.9116 G 20.00 19.00 13.33 17.44 2.9355 H 21.00 21.67 11.67 18.11 4.5650 I 20.00 17.33 15.67 17.67 1.7847 J 18.00 21.00 15.67 18.22 2.1830 Avg. 18.70 19.13 14.47 17.43 S.D. 1.7916 1.6275 2.4998 2.9099 Difference A 5.00 2.33 7.67 5.00 2.1773 B 6.00 0.00 4.00 3.33 2.4944 C 5.00 2.00 2.33 3.11 1.3426 D 1.00 1.33 10.33 4.22 4.3234 E 2.00 2.33 2.00 2.11 0.1571 F 3.00 3.33 5.67 4.00 1.1863 G 4.00 2.67 7.33 4.67 1.9626 H 0.00 0.67 9.33 3.33 4.2514 I 5.00 1.67 5.33 4.00 1.6555 J 2.00 2.67 6.67 3.78 2.0608 Avg. 3.30 1.90 6.07 3.76 S.D. 1.9000 0.9551 2.6238 2.6076 221 Table 4 (Continued) School Teachers’ Average . . Adminis - Union Standard District Board Scores . . trators Repre- Dev1ation Members . (3 groups) sentatives SCORES ON SUPERIOR ORIENTATION SCALE Ideal A 46.00 41.33 41.33 42.89 2.1999 B 46.00 45.33 39.67 43.67 2.8415 C 46.00 39.33 43.33 42.89 2.7397 D 46.00 43.00 43.67 44.22 1.2862 E 40.00 44.67 38.00 40.89 2.7933 F 39.00 43.67 39.33 40.67 2.1257 G 48.00 45.00 40.33 44.44 3.1545 H 39.00 42.67 42.33 41.33 1.6555 I 38.00 38.67 38.00 38.22 0.3143 J 39.00 43.00 41.33 41.11 1.6405 Avg. 42.70 42.67 40.73 42.03 S.D. 3.7696 2.1602 1.9195 2.8923 Real A 39.00. 37.00 33.00 36.33 2.4944 B 35.00 44.33 39.33 39.56 3.8136 C 37.00 36.00 41.00 38.00 2.1602 D 40.00 38.33 32.00 36.78 3.4462 E 38.00 38.67 40.67 39.11 1.1331 F 33.00 41.00 25.67 33.22 6.2618 G 40.00 38.67 35.33 38.00 1.9626 H 37.00 41.67 40.33 39.67 1.9626 I 35.00 37.33 38.00 36.78 1.2862 J 38.00 43.00 38.00 39.67 2.3570 Avg. 37.20 39.60 36.33 37.71 S.D. 2.1817 2.6153 4.6452 3.6012 222 Table 4 (Continued) School Teachers’ Average . . Adminis - Union Standard District Board Scores . . trators Repre- Dev1ation Members . (3 groups) sentatives Difference A 7.00 4.33 8.33 6.56 1.6630 B 11.00 1.00 0.33 4.11 4.8788 C 9.00 3.33 2.33 4.89 2.9355 D 6.00 4.67 11.67 7.44 3.0348 E 2.00 6.00 -2.67 1.78 3.5416 F 6.00 2.67 13.67 7.44 4.6054 G 8.00 6.33 5.00 6.44 1.2273 H 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.67 0.4714 I 3.00 1.33 -0.00 1.44 1.2273 J 1.00 0.00 3.33 1.44 1.3966 Avg. 5.50 3.07 4.40 4.32 S.D. 3.2016 2.1124 5.0151 3.7786 SCORES ON PERSUASIVENESS SCALE Ideal A 49.00 40.33 42.00 43.78 3.7548 B 44.00 43.33 37.67 41.67 2.8415 C 49.00 38.67 44.67 44.11 4.2368 D 47.00 42.00 42.67 43.89 2.2167 E 39.00 44.00 37.00 40.00 2.9439 F 38.00 45.00 38.67 40.56 3.1545 G 49.00 46.00 44.67 46.56 1.8122 H 37.00 44.33 39.67 40.33 3.0307 I 48.00 39.67 39.67 42.44 3.9284 J 47.00 47.33 45.33 46.56 0.8749 Avg. 44.70 43.07 41.20 42.99 S.D. 4.6271 2.6949 2.9181 3.8001 223 Table 4 (Continued) School Teachers’ Average . . Adminis— Union Standard District Board Scores . . trators Repre- Dev1ation - Members . (3 groups) sentatives