".P'fi » @‘K‘ “WW 1 "‘1 ““11 1Q‘ A‘WWW".~'I§ ‘1‘111111‘361 1111126" ‘11“ "i 4W“ 1"“ ‘ {‘11 . . 1-1 ‘1'1‘1::‘.11""‘W“‘W1‘121 1‘1“""‘W"" " ‘11 W,“ 11'. ° 1111 11;? " 3.31111; 1 11 "'11111'j‘1‘éII TIT) ‘ lfiBIWFL 23315111 I III . 1'1 III .' I'I‘ 1'" $1 1 ““"'z‘“ " -~.. ~ 1 ' 1 1 '1‘1111. ' Uf‘w"w““:‘ éw “‘11“”w 1‘1 "“WW‘WA‘“ .-.-- ’1-.. .-_... ‘ v.- *_‘_~_'.“- ' _ v“ -- .---—" "w —-—— _. .__— '" 3:3..- . ”~_-~.—— 1WWQ U“ <- <»w- - 1 1 I 1“ ‘1 . "1 .I.‘_," 1'1 1 H" ‘.; ' 1.! ' 1ll (W. ' 1.1 11111‘1.‘ W. "‘.W WM ' ‘fi-t“$¥ M > ‘ 1‘ 1 1.1 , ‘1 1‘11 ‘1“ 1'1: - 1 1 ‘1 111 ~111111dm.r,y1 .1 ‘ .‘ul' 1" , . .- 1311.121: 1 . 1 1 . . ‘7 W: ‘ ' WW": ' ., .1‘ f ' ' " ' ’ 1111 «1111. 1-1-— .— 1“" 11 I. 1 ‘fi‘1b““' ' .‘ ' "WWW" 3‘F‘I'1‘WW 1333‘ " ' .‘1 .| ‘ 1‘ .' 1 ' III 0:, ,_ III. : . 1‘ ‘- = ‘1" .11‘1‘112 , 1., r1"1“1111.‘1‘11 ~ 1‘“ 1“ ‘ . "1‘1112‘ ‘. , 1~ ..:2 1:1" 5 E" 43:13. “‘1 '1‘ - ~11fi‘ ' ’ ‘1 ‘ék‘fi1‘. 1. ‘= fiflgfiéq‘fififlp 11 11.1111 ‘ 1 1 . ‘ 11111.; 1 11:1‘1‘1111‘111‘1‘111‘11‘111‘.~ 1“" ' x.‘ 11 . .11 ‘.--". 1.": '1' ,I. 11.1 q. g1}, ‘1 11:1“ 11111‘11‘1‘1111111' 1 1. ‘3‘" " -‘ 1‘ ‘1111111 1 .11‘1‘1‘151‘2‘1‘311‘1‘1‘ ‘11“ W“ .m“ 1= :‘r‘ ”“i" ‘J‘HIYVWV&H fi?~" 1 111111 1111111‘,,. ‘11.;21., 1‘“ 11311- 45.11;;1‘11%11111111111211111111:-. =11 "1‘1“* 1; . ”11111 '1W9w&kfikfikfifi MUR‘ 111,m11§31w ‘hb 1: 1111 ‘ 1fimqmfiqh11111Mw .-4‘s t‘<% ‘ 1M1‘ .wefl1 W11”‘nw‘ Jai“‘4"w“#7“1fi.1| .111 W‘VWW" H"“W 1zh-w ”WWW .13 ‘WH‘W‘WTWWWW‘W ‘. .Ii 5 ' "z. " “1.1111- 1 1‘1‘i1’11111gg111I1fl3‘1fiii 11111111 1‘ . .1“,“'1“2:‘1" 11‘“ “l. ‘I [‘1 “““V'W‘ .1 11‘ ‘ . 1""3'5' ,H 1' a . .1‘1111111111111‘111,1111 1";1 11‘1112-1 111.1“ 111* 111 1 . 3-“. 1 ‘-‘ ‘1' . '.' > ‘ " ‘1‘=‘:111"1fi'1111‘1‘1‘11‘““""‘““'1111“' W1 ‘ 1 j 3111111111111 1.11:1” 1211111.; .1.“ 10‘. "“‘1“"“""“ ‘3 1‘ 1.131”: W“ . ‘W' t ““1‘ 1:111:31111“‘£t1 “1‘ 1‘ “"1111 ‘1‘ “1 11 ‘ "i‘fi1:"".',‘ 1"!«91‘ [”11‘" W 1"): 1.111141 ‘ I I "l. "14‘ “Hf-III 4| ‘ ": 11 1‘11”: 1“‘1 251:1II1'1HI I 1 1 . 1 1435 ;"':3-'.. ‘ “ 1“ 111. 1111‘1211:41 . 11 “1‘&W““ ”“ 11‘1‘111““1“‘II““‘.§~“"“§“11“"“W“““ ,1“1"1"‘"'"'1" 1 1‘ 1 1‘4'11, I [‘11 III“1“‘ 1111 H‘: ‘IL‘ 111.211.1111 "Li‘s: 1:11; 1: '2 1 ~ , 1 1 . ‘3 '. K ‘Q‘WSB‘Qh‘HH‘fiWF‘ ‘ ‘ffi" 1'1 " ‘3‘21 1-. ”‘"’ ‘Yh‘ufl ‘“ *‘8‘9‘ ' " 11111.35“;1‘.*§i‘i'.i*e;"."133‘6‘1‘11115'1‘if. ' ‘ ‘ ' “='.‘ W" ' " ‘: . 1‘3 £3%‘1‘mnflhwnh‘ h‘W‘Hfi‘vg 1, . 1 . ‘ . fifi1‘11R‘v3W‘WJ‘13'33' , I3i1».11:.‘3.3i 1-:‘13'131‘1‘3‘. ' ‘ "' ' “W.“‘WWWW‘W 12; .. I -..‘l :““11‘1‘(€ ‘ ‘1‘.- ‘111 ' "5‘ ‘1 q . 11311.; .u‘lfl‘l. l ‘ ",1 "‘1‘“; :“1' 11 ‘ :11" l'.‘ '1‘" ‘.' ‘Wél ,‘Wl‘ “ 1‘11 ' I‘ ’ " . ; 11&‘1mmfi1111mw111 ‘ 1 ~‘*111“' 1‘1111J‘“‘“ ‘WH"’1WW11 1~ : "'4; :‘ EH! ‘;1' "' ' ‘4' ' I’X'v' E v -‘11fi“11‘11 Rm "' “11‘“‘1 M‘ ' ..' 1‘ W11 f‘w 111 ‘“vhvu1‘ 1u‘11 :1 ‘1m1iflum 111,11b 1111111111 ‘11"“ '““ 1 ‘W ‘ ""1~WW““WWW ' '1; ‘ : “Ii“;m‘ ““"“1 111‘ ‘ 11'. NY “"1 11‘ 1‘(‘1‘~“‘"""‘ ' W 1‘21““‘11"'I"1“"‘“““ 31 . 21111511“ 1‘1 111"" ‘1‘1‘3-1 1,1‘: 1 ‘11111111 1 \I111 ‘1111 ‘II‘I1 111' I I1 1I1II1‘11I114111 11‘ 11M III‘11‘II W111"; Mil" “1" _ ‘11" E‘f'q. 1 17111, 11111 ‘ u 1 "”221‘1‘u‘W‘W "‘“.'Ilti S‘I“ ” 11“ WW ‘3' " "‘3‘ u‘ "3:". I III'I‘11:'. ‘1111‘ I’," \‘III'I1II1'LI11E1II"IIII1II1II1II I<.'II|I1I‘II1IIII'I .w 'I‘W‘WW“ ‘1“‘1‘W1I1é'6‘1" ‘1‘ {"11 "1‘ ll'1,‘ «“61‘ “"1":“‘ “l": 3“"? “““t I111 l 1 ‘2 ‘1 1 W . 11 ."1"“""“"" 1"“"““' MM 11 ““11, “""" 1‘11“ M“. W“'“ i‘,‘ 111‘ ‘ "“““ 1 'i' 1111.1.‘11 11. "‘1"""" W' 1 = "11:11 1111: 1 1111‘ 1 11;: ‘1‘11“111112 ‘ “-.“"1' ' 1“ ‘I11m1h‘ '1' “‘1‘111‘1 “W1" _‘, ~— w... '_.___~I~— ’J 1.3155? mm, . This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF UNIONIZED AND NONUNIONIZED SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS REGARDING DISTRICT ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE presented by Robert John Burek has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for .. Ph.D. degree in Educational Administration <_> Major professor Date I! ' [Zn-$7— MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU LIBRARIES \\\\I\\\\\\\\\I\gg\x}\\\\gii\gg\\\ a N ‘9 03 .a O RETURNING MATERIALS: PTace in Beck drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wilT be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF UNIONIZED AND NONUNIONIZED SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS REGARDING DISTRICT ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE By Robert John Burek A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1982 Copyright 1982 Robert John Burek ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS 0F UNIONIZED AND NONUNIONIZED SCHOOL ADHINISTRATORS REGARDING DISTRICT ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE By Robert John Burek This study was an examination of the effects of administrator union- ization upon the organizational climate in selected Michigan School districts. Perceptions of administrators were compared on a series of key organizational variables including trust, influence in district decision-making, leadership. communication, attitudes toward job and climate to determine if there were any differences based upon union status. The population for the study consisted of one hundred twenty principals and thirty superintendents drawn in equal numbers from a matched sample of fifteen unionized and fifteen nonunionized school . districts. The districts were matched according to district student enrollment, state equalized valuation per pupil, average teacher salary and geographical proximity. The Rensis Likert Profile of a School questionnaire, superintendent and principal forms, was the instrument used in the investigation. The superintendent and four of his/her principals, two elementary and two secondary, were surveyed in each of the thirty districts. ‘ Robert John Burek Perceptions of superintendents were compared on four variables: district climate; trust in and by the Board of Education; influence in district decision-making; and communication with the Board. In only one of the four was there a statistically significant difference. In the general variable of district climate, superintendents in nonunionized school districts perceived the climate in their districts to be signifi- cantly more favorable than did superintendents in unionized districts. Principals perceptions were compared on six variables: district climate; superintendent's leadership style; trust in and by superintendents; influence in district decision-making; communication with the superintendent and attitude toward job. In none of these variables was there a statistically significant difference between principals in the two district types. The major thrust of the study was a comparison of principals in unionized and nonunionized districts. Based upon the data gathered, it can be stated that there is no significant difference in organizational climate resulting from union status. This finding is contrary to results of other studies over the last few years assessing perceptions of principals relative to organizational climate. Those studies concluded that there was a significant difference in district climate resulting from unionization of administrators, and the major effect was a less positive organizational climate. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to recognize those individuals who assisted him in the completion of this dissertation. A special thanks is due the superintendents and principals whose cooperation was essential during the survey portion of the project. Dr. Samuel A. Moore, II, committee chairperson, was a constant source of assistance and encouragement-during the entire period of the research. As advisor to the author in his pursuit of the doctorate, Dr. Moore's interest, sensitivity and patience were instrumental in the achievement of this goal. The author would also like to recognize the contributions of other members of his committee. Dr. Philip Cusick, Dr. Castelle Gentry. and Dr. Phillip Marcus guided the author through all the trials of the . dissertation. A special note of appreciation is also extended to Ray Seghers, a consultant with Rensis Likert, Associate, Inc., for his help during the technical phase of the study. Finally, to his wife, Sally, his daughters Melissa, Amy and Wendy and to his parents, Peter and Mary Burek, the author wishes to recognize the role they played in the fulfillment of a life-long professional dream. The patience and understanding, the love and support, and the sacrifices made by the Burek family in the author's completion of the dissertation can only be understood by one who has faced a similar challenge. The encouragement of the author's wife was the single most ii important factor through the long and difficult period of the research. To her, this dissertation is dedicated. m TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ......................... vi LIST OF TABLES .......... . .............. vii LIST OF APPENDICES ....................... ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ............ . ........ 1 Reasons for Administrator Unionization. . . . . . . 4 Effects of Administrator Unionization . ...... 7 Research on Management and Communication ...... 15 Statement of the Problem .............. 20 Research Questions ................. 20 Hypotheses ..................... 22 Definition of Terms . ........ . ..... . 25 Significance of the Study . . ..... . ..... 27 Delimitations and Limitations ........... 27 Need for the Study ................. 28 Summary ................... . . . 29 II METHODOLOGY ...................... 31 Sampling ...................... 31 Data Collection .................. 35 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . ........ 37 Reliability ........ . . . . ........ 42 Validity .................... . . 42 Statistical Treatment Data ............. 43 Summary ...................... 44 III DATA ANALYSIS ..................... 45 Introduction. .................. 45 Analysis of Profile of a School Data ........ 46 Summary .......... . . . . ........ 59 IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..... . ........ . . 68 Review of the Problem . . . ........ . . . . 68 Methodology and Instrumentation ....... . . . 71 Discussion of Findings ........... . . . . 73 iv CHAPTER Page IV Summary of Findings ................ 79 Conclusions .................... 82 Recommendations .................. 84 Implications .................... 86 APPENDICIES ........................... 88 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... 144 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 A Cumulative Effect on Organizational Climate of Three Sets of Variables: Causal, Intervening and End Results . ................ 3.1 Likert School Profile Indices: Comparison of Mean Responses of Unionized and Nonunionized Principals to Profile of a School Questionnaire . . 3.2 Likert School Profile Indices: Comparison of Mean Responses of Nonunionized Superintendents in Unionized and Nonunionized Districts to Profile of a School Questionnaire ........ vi Page 61 62 LIST OF TABLES States With Voluntary or Enabled Bargaining for School Supervisors, 1975 and 1979 ......... Distribution by County of Matched Unionized and Nonunionized School Districts ........... Comparison of 15 Unionized and 15 Nonunionized School Districts Relative to District Student Enrollment, Average Teacher Salary and State Equalized Valuation Per Pupil ............. . . . Distribution of Matched Unionized and Nonunionized School Districts into District Student Enrollment Population Clusters ........... Response of Principals and Superintendents to Profile of a School (P05) Questionnaire .......... T-Test Analyses of the Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents in Unionized and Nonunionized Districts with Regard to Organizational Climate . . T-Test Analyses of the Differences in Perceptions of Unionized and Nonunionized Principals with Regard to Organizational Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . T-Test Analyses of the Differences in Perceptions of Unionized and Nonunionized Principals Relative to the Superintendents' Leadership Style . . . . . . . T-Test Analyses of the Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents in Unionized and Nonunionized Districts with Regard to Trust In and By Superiors ..................... T-Test Analyses of the Differences in Perceptions of Unionized and Nonunionized Principals Regarding Trust In and By Superiors ............. T-Test Analyses of Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents in Unionized and Nonunionized Districts Relative to Influence in District Decision-Making .................. vii Page 33 35 36 37 46 47 48 49 50 51 Table 3.7 3.8 3.11-A 3.11-B 3.12-A 3.12-B T-Test Analyses of Differences in Perceptions of Unionized and Nonunionized Principals with Regard to Influence in District Decision- Making ...................... T-Test Analyses of Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents in Unionized and Nonunionized Districts Relative to Communication with the Board of Education ............... -. T-Test Analyses of Differences in Perceptions of Unionized and Nonunionized Principals Regarding Communication with the Superintendent. . T-Test Analyses of Differences in Perceptions of Unionized and Nonunionized Principals Regarding Their Attitude Toward Their Job .......... T-Test Analysis of Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents and Principals in Unionized Districts Relative to Organizational Climate . . . T-Test Analysis of Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents and Principals in Nonunionized Districts Relative to Organizational Climate . . . T-Test Analysis of Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents and Principals in Unionized Districts Relative to District Decision-Making . . T-Test Analysis of Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents and Principals in Nonunionized Districts Regarding the Principals' Influence in District Decision-Making ..... . ...... T-Test Analysis of Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents and Principals in Unionized Districts and Superintendents and Principals in Nonunionized Districts Relative to District Organizational Climate . . . . . ......... T-Test Analysis of Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents and Principals in Unionized Districts and Superintendents and Principals in Nonunionized Districts in Regard to Principals' Influence in District Decision-Making ....... Hypotheses Decision Summary ............. viii Page 52 53 54 55 56 56 57 58 58 59 64 Appendix A 11023 LIST OF APPENDICES Letter to Executive Director of Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals ........... Endorsement Letter From Executive Director of Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals .................... Letter to High School Principals ........... Michigan School Districts with Administrative Bargaining Units. . .g ............... Letter to Executive Director of Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals ........... Endorsement Letter From Executive Director of Mich- igan Association of Secondary School Principals . . Endorsement Letter From Executive Director of Michigan Association of School Administrators ........ Letter to Superintendents for Approval for District Participation ................... Letter to Superintendents for Personal Participation in Survey . . . . . .............. . . Letter to Principals for Participation in Survey . . . Endorsement Letter From Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association ...... . . Endorsement Letter From Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals ............ Profile of a School-Superintendent Form ........ Profile of a School-Principal Form .......... Profile of a School-Answer Sheet . . ......... Directions for Completing the Profile of a School Questionnaire ................... ix Page 89 91 94 96 100 102 104 106 109 111 113 115 117 126 137 140 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Unionism in public education is of recent vintage. Employees in the private industrial sector gained a statutory foothold through federal legislation in the 1930's, but those in the public domain did not gain a legal base until the 1960's with excutive orders from the offices of Presidents Kennedy and Nixon, respectively. While the enactments applied only to federal employees, they set the stage for state action which fbllowed in the decades of the 60‘s and 70's. In Michigan, Public Act 379 (1965) permitted collective bargaining in the public sector. It provided a statutory base for public employees in the state to organize for the purpose of negotiating wages, hours and conditions of employment.. Unions of school administrators have an even briefer history in Michigan. In 1970, a Michigan Court of Appeals decision granted principals and other non-executive administrators in the Hillsdale school district the legal right to organize for the purpose of bargaining collectively.1 Collective bargaining for principals and other school district middle managers has grown significantly in recent years. In the vast majority of 1Michigan Court of Appeals, Hillsdale Community Schools versus Labor Board, 24 Michigan App. 36, 1970. cases, bargaining takes place with the SUpport of state labor laws that enable groups of middle managers to seek recognition and require school boards to negotiate with them. Cooper has chronicled that growth.2 In 1975, he reported a total of 15 states which had granted the right to bargain through legislative enactment and seven in which administrators negotiated in the absense of statute. There were 1055 school districts falling under the legal umbrella and 45 doing so in states where voluntary action occurred for a total of 1100 districts in 22 states with collective bargaining for administrators. By 1979, the number of states with permissive legislation had increased from 15 to 21 with 1727 school districts in those states ' bargaining collectively, and while the number of states in which bargaining was done in the absence of statute remained at seven, the total of districts in those states bargaining with administrators had increased from 45 to 111. Supervisory collective bargaining in education thus grew 67 per cent in four years from 1100 districts in 1975 to 1838 districts in 1979 and from 22 to 28 states. With 1838 districts in a union posture with their administrators, seven per cent of the 28,000 systems in the United States had negotiated agreements between principals and Board of Education? Table 1.1 sumarizes the picture of growth. 2Bruce Cooper, "Collective Bargaining for School Administrators Four Years Later," Phi Delta Kappan 61: October, 1979, p. 130. 3Chester Butkiewicz, "Superintendents, Are You Ready?" ‘National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin 59: SeptemEEr, 1975, p. 29. ' Table 1.1 States Nith Voluntary or Enabled Bargaining .for School Supervisors, 1975 and 1979 1975 (2-23) 1979 (2-29) Vol. Enab. Vol. Enab. State (NIB) (N-15) (N-B) (N-Zl) 1. Alas. - 6 - 39 2. Calif. - 0 - 8 3. Colo. 0 - 2 - 4. Conn. - 132 - 161 5. n.c. 1 - 1 - 6. Fla. - 4 - -0 7. Hi. - 1 - 1 8. Ida. '0 - 1 0 9. Ill. 6 - 11 - 10. Kan. - l4 - 160 11. Me. - 14 - 15 12. Nd. - 12 - 24 13. Mass. - 100 - 240 14. Mich. - 75 - 150 15. Minn. - 110 - 177 16. Mo. 5 - 10 - 17. Mont. - 0 - I 18. Neb. - 0 - 1 19. Nev. - - 0 - 1 20. N.H. - 3 - 6 21. N.J. - 310 - 420 22. N.Y. - 215 - 222 23. N.D. - 0 - 6 24. 0h. 25 0 66 - 25. Okla. - 0 - 1' 26. Penn. 5 - 8 - 27. R.I. 1 - 0* - 28. Tenn. - 0 - 68 29. Vt. - 4 - 6 30. Va. 1 . - 0* - 31. Hash. - 55 - 80 32. His. 1 - 12 - TOTAL 45 1,055 111! 1,727+ Dashes indicate nonapplicable category. *Indicates states where supervisors lost recognitions as bargaining unit between 1975 and 1979. #144: increas +671 increase urce: urce er, ec ve rga n ng or c n strators. Four Years Later,” Phi Delta happen, October, 1979.}. 139. Most units are independent, although some are affiliated with the AFL-CIO. In a few cases, principals are tied in with teachers' unions, but only Tennessee requires that they be represented in the same unit.4 The American Federation of School Administrators (AFSA), an affil- iate of the AFL-CIO, was created on July 7, 1976, when 52 middle manage- ment bargaining units in 15 states combined to form the organization.5 The New York based union remains today as the only major national affiliate. The AFSA currently number over 10,000 members.6 Reasons for Administrator Unionization Why have public school administrators turned to collective bargaining? Only ten years ago, educators across the country argued the ethics of bargaining for teachers. A decade of militant teacher union activities has eliminated that debate. Administrators are now extensively committed to union activity. A random stratified survey of 92,000 principals,conducted in the mid 1970's by the editors of the Americgn School Board qurna], demonstrated that 86 per cent of responding administrators favored state laws guaranteeing their right to bargain 4Education u.s.A;, February 12, 1979. p. 180. 5William Knoester, "Administrative Unionization: What Kind of Solution," Phi Delta Kappan 59: February, 1978, p. 419. 6John Marlowe, "Why I Almost Joined a Principal‘s Union," American School Board Journal 167: April, 1980, p. 50. directly with school boards and forcing superintendents and boards to negotiate in good faith.7 To many, the school political system today seems so diffused and fractured that there is a question of who is in control. Butkiewicz contends that conditions for principals in regard to collective bargaining are very similar to the conditions preceding the teacher push for power in the 60's.8 As with teachers 20 years ago who bristled over their lack of involvement in decision-making, principals argue that they are members of the management team in name only, that they are too often ordered to implement policies and procedures which they had no part in devising and for which they have been given little or no authority to enforce. Principals contend that management prerogative have been stripped by negotiated agreements between teacher unions and boards of education. William Mays, Executive Secretary of the Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals, in a speech given in January, 1977, to the Michigan Association of School Adninistrators, listed specific reasons for the disenchantment of principals: (1) education association contracts stating no accumulation of seniority for administrators; (2) .public chastisement of administrators; (3) failure to achieve contracts 7"The Brewing and Perhaps Still Preventable Revolt of School Principals," American School Board Journal 163: January, 1976, p. 26. 8Op. Cit., Butkiewicz, p. 30. on a timely basis; (4) absence of due process in regard to discipline or reduction in personnel; (5) low salary increases; and (6) turnover of superintendents and Boards of Education.9 Whereas Mays stressed economic issues and job security as major points of difference, Sweeney and Rowedder argue that a breakdown in communication between boards of education, superintendents and middle managers is the crux of the issue.10 They state that principals look to collective bargaining to more clearly define their involvement in district decision-making, to improve lines of communication with the superintendent and school board and to assist in arriving at a clear definition of their role in the school system. Finally, Shannon identified the increasing impact of declining enroll- 11 He ment on the move toward unionism for nonexecutive administrators. pointed out that the reduction in numbers of school-age children is lead- ing not only to declining opportunities for promotion fbr administrators but in the actual number of jobs available in any given district. 9William Mays, Executive Secretary, Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals, "Why Administrators are Turning to Collective Bargaining,” Speech to the Michigan Association of School Administrators, Grand Rapids, Michigan, January 20, 1977. 10James Sweeney and Larry Rowedder, "What Principals Want and Get From Their Union," Executive Educator 22: September, 1980, p. 23. 11Thomas A. Shannon, "School District Collective Bargaining in the 1980's," Education Digest 45: March, 1980, p. 32, condensed from "Developments in Personnel Management," Illinois Association of School Boards Journal, No. 29, January, 1980, pp. 1, 3. Collective bargaining is viewed from this perspective as the vehicle to preserve jobs and reserve promotions for district personnel. Abundant reasons clearly exist for middle managers to move to unionism. In summary, things have changed in public education as a result of union activity. Although the history of unionization, particularly for administrators, is a brief one, the growth in terms of union status and negotiated agreements for middle managers is significant. The next section will focus on the results of unionization for administrators. Effects of Administrator Unionization While Butkiewicz, Mays and others speak to the reasons why administrators organize, there is a dimension of this phenomenon that has received relatively little formal treatment by authorities in the field of management practice. Unions and collective bargaining for administrators have introduced a previously unknown structure with major effects upon the ways in which boards and administrators interact. The literature reveals that in some ways administrator bargaining has been beneficial and constructive. In others, it has been divisive and disruptive upon the delicate fabric of communication, authority, decision-making and inter- personal relationships. The material to fellow documents this disparency. The specific areas referred to is that of the climate of the organization. The issue of organizational climate has received some attention but with conflicting conclusions. Rensis Likert noted that Within any organization that is part of a larger system, the personnel operate within a general administrative enviornment created by the policies and practices of the top managers of the larger system. He referred to this as the organizational climate, and while this was his encompassing term for environment, Likert also dealt with component issues of climate such as influence in decision-making, trust, communi- cation and general attitude toward job.12 Argyris defines a successful organizational climate as one in which peOple have a chance to grow and mature as individuals and as members of a group by satisfying their own needs while working for the success of the organization. Organizational climates that are bureaucratic in structure, on the other hand, lead to shallow and distrusting relation- ships.13 In studying the organizational climate of schools, Halpin described the differences between "open" and "closed climates."14 He found that closed climates were one in which the group members obtained little satisfaction with regard to either task achievement, identified as "initiating behavior" in his model, or social needs, labeled "consideration." The leader was ineffective in directing the activities of the followers in the closed climate. The open climate produced the opposite results. 