Real A 35.00 35.33 25.33 31.89 4.6375 B 34.00 39.67 33.00 35.56 2.9355 C 39.00 34.67 31.00 34.89 3.2698 D 40.00 29.33 22.00 30.44 7.3904 E 33.00 38.33 36.00 35.78 2.1830 F 30.00 42.00 26.67 32.89 6.5847 G 37.00 42.33 35.00 38.11 3.0952 H 37.00 41.33 22.00 33.44 8.2836 I 34.00 37.33 27.67 33.00 4.0092 J 42.00 44.00 33.00 39.67 4.7842 Avg. 36.10 38.43 29.17 34.57 S.D. 3.4191 4.2033 4.8927 5.7665 Difference A 14.00 5.00 16.67 11.89 4.9914 B 10.00 3.67 4.67 6.11 2.7800 C 10.00 4.00 13.67 9.22 3.9845 D 7.00 12.67 20.67 13.44 5.6064 E 6.00 5.67 1.00 4.22 2.2825 F 8.00 3.00 12.00 7.67 3.6818 G 12.00 3.67 9.67 8.44 3.5101 H 0.00 3.00 17.67 6.89 7.7188 I 14.00 2.33 12.00 9.44 5.0942 J 5.00 3.33 12.33 6.89 3.9095 Avg. 8.60 4.63 12.03 8.42 S.D. 4.1280 2.8341 5.5866 5.2823 224 Table 4 (Continued) Teachers’ , , School . Average District 11:33::- Board 1221115; Scores 32:22:21 Members p (3 groups) sentatives SCORES ON TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM SCALE Ideal A 45.00 36.67 40.33 40.67 3.4102 B 40.00 40.00 38.33 39.44 0.7857 C 49.00 40.67 40.67 43.44 3.9284 D 34.00 35.00 42.33 37.11 3.7152 E 39.00 41.33 44.67 41.67 2.3254 F 39.00 40.67 40.33 40.00 0.7201 G 48.00 44.33 42.00 44.78 2.4696 H 45.00 41.33 41.00 42.44 1.8122 I 43.00 44.67 45.33 44.33 0.9813 J 41.00 41.00 44.00 42.00 1.4142 Avg. 42.30 40.57 41.90 41.59 S.D. 4.3600 2.8089 2.0979 3.3140 Real A 45.00 36.67 24.33 35.33 8.4896 B 39.00 40.67 29.00 36.22 5.1520 C 44.00 26.33 17.33 29.22 11.0766 D 38.00 32.67 23.67 31.44 5.9150 E 40.00 37.67 30.67 36.11 3.9659 F 37.00 41.00 36.67 38.22 1.9689 G 48.00 42.33 32.33 40.89 6.4769 H 40.00 41.00 27.33 36.11 6.2202 I 40.00 43.00 20.00 34.33 10.2089 J 34.00 42.67 33.67 36.78 4.1663 Avg. 40.50 38.40 27.50 35.47 S.D. 3.9051 5.0548 5.8486 7.5810 225 Table 4 (Continued) School Teachers’ Average . . Adminis - Union Standard District Board Scores . . trators Repre- DeViation Members . (3 groups) sentatives Difference A 0.00 0.00 16.00 5.33 7.5425 B 1.00 -0.67 9.33 3.22 4.3744 C 5.00 14.33 23.33 14.22 7.4850 D -4.00 2.33 18.67 5.67 9.5491 E -1.00 3.67 14.00 5.56 6.2677 F 2.00 -O.33 3.67 1.78 1.6405 G 0.00 2.00 9.67 3.89 4.1663 H 5.00 0.33 13.67 6.33 5.5244 I 3.00 1.67 25.33 10.00 10.8560 J 7.00 -1.67 10.33 5.22 5.0577 Avg. 1.80 2.17 14.40 6.12 S.D. 3.1241 4.3314 6.3295 7.5594 SCORES ON PRODUCTION EMPHASIS SCALE Ideal A 36.00 33.00 35.67 34.89 1.3426 B 37.00 39.33 31.67 36.00 3.2088 C 47.00 37.00 39.67 41.22 4.2281 D 40.00 35.67 36.67 37.44 1.8526 E 32.00 38.33 28.67 33.00 4.0092 F 31.00 40.00 34.67 35.22 3.6952 G 39.00 40.00 35.67 38.22 1.8526 H 38.00 38.67 33.33 36.67 2.3727 I 36.00 35.00 29.67 33.56 2.7800 J 32.00 37.67 36.00 35.22 2.3779 Avg. 36.80 37.47 34.17 36.14 S.D. 4.4900 2.1919 3.1946 3.7085 226 Table 4 (Continued) Teachers’ . . Adminis - S “1°01 Union Average Standard District Board Scores . trators Repre- Dev1ation Members . (3 groups) sentatives Real A 30.00 30.67 31.33 30.67 0.5443 B 29.00 37.33 31.00 32.44 3.5521 C 41.00 36.67 29.67 35.78 4.6693 D 34.00 31.33 20.67 28.67 5.7607 E 31.00 33.33 27.67 30.67 2.3254 F 30.00 36.00 26.00 30.67 4.1096 G 37.00 33.00 28.00 32.67 3.6818 H 37.00 34.67 26.67 32.78 4.4250 I 33.00 36.00 33.00 34.00 1.4142 J 33.00 36.33 28.33 32.56 3.2811 Avg. 33.50 34.53 28.23 32.09 S.D. 3.6401 2.2121 3.2730 4.1508 Difference A 6.00 2.33 4.33 4.22 1.4990 B 8.00 2.00 0.67 3.56 3.1895 C 6.00 0.33 10.00 5.44 3.9659 D 6.00 4.33 16.00 8.78 5.1520 E 1.00 5.00 1.00 2.33 1.8856 F 1.00 4.00 8.67 4.56 3.1545 G 2.00 7.00 7.67 5.56 2.5288 H 1.00 4.00 6.67 3.89 2.3147 I 3.00 -1.00 -3.33 -0.44 2.6152 J -1.00 1.33 7.67 2.67 3.6616 Avg. 3.30 2.93 5.93 4.06 S.D. 2.8302 2.2598 5.2192 3.9035 227 Table 4 (Continued) School Teachers , Average . . Adminis - Union Standard District Board Scores . . trators Repre- Dev1ation Members . (3 groups) sentatives SCORES ON REPRESENTATION SCALE Ideal A 20.00 19.67 21.33 20.33 0.7201 B 13.00 20.67 17.33 17.00 3.1388 C 21.00 19.67 20.00 20.22 0.5666 D 24.00 19.00 20.33 21.11 2.1140 E 21.00 21.67 18.67 20.44 1.2862 F 17.00 21.33 17.00 18.44 2.0428 G 25.00 21.67 19.33 22.00 2.3254 H 18.00 22.00 18.67 19.56 1.7498 I 20.00 21.33 15.33 18.89 2.5724 J 21.00 20.67 21.00 20.89 0.1571 Avg. 20.00 20.77 18.90 19.89 S.D. 3.2558 0.9667 1.8077 2.3497 Real A 20.00 17.67 19.33 19.00 0.9813 B 14.00 19.33 20.00 17.78 2.6851 C 20.00 19.00 10.33 16.44 4.3404 D 22.00 16.33 14.33 17.56 3.2470 E 19.00 18.00 20.00 19.00 0.8165 F 17.00 20.00 14.00 17.00 2.4495 G 21.00 20.67 17.00 19.56 1.8122 H 18.00 21.67 15.00 18.22 2.7262 I 20.00 20.67 16.33 19.00 1.9052 J 21.00 20.33 16.00 19.11 2.2167 Avg. 19.20 19.37 16.23 18.27 S.D. 2.2271 1.5524 2.8908 2.7045 228 Table 4 (Continued) School Teachers’ Average . . Adminis - Union Standard District Board Scores . . trators Repre- Dev1ation Members . (3 groups) sentatives Difference A 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.33 0.9428 B -1.00 1.33 -2.67 -0.78 1.6405 C 1.00 0.67 9.67 3.78 4.1663 D 2.00 2.67 6.00 3.56 1.7498 E 2.00 3.67 -1.33 1.44 2.0787 F 0.00 1.33 3.00 1.44 1.2273 G 4.00 1.00 2.33 2.44 1.2273 H 0.00 0.33 3.67 1.33 1.6555 I 0.00 0.67 -1.00 -0.11 0.6849 J 0.00 0.33 5.00 1.78 2.2825 Avg. 0.80 1.40 2.67 1.62 S.D. 1.4000 1.0306 3.5371 2.4048 SCORES ON ROLE ASSUMPTION SCALE Ideal A 39.00 43.00 42.67 41.56 1.8122 B 44.00 45.67 37.33 42.33 3.6004 C 46.00 40.67 38.67 41.78 3.0952 D 42.00 46.00 44.33 44.11 1.6405 E 41.00 44.33 40.33 