12"The Profile of a School," Rensis Likert Associates, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1978, IV - 1. 13Chris Argyris, "Individual Actualization in Complex Organizations," Mental Hygiene 44 (1960): p. 226. 14Andrew Halpin, Theory and Research in Administration, New York, MacMillan Company, 1966, p. 203. Halpin's writing grew out of the work of the Personnel Research Board at The Ohio State University in the early 1950's. This research had resulted in the development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), an instrument designed to elicit leader behavior of designated leaders in formal organizations by group members. ' Halpin was responsible for constructing an adaptation of the original LBDQ survey form, and in it he identified initiating structure and consideration as two fundamental dimensions of leader behavior.15 There are a number of questions about the effect of administrator unionization upon organizational climate. The body of infbrmation to follow documents the research findings and concludes with a summary of where we are currently on this subject. In a recent study of unionized and nonunionized Michigan school districts, Hahn documented singificant differences in organizational climate including the area of trust of middle management in and by the superintendent and the principal's influence in decision-making.16 15Andrew Halpin and B. J. viner, "The Leadership Behavior of the Air- plane Commander," Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Research Foundation, 1952 (Technical Report III prepared for the Human Resources Research Laboratory, Department of the Air Force, under Contracts AF 33 (038) - 10105 and AF 18 (600) - 27 mineographed). 16Robert Charles Hahn, "A Study of the Perceptions of Unionized School Administrators Regarding District organizational Climate and Other Selected Variables," Doctoral Dissertation, Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, 1980, 1972 pp. 10 A more participative approach to district management and a more positive organizational climate were found in the nonunionized group. That same study revealed no significant difference in job satisfaction or in communication with the superintendent. Significant differences were found in salary and fringe benefits in favor of the unionized group. The theme of job satisfaction was the subject of a study by Wooten —of unionized and nonunionized public elementary school principals in 17 In it, consistent with the the St. Louis, Missouri school system. results found in Hahn's work, Wooten found no significant difference in job satisfaction between the two groups. The Specific areas of achieve- ment, working conditions, delegated responsibility, recognition and career advancement were isolated in the study. The finds of LeCesne contradict, at least in part, those of Hahn.18 In a study of Michigan public schools in 1979, he analyzed the three identifiable administrative organizational patterns operating in the state regarding their salaries and fringe benefits, their perceptions of their within-group relationships and in their relations with superintendents, central office staff and members of boards of education. The three groups were identified as formal bargaining organizations, informal organizations and management team units. 17James H. Wooten, I'A Study of Job Satisfaction of Unionized Versus Non-Unionized Public Elementary School Principals in the St. Louis Public Schools," Doctoral Dissertation, St. Louis University, 1979, 233 pp. 18Terrel LeCesne, "The Impact of Collective Bargaining on Salaries, Frings Benefits and Perceptions of Interpersonal Relations of Three Types of School Administrative Organizations in Michigan," Doctoral Dissertation, Ann Arbor, Michigan, The University of Michigan, 1979, 149 pp. 11 LeCense found statistically significant differences in salaries and fringe benefits between the formal and informal organizations and between the formal and management team units. Middle management personnel who were members of a formal bargaining organization received higher benefits than those administrators who were not. There were, however, no statistically significant differences among the three organizational patterns in their perceptions of within-group interpersonal relationships or in their relationships with superintendents, central office administrative staffs or members of their boards of education. In summary, LeCesne found formal.bargaining to be an effective tool in securing higher salaries and, contrary to Hahn's findings, becoming organized did not have any serious effects on the perceptions of relationships between principals and their supervisors or among their peers. A study by Aune of organized and nonorganized public school principals in the Detroit metropolitan area in 1977 compared the relationship of 19 Consistent.with job satisfaction and job perception of the two groups. .the findings of Wooten and Hahn, there were no significant differences between the two groups relative to job satisfaction. Contrary to results found in the work of both Hahn and LeCesne, however, there were no significant differences between the two groups in relation to their salary and fringe benefits. Aune also found no significant differences 19George Andrew Aune, ”A Study of the Job Satisfaction and Job Perception of Organized and Nonorganized Public School Principals," Doctoral Dissertation, Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, 1977, 210 pp. 12 in the job perceptions between the group with respect to relationship with superiors. This was in decided constrast to one of the major findings of the Hahn study. It can be concluded in the Aune research that members of both unionized and nonunionized groups were satisfied with their jobs and in their relationship with their superiors and, further, that there were no significant differences between the groups in the area of salary and fringe benefits. An earlier work by McConnell also contradicted a portion of Hahn's 20 In research completed almost a decade ago, McConnell findings. investigated the similarities and differences in the perceptions of school superintendents, secondary principals and elementary principals concerning the influence of administrative collective bargaining on the management functions of Michigan school districts in which collective bargaining was being practiced. In summary, this study revealed that collective bargaining influenced the management practices of the school districts and that these changes were for the better. Superintendents and principals alike, in contrast to Hahn's results, saw increases in the principal's involvement in administrative decisions as well as the degree to which he was held accountable for his area of administrative responsibility. The section of the study dealing with changes in 20Lawrence F. McConnell, "A Study of the Influence of Collective Bargaining by School Administrators on the Management Function of Selected Michigan School Districts," Doctoral Dissertation, East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1978, 135 pp. 13 communication among and between the superintendent, principal and board of education was the only area for which no significant change was perceived. This was consistent with the later work of Hahn. Stawski undertook a comprehensive examination in 1972 of the reasons 21 Two Of the major for administrator unionization in Michigan schools. findings of that study, and prime factors precipitating unionization, were perceptions of principals that they lacked involvement in administrative policy making and that poor communication existed between them and superintendents. Knoester examined the effect of unionization of administrators on the perceived lack of involvement in district decision-making.22 In accord with Hahn's findings and in contradiction to McConnell's, Knoester found that unionized administrators are substantially less involved in decision-making than nonunionized administrators. 23 Flannery's findings paralleled those of Knoester. He also examined the impact of unionization on involvement of middle managers in 21Robert Stawski, "The Extent of Agreement and Disagreement Among Selected School Officials Concerning Reasons Why Principals in Michigan Have or Have Not Secured Bargaining Rights Under Act 379 of the Public Acts of 1965," Doctoral Dissertation, Wayne State University, 1972. 22William P. Knoester, "The Impact of Middle Management Unionization on Administrative Decision-Making in Selected School Districts," Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana State University, 1977. 23Edward T. Flannery, "Administrative Bargaining Groups: Their Perceived Effects Upon the Decision-Making Role of the Elementary Prin- cipal," Doctoral Dissertation, Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, 151 pp. ~ 14 district decision-making. There were two major findings in the research: (1) nonunionized principals have more actual decision-making authority over four of the five identified administrative decisions in their schools than unionized principals; and (2) membership in administrative bargaining units does not guarantee more decision-making authority. Based on the literature and research, the following conclusions can be drawn relative to the impact of administrative unionization on organi- zational climate and its constituent elements: 1. Climate -- A more positive organizational climate exists in nonunioniZed. districts (Hahn, 1980). 2. Irg§t_-- While Hahn (1982) found less trust in and by superiors resulting from unionization, LeCesne (1979) and Aune (1977) found no significant difference in relationships between principals and superintendents in the two types of districts. 3. Influence in Decision-Making -- Hahn (1980), Flannery (1979) and Knoester (1977) found greater participation by middle managers in district decision-making in nonunionized districts, while McConnell (1978) fbund the reverse to be true with more influence by principals in decision- making in unionized districts. 4. Job Satisfggtigg_7- Hahn (1980), Wooten (1979), and Aune (1977) found no significant difference in job satisfaction between the two groups. All three writers concluded that administrators in both unionized and nonunionized groups were satisfied with their jobs. 5. Communication -- Both Hahn (1980) and McConnell (1978) found no significant difference between the groups relative to communication with the superintendent and/or board of education. 15 Although not an element of organizational climate, salary and fringe considerations were found to be better in unionized groups by both Hahn (1980) and LeCesne (1979), but Aune (1977) found no significant difference between the groups in this area. In summary, it can be stated that collective bargaining for administrators is an important vehicle in securing an improved salary and fringe package, and that it does not result in less job satisfaction or less communication with the superintendent or board of education. It appears, however, that something is lost in organizational . climate when unionization occurs, and the preponderance of evidence, with one notable exception, is that nonunionized administrators enjoy a greater voice in district decision-making. The area of trust and relationship with superiors in the two types of districts presents a mixed review with one major study revealing less trust in and by superiors in unionized districts and two others showing no significant difference 'between unionized and nonunionized administrator units in relations between principals and superintendents/boards of education. Research on Management and Communication This work while dealing specifically with the results of administrative unionization in selected Michigan school districts, was in a very real way a commentary on management and communication, and these issues should be addressed as they relate to the current study. Much of Rensis Likert's philosophy permeates this study as the survey, described in the next chapter. is drawn from his management model. Likert 16 was a respected writer on management practices, and it is important to share his philosophy of supervision at this point. Likert believed that the human variables determining the quality of performance in school management were essentially the same as those found in business: leader- ship, decision-making, problem solving, motivation, conflict management, interaction and the structure through which interaction occurs.24 Likert argued that one system of management produces a more positive organizational climate than another. He introduced a four-tiered structure of management practices ranging from exploitive/authoritarian, labeled System 1 in his management scheme, to participative, or System 4. The System 4 model, as Likert defined it, resulted in a management style based on trust and confidence and a collegial atmosphere. He contended that organizations where the approach to management was most similar to System 4 would best serve both human and organizational needs. Results would be found in higher productivity, increased earnings and employee health and satisfaction. Systems of management paralleling that espoused by Likert are found elsewhere in the literature. Most authorities concur that formal organizations are basically decksion-making structures and are useful to the degree that they facilitate rational decision-making. Given the complexities of modern organizations, Simon questioned whether managers who operated in isolation were capable of consistently rational decision. 24Op. Cit., Likert, 1-3. 17 He spoke in support of shared decision-making and argued that that style of management, implemented at the highest level in a hierarchy, creates an organizational climate which embraces the entire structure and results in optimal human relations.25 Gibb's definition of participative management is similar to that of Likert and Simon and one which results in interdependence of effort and diminishes the problems created by an authoritative model. Channels of communication are free, open and spontaneous.26 Argyris' thoughts on individual behavior in complex organizations have real implications for management effectiveness and support the 27 He noted that, "Human participative models of Likert, Gibb and Simon. beings prefer to be independent, active, to use many of their deeper abilities, and they aspire to positions equal to or higher than their peers." Although Argyris does not specifically mention participative management, it is easily drawn from his comments. 25Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior A Stud of Decision- MakiggProcesses in Administrative Organizations, fiEEfiilIan Publishing C67, ew York, 1976, p. 10. 26Jack R. Gibbs, as cited in T. a. Sergiovanni and F. D. Carver, Or anizations and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools, New York, McGraw- Hill, 1969. p. 323. 27Chris Argyris, "Individual Actualization in Complex Organizations," Mental Hygiene 44 (1960): p. 226. 18 Assumptions behind the style of supervision detailed above were long ago described by McGregor in his famous "Theory Y" style of management.28 The contention was that employees in general are viewed as capable of playing an active, productive role in the organization. Communication is also a recurring theme in this study. As with management, it is a topic which has received considerable attention in the literature. Much of recent writing on the subject addresses the impact of communication on organizational effectiveness. Unquestionably, that effectiveness necessitates the establishment of a means for interchanging thoughts and coordinating efforts. Newell speaks pointedly to the issue. He states that, "Unless specific attention is paid to the actual communication transactions.which take place between peOple, an important aspect of human relationships is neglected."29 A school system can be conceptualized as an elaborate system of communication. It consists of individuals with different and distinct reSponsibilities,each having a high degree of internal communication and some degree of external communication. The organization cannot survive unless a means of communication is developed which takes into account this dual system of interrelationships.3o 28Thomas J. Sergiovanni and Robert J. Starrott, Eme in Patterns of Supervision: Human PerspectiVes, New York, McGraw Hill, 1971, p. 96. 29Clarence Newell, Human Behavior in Educationgl Administration, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1978, p. 131. 30Ben B. Harris, Personnel Administration in Public Education: Leadershi for Instructional Improvement, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, 1979, p. 278. 19 The importance of communication as related to administrative dis- satisfaction in the educational arena is well documented. In a survey of factors explaining the rise of administrative bargaining units in Michigan, comunication with the school board is rated second only to the 31 A conference on administrator erosion of administrative authority. bargaining at Eastern Michigan University disclosed that, "Almost wihtout exception, a 'breakdown' in the lines of communication between the superintendent and middle management or between administrators and the board of education, in some degree or form was seen as a major factor leading to the organization of an administrative bargaining unit."32 When formal activitiy to organize occurs, it most often results from the fact that communication is in one direction only......from the superintendent and/or board of education to middle managers. Principals often feel that the only way to correct the problem is to provide for 33 formal channels of communication through contractual language. Stawski and Hahn specifically tied bargaining activity to poor communication between principals and superintendents.34’ 35 31Collective Negotiation Agreements for Administrgtors: An Analysis of 100 Contracts, Educational ResearCh Service, Arlington, Virginia, 1976, p. 8. 32Ibid., p. 15. 33David G. Bowers, Management by Participation, Harper and Row, New York, 1967, p. 216. 3402. Cit., Stawski. 3502. Cit., Hahn. 20 In summary, then, effective communication is important to individuals within the organization, to the fulfillment of the goals of the organi- zation and to the very survival of the organization. An understanding of both theory and practice as related to management and communication is fundamental to an analysis of the impact of supervisory practices on organizational climate. Statement of the Problem In this study the researcher will explore the effects of administrator unionization upon the organizational climate in selected Michigan school districts. Specifically, the study will attempt to determine if there are significant differences between the perceptions of administrators in unionized and nonunionized Michigan school districts in the following areas: organizational climate; trust; influence in decision-making; communication; and attitude toward job. Research in this area is both sketchy and, in some instances, contradictory. Additionally, that which exists documents almost exclusively the perceptions of principals relative to district climate. This research will include perceptions of both principals and superin- 'tendent to permit a more complete analysis of the issue and of leadership style in the two types of districts. ResearchAQuestions The research queStions listed concern organizational variables intrinsically a part of management systems in organizations. 21 1. Are there any significant differences in the climate of school systems as perceived by the superintendents and principals.depending upon whether the district is unionized or nonunionized? 2. Is there a significant difference in the leadership style of the superintendents as perceived by the principals depending upon whether the district is unionized or nonunionized? 3. Are there significant differences in the trust in and by superiors as perceived by the superintendents and principals depending upon whether the district is unionized or nonunionized? 4. Are there significant differences in their influence in decision- making as perceived by the superintendents and principals depending upon whether the district is unionized or nonunionized? 5. Are there significant differences in communication with their superiors as percieved by the superintendents and principals depending upon whether the district is unionized or nonunionized? 6. Is there a significant difference in their attitude toward their job as perceived by principals depending upon whether the district is unionized or nonunionized? 7. Are there significant differences between superintendents and principals in their perception of district climate? 8. Are there significant differences between administrators in the two district types in their perception of principals' influence in district decision-making? 22 Hypotheses The key personnel in the study were superintendents and building principals in the districts comprising the matched sample. Their feelings and attitudes constituted the major thrust of the research. The following hypotheses were tested as the basis for determining whether there was a statistically significant difference in organi- zational climate between the unionized and nonunionized districts: 1. There is no significant difference between superintendents in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts with regard to their perception of the district's organizational climate; 2. There is no significant difference between principals in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts with regard to their perception of the district's organizational climate; 3. There is no significant difference between principals in unionized schooT districts and those in nonunionized school districts with regard to their perception of the superintendent's leadership style; 4. There is no significant difference between superintendents in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts with regard to their perception of the level of trust in and by superiors; 5. There is no significant difference between principals in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts with regard to their perception of the level of trust in.and by superiors; 23 6. There is no significant difference between superintendents in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts with regard to their perception of their influence in decision-making; 7. There is no significant difference between principals in unionized school districts and those in nonunidnized school districts with regard to their perception of their influence in district decision- making; 8. There is no significant difference between superintendents in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts relative to their perception of communication with the Board of Education; 9. There is no significant difference between principals in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts relative to their perception of communication with the superintendent; 10. There is no significant difference between principals in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts with regard to their attitude toward their job; 11. There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in their perception of district climate: A. There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in unionized districts in their perception of district climate; and B. There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in nonunionized districts in their perception of district climate; 24 12. There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in their perception of the principals' influence in district decision-making: A. There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in unionized districts in their perception of the principals' influence in district decision-making; and B. There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in nonunionized districts in their perception of the principals' influence in district decision-making. 13. There is no significant difference between principals and superintendents in unionized districts and principals and superintendents in nonunionized districts in their perception of district climate; 14. There is no significant difference between principals and superintendents in unionized districts and principals and superintendents in nonunionized districts in their perception of the principals' influence in district decision-making. In summary, there are three levels of analysis and comparison out- lined in the hypotheses: (1) perceptions of superintendents in unionized school districts will be compared with perceptions of superintendents in nonunionized school districts and perceptions of principals in unionized school districts will be compared with perceptions of principals in nonunionized school districts in the areas of organizational climate, trust, influence in decision-making, communication and attitude toward 25 job; (2) perceptions of principals and superintendents gitgjg_each type of district will be compared in the areas of district climate and the principals' influence in district decision-making; and (3) perceptions of unionized superintendents and principals wnll be compared with perceptions of nonunionized superintendents and principals in the areas of district climate and the principals' influence in district decision-making. Definition of Terms The fbllowing definitions were given for important terms in this study: Unionized Principals — A public school principal within the State of Michigan-who is a member of a group of principals constituting a bargaining unit as recognized by either local board action or by the Michigan Employment Relations Commission. Nonunionized Principgls - A public school principal within the State of Michigan who is not involved as a member of a formal collective I bargaining unit. Middle Management - Public School administrators below the Central Office level whose function is to supervise other certified and non-certified school employees. Principals and assistant principals normally constitute the greater share in numbers in this group. Collective Bargginipg - A formal process entered into by management. and labor for the purpose of negotiating wages, hours and conditions of employment. 