41.89 1.7498 F 41.00 45.00 38.33 41.44 2.7397 G 41.00 46.33 36.67 41.33 3.9534 H 38.00 47.33 43.00 42.78 3.8136 I 40.00 43.00 39.67 40.89 1.4990 J 48.00 49.00 40.33 45.78 3.8714 Avg. 42.00 45.03 40.13 42.39 S.D. 2.9665 2.2777 2.4046 3.2661 229 Table 4 (Continued) School Teachers’ Average . . Adminis- Union Standard District Board Scores . . trators Repre- Dev1ation Members . (3 groups) sentatives Real A 31.00 33.67 32.33 32.33 1.0887 B 33.00 42.67 37.00 37.56 3.9659 C 42.00 41.67 43.67 42.44 0.8749 D 40.00 40.00 25.67 35.22 6.7568 E 32.00 37.67 36.67 35.44 2.4696 F 35.00 36.67 25.00 32.22 5.1520 G 37.00 38.00 31.67 35.56 2.7800 H 37.00 42.67 29.33 36.33 5.4637 I 37.00 38.33 30.33 35.22 3.4996 J 47.00 46.67 29.00 40.89 8.4078 Avg. 37.10 39.80 32.07 36.32 S.D. 4.6357 3.5283 5.3951 5.5933 Difference A 8.00 9.33 10.33 9.22 0.9558 B 11.00 3.00 0.33 4.78 4.5325 C 4.00 -1.00 -5.00 -0.67 3.6818 D 2.00 6.00 18.67 8.89 7.1042 E 9.00 6.67 3.67 6.44 2.1830 F 6.00 8.33 13.33 9.22 3.0591 G 4.00 8.33 5.00 5.78 1.8526 H 1.00 4.67 13.67 6.44 5.3217 I 3.00 4.67 9.33 5.67 2.6805 J 1.00 2.33 11.33 4.89 4.5893 Avg. 4.90 5.23 8.07 6.07 S.D. 3.3000 3.0260 6.6946 4.8621 230 Table 5. One hundred twenty triples of difference scores. The triples occur as follows (most diff. first in parens.): ORDER (T,B,A) OCCURS 44 TIMES. ORDER (T,A,B) OCCURS 43 TIMES. ORDER (A,B,T) OCCURS 11 TIMES. ORDER (A,T,B) OCCURS 11 TIMES. ORDER (B,A,T) OCCURS 5 TIMES. ORDER (B,T,A) OCCURS 4 TIMES. ORDER (A=T,B) OCCURS 1 TIME. ORDER (T,A=B) OCCURS 1 TIME. IN THESE DATA, ADMINISTRATOR DIFFERENCES EXCEED BOARD DIFFERENCES 66 TIMES. THEY DIFFER 119 TIMES; THE PROPORTION = 0.5546. IN THESE DATA, ADMINISTRATOR DIFFERENCES EXCEED TEACHER DIFFERENCES 27 TIMES. THEY DIFFER 119 TIMES; THE PROPORTION = 0.2269. IN THESE DATA, BOARD DIFFERENCES EXCEED TEACHER DIFFERENCES 20 TIMES. THEY DIFFER 120 TIMES; THE PROPORTION = 0.1667. 231 Table 6. Analysis of variance: F distributiona F Statistic for: Dimension of Leader Behavior Ideal Real Behavior Behavior Consideration ..................... 1.113 33.323* Initiation of structure ............... 7.004* 27.798* Integration ’ ....................... 3.257 34.675* Demand reconciliation ............... 1.351 11.959* Tolerance of uncertainty ............. 0.368 21.598* Predictive accuracy ................ 1.971 14.824* Superior orientation ................ 1.517 2.331 Persuasiveness .................... 2.227 11.769* Tolerance of freedom ' ............... 0.711 17.532* Production emphasis ................ 2.338 10.682* Representation .................... 1.606 5.336 Role assumption ................... 8.353* 6.597* aAt .05 level, F2, 27 > 3.35; at .01 level, F2, 27 > 5.49. * Significant. 