26 OrganizationglClimgtg_- Summary description of the general environment of a school or school system and normally used by employees to identify their feelings relative to the management of the organization. ,Irggt - Summary feeling between individuals or between an individual and the system. It is formed over a period of time and reflective of mutual confidence in the integrity, ability or character of individual actors in the system. Leadership - Position or office either conferred upon an individual or gained by him through actions and behavior toward which the group is favorably disposed and for which the group permits the individual to represent it in its collective activity. Decision-Making - Individually or collectively passing judgment on an issue under consideration. Communication - Exchange of thoughts, feelings and infbrmation between actors in a system. Specificially, the verbal and non-verbal relationship between the Board of Education/superintendent and middle nanager. Matched Pair - Unionized and nonunionized public school systems arranged in sets of two and associated by school district enrollment, state equalized evaluations, average teacher salary and geographical proximity. 27 Significance of the Study Earlier studies comparing organizational characteristics of unionized and nonunionized (administrator) public school systems produced conflict- ing results. This proposed study is intended to offer additional research comparing the organizational health of these two distinctly different types of educational management systems and to show which type is associated with the more desirable characteristics. Results of the study will be of use to boards of education, superintendents and middle managers in this and other states. It further will be of utility to the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals, the Michigan Association of Elementary and Middle School Principals Association and other voluntary associations of educational administrators in Michigan and across the country. Delimitations and Limitations The universe from which the sample was selected were the public school superintendents and principals in the State of Michigan. A matched pair technique was utilized in the selection of the sample, and the study reflects any weaknesses inherent in the use of the sampling technique. The study also carries delimitations of time. Collection of data occurred in May of 1982 through use of the Principal and Superintendent Forms of the Likert Profile of a School questionnaire. Other limitations with potential to affect the findings of the study are as follows: 28 1. The findings are valid to the extent that the schools selected for inclusionin the sample are representative of the body of school districts having characteristics prescribed for consideration in the study; 2. The findings are valid to the extent that the Likert Profile of a School questionnaire encompasses those characteristics of school climate identified in organizational theory; and 3. The findings are valid to the extent that the instrument used is able to quantify and qualify the feelings of principals and superintendents relative to the organizational climate in their respective school districts. Finally, recognition must also be given to the fact that studies of this type are a "slice of history" and do not rely on prior comparative data. They, thus, will not describe changes over a period of time. Longitudinal studies are recommended if this be the purpose of the research. Need for the Study The basic assumption underlying this study was that there are differences in organizational climate between school districts whose administrators are organized and those districts in which they are not. Specifically, it was thought that organizing far the purpose of bargaining collectively affects the manner in which district officials, at the Board and administrative level, relate and interact, and that there is a corresponding effect upon administrator job satisfaction and morale. 29 Most of theavailable research in the area of administrator unionization simply documents growth and causes of this phenomenon. There is relatively little writing and responsible study examining organizational climate differences between the two types of districts. What research does exist is identified in the introductory paragraphs in this Chapter, and the findings, as presented, are contradictory as to the impact of unionization upon relationships and attitudes of the actors. Also, where climate differences have been the focus of study, there has been little done in documenting perceptions of other school officials besides principals regarding the impact of unionization upon district climate. The most notable example of omission is superintendents. This study, then, attempts to add to the body of information on differences between unionized and nonunionized school districts. With the paucity of research and contradictory findings therein, it represents a much needed study utilizing current data and contemporary personnel. If no differences exist, it is important to know that. If differences do exist, it is important to establish what they are in order that they might be examined against the larger issue of organizational effectiveness. Summary The major purpose of this chapter was to develOp a conceptual base for the study. Also included were the statement of the problem, the need for the study, the research questions, the hypotheses, definition of terms significance of the study and the delimitations. The next 30 chapter will be devoted to methodology including sampling techniques, instrumentation and the statistical treatment of the data. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY In this chapter, the sampling procedures, the method of collecting data, the instruments that were used and the manner in which the data were statistically treated are described. Sampling The sample for this study consisted of 120 principals and 30 superintendents drawn in equal numbers from the ranks of unionized and nonunionized administrators in the State of Michigan. The initial effort for creating the sample centered on a survey of all high school principals in Michigan to determine which districts were unionized and which were nonunionized. The support of the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals was requested in a letter to the executive director of the organization (Appendix A). His response was affirmative and resulted in a questionnaire (Appendix B) sent from his office to each high school principal in Michigan. The stated purpose of the questionnaire was to identify the union status of all Michigan school districts. A follow-up letter (Appendix C) was sent within a few weeks of the deadline imposed in the correspondence from the executive director of the principals' group and was designed to communicate with those high 31 32 school principals who had failed to respond to the initial contact and to urge their completion of the questionnaire. The survey results were cross-referenced with a list of unionized administrative bargaining units developed by Knoester in conjunction with his earlier study on middle management unionization.1 The merging of the lists and the updating of district student enrollment figures from the Knoester effort resulted in an updated roster of unionized administrator bargaining units in Michigan (Appendix D). The creation of a matched sample of unionized and nonunionized school administrators according to prescribed demographic characteristics was the next task. Each of the 99 unionized districts was listed in ascending order of district student population within Specified enrollment population clusters. All remaining Michigan districts (nonunionized) were arranged in a similar pattern so that parallel lists with approximate student population and within defined population clusters were achieved. The key demographic characteristics used in developing the matched sample were: (1) district student enrollment; (2) state equalized valuation per pupil; and (3) average teacher salary. District student enrollment was an important factor in creating the match because it indicated the size of the administrative staff and the concomitant pattern of bureaucratic communication and relationships. State 1William P. Knoster, The Impact of Middle Mana ement Unionization on Administrative Decision Makin in Selected Mic Agan SChooT’Districts Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 77-31, 644. 33 equalized valuation per pupil was key in matching districts of comparable wealth and average teacher salary was an index for predicting adminis- trative salaries. A fourth factor in approaching the task of matching districts was geography. Districts matched on the basis of student enrollment, state equalized valuation per pupil and average teacher salary had to be in the same county or in adjacent counties for the match to be completed. The majority of the districts included in the sample wereiriMiChigan's industrial belt located in the southeast corner of the state. All are located in the bottom half of the lower peninsula. Table 2.1 provides a listing, by county, of the destribution of the unionized and nonunionized districts. Table 2.1 Distribution by County of Matched Unionized and Nonunionized School Districts County Unionized Nonunionized Calhoun Eaton Genesee Jackson Kalamazoo Macomb Monroe Oakland Saginaw St. Clair Washtenaw Wayne ' 4 HNi—aw Near- N H MHN N w»- 34 The 1982 MichiggnEducation Directory and Buyer's Guide2 and the Michigan State Board of Education Bulletin 10123 were invaluable in furnishing the data necessary forthe actual job of matching the districts. A ten per cent margin of difference was permitted in each of the three demographic characteristics in the matching process. Fifty-eight possible matches involving 52 districts were initially identified. The cooperation of the executive director of the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals was again solicited relative to his approaching the head of the state superintendents' association for endorsement of the study (Appendix E). The executive director of MASSP complied with the request (Appendix F) and, in turn, the endorse- ment of the President of the Michigan Association of School Adminis- trators was secured (Appendix G). That endorsement accompanied a letter sent to each of the 52 superintendents in which the district's cooperation in the study was requested (Appendix H). The purpose and design of the study was outlined in the letter. Each superintendent was asked to respond either affirmatively or negatively to the request. Out of this entire process, 30 districts were identified for inclusion in the sample. There were 15 unionized and 15 nonunionized 21982 Michigan Educationa Director and Buyer's Guide, Michigan Education Directory, Inc., Lansing, Michigan, 198 . 3Rankin of Michi an Public Hi h School Districts by Selected Financial Data, 1979-88 (Bulletin 1812), Michigan State Boardlof—T Education, Lansing, Michigan, 1980. 35 districts matched according to criteria previously identified. Aggregate scores comparing the total unionized sample and the total nonunionized sample are illustrated in Table 2.1. The 30 districts represented a broad spectrum of district sizes as shown in Table 2.2. Finally, each superintendent and four of his or her principals were selected to be included in the sample. Two of the four administrators were to be elementary and two were to be secondary. The selection of the four principals was done by random sampling techniques. A total of 30 superintendents and 120 principals were identified for inclusion in the sample. Table 2.2 Comparison of 15 Unionized and 15 Nonunionized School Districts Relative to.District Student Enrollment, Average Teacher Salary and State Equalized Valuation Per Pupil Unionized Nonunionized Percentage Criterion Districts Districts Difference Mean District Student Enrollment 7052 6573 5.8% Mean Teacher Salary $21,529 $21,348 0.8% Mean State Enrollment Valuation Per Pupil $42,535 $41,910 0.9% Data Collection The Likert Questionnaire (see instrumentation section in this chapter, page 37) was mailed to each of the administrators. The items included in the packet sent to each individual were the following: 36 Table 2.3 Distribution of Matched Unionized and Nonunionized School Districts Into District Student Enrollment Population Clusters District Student Enrollment Number of Matched Population Clusters Pairs (15 total) 0 - 1499 0 1500 - 2499 0 2500 — 3499 3 3500 - 4499 1 4500 - 5499 4 5500 - 6499 2 6500 - 7499 1 7500 - 8499 1 8500 - 9499 0 9500 -10499 1 10500 -15499 1 15500 - + 1 (1) a letter requesting his or her cooperation in participating in the study with individual forms of the letter to superintendents (Appendix I) and principals (Appendix J); (2) a letter of endorsement from the heads of the state elementary/middle school (Appendix K) and secondary (Appendix L) principals' association; (3) the questionnaires themselves with I separate forms for superintendents (Appendix M) and principals (Appendix N): (4) a machine scored answer sheet with precoding done to identify whether the reSpondent to the questionnaire was a superintendent or a principal and whether the district was unionized or nonunionized 37 (Appendix 0); (5) a selfeaddressed stamped post card which was to be signed by theadministrator and sent to the researcher upon completion of the survey; and (6) a self-addressed, stamped envelope provided for the participant to send his/her answer sheet directly to Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. The precoding of the answer sheet provided the desired sort potential and, at the same time, assured anonymity for the participant and his/her district. Administrators who failed to reSpond to the questionnaire by the deadline imposed by the researcher in his letter were personally contacted by phone to determine whether they had received the questionnaire and, if so, to encourage their participation in the study. Table 2.3 sumarizes the response to the survey. A 90% return was realized in the instance of the superintendents and one of 89% for the principals. Table 2.4 Response of Principals and Superintendents to Profile of a School (P05)-Questionnaire Classification of Superintendents Principals . Administrators (15 Possible) (60 Possible) Unionized 14 52 Nonunionized 13 55 Instrumentation The Likert Profile of a School was the instrument used to gather data for this study. The Principal Form (Form 5) and the Superintendent 38 Form (Form 7) were the two forms of the instrument used. Organizational climate was the focus of this research, and it was important to identify an instrument which could accurately record the actual perceptions of principals and superintendents about their work environment. The Likert instrument was found to be highly respected as such an instrument with impressive statistics registering high scores on reliability and validity. The instrument was an outgrowth of the work of Rensis Likert, one of the leading writers in the field of organizational management. His major contribution to the field was in his promotion of participative management. His thinking on the subjects of participative decision- making and nonautocratic stance on the part of supervisors and managers lead to the development of his "System 4" management scheme. The major tenets of the system were confirmed by Likert and his associates at the Institute for Social Research of the University of Michigan in over 30 years of research involving 20,000 managers and more than 200,000 non-supervisory employees.4 Likert placed leaders into four system or models:5 System I - Exploitive, authoritative model, the most authoritative of the four. 4"The Profile of a School," Rensis Likert Associates, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1978, 1:1. 51 id., 1:3-6. 39 System I - Benevolent, authoritative model, improving somewhat upon System I. System III - Consultative mode, an improvement upon System II. System IV - Most democratic of the System I-IV continuum, a partici- pative model. Likert determined that certain variables which he labeled Casual, Intervening and End-Result had to be present to a great extent in a positive manner in an industrial management system for it to be effective (Figure 2.1). Though his early work was in industry, in the late 1960's he turned his attention to education and adapted his basic industrial survey instrument for use in education. I Profile of a School (POS) questionnaires have been developed specifically for determining where on the System I-IV continuum an individual, school, or school system falls. They are designed to record the actual human behavior that occurs within the organization as seen not only by its leaders but by other members in the hierarchy of the school system. Hith the focus on current behavior and organizational practices, the consequences of these practices can be illustrated. The administrator's leadership behavior, then, is measured by responses to the POS questionnaire made by subordinates in his/her work group. The Profile of a School questionnaires have been used to measure the human component of a school or school system in 22 states, three Canadian provinces and abroad in United States Armed Forces school systems. These projects demonstrated that the POS instruments are sensitive diagnostic tools for examining the administrative style of a 4f) FIGURE 2.1 A CUMULATIVE EFFECT ON ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE OF THREE SETS 0F VARIABLES: CAUSAL, INTERVENING AND END RESULTS Causal Intervening End Results School Board & Superintendents Organization Structure . Organization Policy Top Team zztiofgagign +Interaction -D s c Leadership Behavior l Organization Climate . #J School Principals ‘J;_________________————— H Organization Climate Middle Performance l Level Satisfaction Leadership Behavior w Inlgggcum —u f Organization Climate > Structure a Policy . (Grade level chairpersons) Organization Climate IT iii Leadership Behavior 1 Structure & Policy .4. Lower Level Team Interaction --5 Performance Satisfaction rganization Climate J Teachers illiEZW -~ Organization Climate First L9V91 thigfgggggn * Integgtlion Leadership Behavior H. - # Organization Climate! * Structure & Policy __J’ Students 55 Source: "The Profile of a School," Rensis Likert Associates, Inc., Ann Arbor, 1978 41 school or school system and the effect of this style on the school's educational effectiveness.6 Two forms of the POS questionnaire were used in this study. The principal's questionnaire, Form 5, consists of 123 items and is designed to measure responses of the head or assistant principal. It covers in detail teacher/principal, counselor/principal, student/principal and principal/superintendent relationships. It also has questions dealing with central office staff relationships. Form 7, the superintendent form, consists of 101 items of'a system- wide nature. Questions are directed toward the working relationship between the superintendent and the school board and to the central office staff and principals. An administrator's leadership behavior is measured by responses to the POS questionnaire by members of his/her work group. The eight possible reSponses to each item in the questionnaire range across the four basic types of management styles labeled System I, II: III, and IV. For each item, a "1" registers highly authoritarian behavior and an "8" highly participative behavior. The aggregate scores permit the individ- ual or system to be positioned along a continuum from authoritative to participative. One weakness of the Likert instrument is that the terminology used in the POS questionnaires are not accompanied by definitions. The 6Ibid.. 11-2. 1"" /‘ 42 reader must interpret concepts used in the scales and subjects within the context of his/her experience. In Appendiwa, the writer has listed the component variables of the principal and superintendent indices in an effort to assist the reader in this regard. Reliability The Profile ofgg'School forms were derived from instruments used in the industrial sector. Those in industry were based on more than 250 studies over 25 years involving more then 200,000 employees and 20,000 managers. The indices which these instruments yielded are in the range of .70 to .90.7 The Principal Form 5 and the Superintendent Form 7 have a split-half reliability of .95 or higher. These values were based on data from 802 principals and 98 superintendents. The reliability of the form will vary from group to group depending upon the variance that exists in the scores for the group. A moderate range in reliability can be expected, consequently, depending upon the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the group involved.8 Validity Likert addressed the issue of validity fbr his education instrument by showing the relationship between it and the industrial model. The POS questionnairesare based on the industrial instrument which had over 71bid., v1-1. 81bid., v1-3. 43 25 years of evidence supporting its validation. It is more difficult in education than in business organizations to determine the relative importance of each of the variables affecting educational performance, since other variables such as the home environment have a major influence on achievement. Likert went on to cite, however, that a number of studies in recent years, particularly doctoral dissertations, provide evidence that System IV is as relevant in educational institutions as it is in business organizations. The total body of these research findings shows that POS questionnaires have validity that make them valuable tools for assessing the performance of schools or school systems.9 Statistical Treatment of Data The answer sheets to the questionnaire were sent directly by the responding superintendents and principals to Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. There, they were machine scored. The administrator responses were consolidated into unionized and nonunionized group scores, and the means of management indices were compared by using a t-test to determine whether significant differences existed between the groups. An alpha level of .05 was set to predict non-retention of the null hypotheses. This approach was used to examine all 14 hypotheses. 91bid., v1-3. 44 Summary This chapter contained a description of mailing procedures, the method of collecting data, the instrumentation and the statistical treatment of the data. A matched sample of unionized and nonunionized school districts. in the State of Michigan was identified with considerable assistance from the state administrator associations. A direct mailing was used to secure participant responses. The Principal and Superintendent forms of the Rensis Likert Profile of a School (P05) instrument were the surveys used in conjunction with the study. Data analysis was performed by Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. and will be presented in Chapter III. CHAPTER III DATA ANALYSIS Introduction The researcher's purpose in the study was to determine if there are differences in organizational climate in selected Michigan school districts according to whether the district administrators are unionized or nonunionized. Twenty-seven superintendents and 107 principals, selected from 15 matched pairs of unionized and nonunionized districts, constituted the population of respondents. Their perceptions are measured on an instrument developed for this purpose by Rensis Likert,a well-known scholar and writer on management theory. Likert held that the effec- tiveness of an organization was a product of the management climate which, in turn, was a direct result of supervisory practices. Results of the analyses of the data are presented in this chapter. Each null hypothesis is restated in its entirety. A table accompanies the hypothesis and displays each variable used to examine it followed by group means (unionized and nonunionized), a t-score and a p-value for the variable. The mean responses for both groups of principals are reported according to the eight point Likert scale. A response of "1“ suggests highly authoritative behavior and a response of "8" a highly participative one. Commentary is presented as a summary for each table 45 46 and identifies whether statistical significance is attained for each of the variables and for the cumulative index. There is a summary of the findings of the data analyses at the end of the chapter and a listing of the decision to retain or not retain the null hypotheses. Analysis of Profile of a School Data Hypothesis #1 There is no significant difference between superintendents in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts with regard to their perception of the districts' organizational climate. Results of the t-tests for the first hypothesis are summarized in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 T-test Analyses of the Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents in Unionized and Nonunionized Districts with Regard to Organizational Climate Group Means Index Union Nonunion t "P" Values Goal Commitment 6.5571 619077 1.3234 .20 Financial Goal Commitment 6.3143 6.8462 2.0352 .05* Decision Process 6.0286 6.4154 1.4021 .17 Team C00peration 5.7143 5.5385 2.1799 .04* Total Climate (District) 6.1536 6.6769 2.2368 .03* * = .05 level of significance (alpha level) 47 Of the components of district climate, differences in superintendent perceptions of financial goal commitment and team cooperation are statistically significant at the .05 and .04 levels, respectively. There is no significant difference in superintendent perceptions relative to goal commitment and decision process, but the cumulative differences in superintendent perceptions, incorporated in the total climate index, are statistically significant at the .03 level. The null hypothesis, therefore, was not retained. Hypothesis #2 There is no significant difference between principals in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts with regard to their perception of the districts' organizational climate. Table 3.2 shows that there are no statistically significant differ- ences in principal percpetions of district climate or its component indices of goal commitment, decision process and team coperation. Table 3.2 T-test Analyses of the Differences in Perceptions of Unionized and Nonunionized Principals with Regard to Organizational Climate Group Means Index Union Nonunion t "P" Values Goal Commitment 5.9482 6.1129 .60305 .55 Decision Process ‘ 4.7833 5.2750 1.6212 .12 Team Cooperation 4.9611 4.9778 .42291 .97 Total Climate (District) 5.2309 5.4552 .77552 .44 48 The key element is the total climate index, and since there is not a statistically significant difference registered there, the null hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis #3 There is no significant difference between principals in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts with regard to their perception of the superintendents' leadership style. Results of the t-tests for leadership and its six components are included in Table 3.3. Table 3.3 T-test Analyses of the Differences in Perceptions of Unionized and Nonunionized Principals Relative to the Superintendents' Leadership Style Group Means Index Union Nonunion t "P"Values Support of Superintendent 5.9431 5.9389 .10530 .99 Superintendents' Receptivity to Principals' Ideas 5.1667 5.2250 .15280 .88 Superintendents' Goal Emphasis 5.4778 5.9694 1.2533 .22 Team Building by Super- intendent 4.7333 5.3472 1.4706 .15 Work Facilitation by Superintendent 5.1315 5.6574 1.2476 .22 Competence of Superintendent 5.7722 6.0694 .70152 .49 Total Leadership 5.3853 5.7114 p .89926 .38 Only the index of team building by the superintendent approaches the .05 level of significance, and it registers at the .15 level. The 49 other indices, plus the composite index of leadership, do not even approach the level of statistical significance set to examine the hypothesis. The null hypothesis, therefore, was retained. Hypothesis #4 There is no significant difference between superintendents in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts with regard to their perception of the level of trust in and by superiors. T-test analyses of superintendent perceptions of trust in and by superiors are presented in Table 3.4 Table 3.4 T-test Analyses of the Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents in Unionized and Nonunionized Districts with Regard to Trust in and by Superiors Group Means Index . Union Nonunion t "P" Values Confidence and Trust in Board ' 5.7143 6.4615 1.1270 .27 Confidence and Trust by Board 6.4286 6.9231 1.1286 .27 Total Trust 6.0614 6.6923 1.1610 .26 Nothing approaching statistical significanceiis found in either the confidence and trust in or by the Board of Education. There is similarly no statistical significance produced in the composite trust index. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. 50 Hypothesis #5 There is no significant difference between principals in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts with regard to their perception of the level of trust in and by superiors. Comparisons between perceptions of unionized and nonunionized principals in the areas of trust in and by superiors are summarized in Table 3.5. Table 3.5 T-test Analyses of the Differences in Perceptions of Unionized and Nonunionized Principals Regarding Trust in and by Superiors Group Means Index Union Nonunion t "P" Values Confidence and Trust in the Superintendent 5.7778 6.2167 .90660 .37 Confidence and Trust by A ’ the Superintendent 6.3278 6.2944 .10167 .92 Total Trust 6.0528 6.2556 .52806 .60 Results of the t-tests show nothing close to statistical signifi- cance for either confidence and trust in or by the superintendent. Further, the cumulative index of trust did not result in the statistically significant level ordered in this study; thus, the null hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis #6 There is no significant difference between superintendents in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts with regard to their perception of their influence in district decision-making. 51 Hypothesis six and seven deal with influence in decision-making by superintendents and principals, respectively. The results of t-tests on differences in perceptions of unionized and nonunionized superintendents on the general index of influence in decision-making and in three component indices are outlined in Table 3.6 Table 3.6 T-test Analyses of Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents in Unionized and Nonunionized Districts Relative to Influence in District Decision-Making Group Means Index Union Nonunion t "P" Values Use of Ideas by the Board . 6.9286 6.8462 .21562 .83 Influence in Matters Affecting the School System 7.3571 7.2308 .41640 .68 Encouragement by the Board to Discuss Work with Them 6.5714 6.4615 .21346 .83 Total Superintendent Influence 6.9524 6.8462 .32609 .75 No significant differences emerged in the use of ideas by the Board of Education, influence by the superintendent in matters affecting the school system, encouragement by the Board of Education for the superintendent to discuss his or her work with them 93 the cumulative index of influence in decision-making. The results and, specifically, the cumulative index of influence result in the null hypothesis being retained. 52 Hypothesis #7 There is no significant difference between principals ’ in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts with regard to their perception of their influence in district decision-making. As with the superintendents, differences in perceptions of unionized and nonunionized prinicpals relative to their influence in district decision-making do not approach statistical sygnificance. Table 3.7 summarizes the data in this area. Table 3.7 T-test Analyses of Differences in Perceptions of Unionized and Nonunionized Principals with Regard to Influence in District Decision-Making Group Means Index Union Nonunion t "P" Values Influence of Principal in What Goes On In The School 6.8389 6.8722 .20112 .84 Use of Ideas by the Super- ‘intendent in Academic ~Matters ' 5.3278 5.2444 .20544 .84 Use of Ideas by the Super- intendent in Adminis- trative and Non-Adacemic Matters 5.0056 5.2056 .48861 .63 Involvement in Major Decisions Related to Principal's Hork 5.5500 5.8333 .69599 .49 Total Principal Influence 5.6806 5.7889 .37941 .71 T-tests for all factors, including the cumulative index of principal influence, were found not to be statistically significant. The null hypothesis, therefore, was retained. 53 Hypothesis #8 There is no significant difference between superintendents - in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts relative to their perception of communication with the Board of Education T-test results for hypothesis number eight are shown in Table 3.8. Table 3.8 T-test Analyses of Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents in Unionized and Nonunionized Districts Relative to Communication with the Board of Education Group Means Index Union Nonunion . t "P" Values Superintendents' Openness With the Board 6.5952 6.8462 .71209 .48 Information Flow 6.2143 6.7692 1.6043 .12 Total Communication 6.4048 6.8077 1.2810 .21 As perceived by superintendents, neither the factor of the superintendents' openness with the Board of Education nor the index of information flow reached the level of statistical significance set, although the infbrmation flow factor approaches it. The cumulative communication index ranges far from the acceptable level of statistical significance set; therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis #9 There is no significant difference between principals in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts relative to their perception of communication with the superintendent. 54 As illustrated in Table 3.9, t-test analyses of the factors comprising the communication index for principals, as well as the cululative communication index, itself, do not produce levels of statistical significance. The null hypothesis, therefore, was retained. Table 3.9 T-test Analyses of Differences in Perceptions of Unionized and Nonunionized Principals Regarding Communication with the Superintendent Group Means Index Union Nonunion t "P" Values Confidence and Trust in the Superintendent 5.7778 6.2167 .90660 .37 Principal Openness Re- garding Superintendent 6.1056 6.0944 .24054 .98 Openness and Candor of Communication Between Superintendent and Principal 5.1667 5.2833 .22697 .82 View of Communication From the Superintendent 6.0333 6.0500 .42718 .97 Total Communication 5.7736 5.9125 .31725 _ .75 Hypothesis #10 There is no significant difference between principals in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts with regard to their attitude toward their job. As recorded in Table 3.1, no level of statistical significance is reached in any of the factors comprising the index of the principal's attitude toward his job or in the composite index, itself. 55 Table 3.10 T-test Analyses of Differences in Perceptions of Unionized and Nonunionized Principals Regarding their Attitude Toward their Job Group Means Index Union Nonunion t "P" Values Look Forward to Working day 6.3222 6.3722 .27530 .79 Horthwhile to do Best Job 6.8889 7.2444 1.8900 .07 Attitude Toward School System 6.4611 6.9389 1.8059 .08 Total Principal Attitude Toward Job 6.5574 6.8519 1.9562 A .06 Levels approaching significance are attained in the factors of attitude toward the school system (.08) and worthwhile to do one's job (.07), as well as the cumulative index in this category (.06). While the "p" values do not reach the criterion established for significance (.05) they certainly are close and worth noting both in the instance of this and future studies. For the purposes of this research, however, the null hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis #11 There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in their perception of district climate: A. There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in unionized districts in their perception of district climate. Results in the t-test for differences between perceptions of superintendents and principals in unionized districts relative to district climate are recorded in Table 3.11 (A). They are significant 56 at the .001 level, and the null hypothesis, therefore, was not retained. Table 3.11 (A) T-test Analysis of Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents and Principals in Unionized Districts Relative to Organizational Climate Group Mean (Union) Index Superintendents Principals t "P" Values Climate 6.1536 5.2937 4.1783 .001* * = .05 level of significance B. There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in nonunionized districts in their perception of district climate. Table 3.11 (8) illustrates that there is a statistically signifi- cant difference at the .001 level in perception of superintendents and principals in nonunionized districts in regard to organizational climate. The null hypothesis was, therefore, not retained. Table 3.11 (B) T-test Analysis of Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents and Principals in Nonunionized Districts Regarding Organizational Climate Group Means (Nonunion) Index Superintendents Principals t "P" Values Climate 6.6769 5.5851 7.4412 .001* * = .05 level of significance (alpha level) 57 Hypothesis #12 There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in their perceptions of principals' influence in district decision-making. A. There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in unionized districts in their perception of the principals' influence in district decision-making. Table 3.12 (A) outlines the results of the t-test comparing the perceptions of superintendents and principals in unionized districts regarding the principals' influence in district decision-making. Table 3.12 (A) T-test Analysis of Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents and Principals in Unionized Districts Relative to District Decision-Making Group Mean (Union) Index Superintendents Principals t "P“ Values Influrnce in District Decision-Making 5.8571 5.7530 .28195 .78 This examination did not produce a statistically significant difference, and the null hypothesis, therefore, was retained. B. There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in nonunion districts in their perception of the principals' influence in district decision-making. Data comparing the perceptions of superintendents and principals in nonunion districts relative to the principals‘ influence in district decision-making are recorded in Table 3.12 (B). The level of significance is at .04 which is statistically significant. The null hypothesis, therefore, was not retained. 58 Table 3.12 (B) T-test Analysis of Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents and Principals in Nonunionized Districts Regarding the Principals' Influence in District Decision-Making Group Means (Nonunion) Index Superintendents Principals t "P" Values Influence in District Decision-Making 6.3846 5.8141 2.2637 .04* * = .05 level of significance (alpha level) Hypothesis #13 There is no significant difference between principals and superintendents in unionized districts and principals and superintendents in nonunionized districts in their perception of district climate. Results of the t-test comparing the combined perceptions of superintendents and principals in the two types of districts are summarized in Table 3.13. It approaches but does not produce a statistically significant difference, and the null hypothesis, therefore, was retained. Table 3.13 T-test Analysis of Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents and Principals in Unionized Districts and Superintendents and Principals in Nonunionized Districts Relative to District Organizational Climate Group Means Index Union Nonunion t "P" Values Climate 5.3903 5.7119 1.6046 .11 59 Hypothesis #14 There is no significanct difference between principals and superintendents in unionized districts and principals and superintendents in nonunionized districts in their perception of the principals' influence in district decision-making. Data comparing the combined perceptions of superintendents and principals in the two types of districts are outlined in Table 3.14. The level of significance resulting from the t-test is not statistically significant. The null hypothesis, therefore, was retained. Table 3.14 T-test Analysis of Differences in Perceptions of Superintendents and Principals in Unionized Districts and Superintendents and Principals in Nonunionized Districts in Regard to Principals' Influence in District Decision-Making Group Means Index Union Nonunion t "P" Values Influence in District Decision—Making 5.6932 5.9081 1.0070 .32 Summary Through examining all hypotheses posited in this study, the researcher sought to determine if there were any significant differences in perceptions of Michigan superintendents and principals relative to organizational climate and associated with the collective bargaining status of the administrators in the districts; i.e., are the administrators unionized or nonunionized. Data collected were compared utulizing the t-test, and nonretention of the null hypotheses occurred at the .05 level. 