232 COMPARISON OF THE THREE GROUPS ON THE DIMENSIONS CONSIDERATION AND INITIATION OF STRUCTURE LBDO- Ideal (Consideration) - + 3 .2 0,1 A. C. 5 :5 + 22 5 .. 3 a r n q E J. o - + a B, E, 6. :o. °' F u.I.J 85+ 0 35_ 5:: - + g3 H,J =9- - {5+ “’2 33‘... In! 3: o c s :22“ F31. ' 4.0. G (Initiation of Structure) LBDQ- Real ( Consideration) C,E,I + + A, G. H,J B,D,F Gigi-u > 3: P!" H (Initiation of Structure) 233 COMPARISON OF THE THREE GROUPS ON THE DIMENSIONS INTEGRATION AND DEMAND RECONCILIATION LBDQ-Real LBDQ- Ideal ?3.3___uc3om proJ BI 2.253 0...... J merit. ) 0 l 0 n AEH .w u + r g e _ r n I I\ B + . “5:229:33 32.33 H J on I. tn )1 . D m c A n. + r 9 W. _ n I B F + _ 283322.334 A, C. D. E A,E + 0,0 mamnimi 2:3 .593» Curt...” 3.5.."- AtD. cw... D,G,J 8.6 F. “H E! A I. + _ 325323233. 292: 35:03.— 234 COMPARISON OF THE THREE GROUPS ON THE DIMENSIONS TOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY AND PREDICT IV E ACCURACY LBDQ-Ideal LBDQ-Real (T0lerance of Uncertainty) (Tolerance oi Uncertainty) - + — + g c a o I o I A H A ‘3 9:» 3?; E + 1‘32 + .52 i '63 U3 " ’ 32 - 2% g 11.9, a, J. 3, A, C. D B. G. I. 3 F. H E. F .r — + — + a " 3'? F’ 5’ 6' "' <2 ' 234’ + -'< E2“ " ‘6’: A,C.I o A,C.I 3.0,: — + - + 33 o J c —> . 3,: 203+ + 55:- .. It» 3g A, a, a, o A,D. F, a, c. E. H: F, u, I o u. I, J 235 COMPARISON OF THE THREE GROUPS ON THE DIMENSIONS SUPERIOR ORIENTATION AND PERSUASIVENESS LBDQ-Ideal LBDQ-Real (Superior Orientation) (Superior Orientation) - + - + In A A g I. J 3': '75 c o :3, 4 v c c R + O U l— > > 2 '6 '5 2 _ (D m 3 3 5’. 2 an. a 8.5". A.“ r. I O 8’ I J t - + - + B, E, F, F 5 u D o o o :3 H 6.3 J Suri- n if... gfi w A,c,I D A,C,I 3.0.5 - + - + 5‘3 o. J c z- :9- 203+ «3 ”VI- 33’: gal A' 8' E’ D A. Do F0 89 co £9 5-8 F, H. I G H, I, J 236 COMPARISON OF THE THREE GROUPS ON THE DIMENSIONS TOLERANCE OF FREEDOM AND PRODUCTION EMPHASIS LBDQ- Ideal (Tolerance of Freedom) - + U. 3 a. o. e c,o, H 2 e: + W :3 .. z 3 r, .r A.1 - + 0 80 C, E0 6 :2 F. H, J 33+ gs- at W A, D I - + g’g c o :5- 5.75" 35.. 3‘3" A 6 F G E: u' - . s,o,1..r LBDQ- Real (tolerance of Freedom) - + 5.2? c 6' ” .372? '53 + ‘33 as: :1: fig. ‘1 Es - Be 3‘“ a r I 3‘” A. o, c J - + C 8.3 4.. Mr, G. D' E u, I - + + A,8. C. 0. LE P u, I.J 237 8,5 6.1» F....... D" A.C,J m Assign: m 225 S N EN cw MO in \RI D..J A DI .d o .. . T e .5. CI EP on n HW . n... TS Q a. NS D N CA w m. F S I\ H .L. pm 5. WO RR on HA RN Accrueamwd H0 233 TN A MT E. TN 1.. . E il \.fll . DI FS 3 .w C A.G. 0E d “m R I t... NP . M OE Q 5. ER D n R P A w m a n. W F O C + . ”debs—bu .539 4 A,D + . wumotut 2.4.3 .338» + F tn... Btnw ”333—3333. 222: .mauzuS: it... ‘I'Diln'; ?\’|I1qu "ITllflfllliflflj'fllmi'lfiflml'wflflfiflr