60 Hypotheses one through ten compared superintendents and principals with their respective peer groups on key Likert organizational variables and according to the unionized-nonunionized dichotomy. Hypotheses 11 and 12 compared superintendents and principals yithig_the two districts types on the factors of climate and principals' influence in district decision-making. Hypotheses 13 and 14 placed unionized superintendents and principals into one group and nonunionized superintendents and principals into another and compared group perceptions on those same factors of climate and the principals' influence in district decision- making. Relative to the first ten null hypotheses in which perceptions of administrators in unionized and nonunionized school districts are compared on a series of key Likert organizational variables, in general the districts whose administrators are nonunionized scored more favorably on the Likert instruments than did those whose administrators were unionized (Figures 3.1 and 3.2). There were some minor exceptions to this statement, but it holds true with one striking deviation. Hypothesis six, where superintendents in unionized districts scored higher on the Profile of a School questionnaire than did the superintendents in nonunionized districts on the influence in district decision-making variable, is the notable exception. A word should be inserted here in regard to the scores registered by the principals and superintendents on the POS questionnaires. It is certainly worth noting that the group means for both the unionized and nonunionized administrators in all 14 hypotheses range from a low of 5.2 61 non. thatch. 8.53.: 28:35 Loam a...» 5; Sugar-3.560 839.6338 5 1.88:5 302% B ace 5 ans: 23m 3558.. $2882.33 3958. Omenwmcnmaomonwmcnm qommmwmenmqomonwmcnm“achwnanm aomohwmcnm amohwncnus o n w n a m N a x8: Nazism: Sam 4 .5 mi? 0» mdamgnzm 8:6“; 2 9.2655 .3 mwmanmwm 3! .8 553550 ammo—H2“ manhun— gum .59.: , 1n wan—o: 0:3 c935 "nuzcoficaoz 83 38 “82:25 62! Boom 5:. 8:82:58 magicoqflooo s 8855 mucuumaam >n new ca awake 305:0 omohwmvnmdommhwmcnmaommhmmcnwdommswmcnmdomohwncnwaommhwncnwuomohvman—o xmgn o h w n c n N a mazgzmg gum < 1.6 wifibzn. 2. 95:1th Dug-Gag g owNHEnZ... Zn msz-‘wpzumwnfim owNusug .6 mwmammwm 24‘! .5 5:53.60 N.n mgr. we: coxoum 3333552 23 .58 "82:25 umMUHQ‘u Mia? gum FEE; 63 to a high of 7.0 on the 1-8 point Likert extent scores. Stated another way, the scores fall in the System 3 pattern, the consultative mode in Likert's management scheme. These survey results are positive and close to the ideal human organization theorized by Likert in his System 4 participative group model. In general, those same ten null hypotheses were retained with, again, one major exception. In the first hypothesis, which deals with a comparison of perceptions of superintendents in unionized districts and those in nonunionized districts, a t-score with statistical significance is reached, and the null hypothesis was not retained. Hypotheses 11 and 12, each with two component hypotheses labeled "A" and "B," produced an interesting situation. In summary, these hypotheses structured a within-group comparison of administrators on the climate and principals' influence in decision-making variables. Perceptions of principals were compared with those of superintendents in each group, and in three of the four hypotheses, statistical significance was attained, and the null hypotheses were not retained.‘ Finally, in hypotheses 13 and 14 in which principals and superin- tendents are grouped according to union status, perceptions of administrators in unionized districts are compared with those in non- unionized on the variables of climate and principal's influence in decision-making. Statistically significant differences at the .05 level were not reached, and the null hypotheses were retained. Table 3.15 summarizes the decisions not to retain and retain the hypotheses based on whether or not significant differences of the .05 level were found between the groups compared in the variables or varialbes in each hypothesis. 64 Table 3.15 Hypotheses Decision Summary Null Hypothesis Variable Groups Compared Decision One Climate Superintendents Not Retained Two Climate Principals Retained Three Superintendents' Lead- ership Style Principals Retained Four Trust in and by Superiors Superintendents Retained Five Trust in and by Superiors Principals Retained Six Influence in Decision-Making Superintendents Retained Seven Influence in Decision-Making Principals Retained Eight Communication with the Board Superintendents Retained Nine Communication with the Superintendents Principals Retained Ten Attitude Toward Job Principals Retained Eleven - A Climate Superintendents and Principals- Unionized Not Retained Eleven - 8 Climate Superintendents and Principals- Nonunionized Not Retained Twelve - A Principals‘ Influence Superintendents in District Decision- and Principals- Making Unionized Retained Twelve - B Principals‘ Influence Superintendents in District Decision- and Principals- Making Nonunionized Not Retained Thirteen Climate Unionized Versus Nonunionized Administrators Retained Fourteen Principals‘ Influence Unionized Versus in District Decision- Nonunionized Making Administrators Retained 65 Findings From Likert Questionnaire (Profile of a School) I. Comparison of Superintendents (Climate) A statistically significant difference was found between the perceptions of superintendents in unionized districts and those in nonunionized districts relative to the districts' organizational climate. The null hypothesis was not retained. 2. Comparison of Principals (Climate) There are no significant differences in the organizational climate of school districts as perceived by principals in unionized and nonunionized systems. The null hypothesis was retained. 3. Cpmparison of Principals (Superintendents' Leadership Style) There are no significant differences in the superintendents' leadership style as perceived by principals in unionized and nonunionized” districts. The null hypothesis was retained. 4. Comparison of Superintendents (Trust in and by Superiors) There are no significant differences in the trust in and by superiors as perceived by superintendents in unionized and nonunionized districts. The null hypothesis was retained. 5. Comparison of Principals (Trust in and_py Superiors) There are no significant differences in the trust in and by superiors as perceived by principals in unionized and nonunionized districts. The null hypothesis was retained. 6. Comparison of Superintendents (Influence in District Decision- Making There are no significant differences in influence in district decision-making as perceived by superintendents in unionized and non- unionized districts. The null hypothesis was‘retained. 66 I 7. Comparison of Principals (Influence in District Decision-Making) There are no significant differences in influence in district decision-making as perceived by principals in unionized and nonunionized districts. The null hypothesis was retained. 8. Comparison of Superintendents (Communication with the Board) There are no significant differences in communication with the Board of Education as perceived by superintendents in unionized and non— unionized districts. The null hypothesis was retained. 9. Comparison of Principals (Communication with the Superintendent) There are no significant differences in communication with the superintendent as percieved by principals in unionized and nonunionized districts. The null hypothesis was retained. 10. Comparison of Principals (Attitude Toward Job) There are no significant differences in attitude toward job as perceived by principals in unionized and nonunionized districts. The null hypothesis was retained. 11, A. Superintendents Versus Principals: Unionized Districts (Climate) A statistically significant differences was found between the perceptions of superintendents and those of principals in unionized districts with reSpect to the.districts' organizational climate. The null hypothesis was not retained. 11, B. Superintendents Versus Princpals: NonuniOnized Districts (Climate) A statistically significant difference was found between the perceptions of superintendents and those of principals in nonunionized districts relative to the districts‘ organizational climate. The null hypothesis was not retained. 67 12, A. Su erintendents Versus Principals: Unionized Districts -(grincipals' Influence in Distr1ct Decision-Making) There are no significant differences in the principals' influence in district decision-making as perceived by superintendents and principals in unionized districts. The null hypothesis was retained. 12, 8. Su erintendents Versgs Principals: Nppunionized Districts (Principals' Influence in DistriEt Decision-Making) A statistically significant differences was found between the perceptions of superintendents and those of principals in nonunionized districts in regard to the principals' influence in district decision- making. The null hypothesis was not retained. 13. Comparison of Administratbrs in Unionized Districts Versus Administrators in NonunionizediDiStricts (Climate) There are no significant differences in the organizational climate of school systems as perceived by administrators in unionized districts and those in nonunionized districts. The null hypothesis was retained. 14. Comparison of Administrators in Unionized Districts Versus Administratp:§_in Nonunioniied Districts (Principals' Iniluence ii District Decision-Making) There are no significant differences in the principals' influence in district decision-making as perceived by administrators in unionized districts and those in nonunionized districts. The null hypothesis was retained. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The final chapter is structured to review the problem, summarize the methodology and instrumentation, summarize the research findings, conclusions and recommendations and cite implications of the research. Review of the Problem The researcher's purpose in this investigation was to attempt to assess the effects of administrator unionization upon the organizational climate in selected school distircts in the State of Michigan. The perceptions of administrators in a matched population of unionized and nonunionized districts were compared on a series of key organizational variables including trust, influence in decision-making, leadership, communication, attitude toward job and climate, to determine if any differences emerge which might be related to union or nonunion status. The issue of organizational climate has received considerable attention in recent years by authorities in management practices to determine why certain agencies and institutions experience greater work output and employee satisfaction than others. Rensis Likert contended 68 69 that the system of management is the key factor in assessing climate.1 He argued that his System 4 style of supervision, a participatory scheme, best served the needs of both the employees and the organization. Simon, Gibbs, McGregor and Argyris are representative of others who advocate this style of management.2’ 3’ 4’ 5' Ten questions furnished the foundation for the research. They are as follows: 1. Are there significant differences between the perceptions of superintendents and principals in unionized and nonunionized school districts relative to district climate? 2. Are there significant differences between the perceptions of principals in unionized and nonunionized school districts in regard to the superintendents' leadership style? 1"The Profile of A School," Rensis Likert Associates. Inc.. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1978, IV 1. 2Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior, A Study of Decision- Making Processes in AdministrativeOrganizations, MacMillan Publishing 56:, New Yfirk, 1976, p. 10. 3Jack Gibbs; as cited in T. J. Sergiovanni and F. D. Carver, Organizations and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools, New York, McGraw- H1ll, 1969, p. 323. 4Thomas J. Sergiovanni and Robert J. Starrott, Emer in Patterns of Supervision: Human Perspectives, New YorE, acGraw Hill, 1 197 ,Ip. 96. 5Chris Argyris, "Individual Actualization in Complex Organizations," Mental Hygiene 44 (1969): p. 226. 70 4. Are there significant differences between the perceptions of superintendents and principals in unionized and nonunionized school districts relative to their influence in decision-making? 5. Are there significant differences between the perceptions of superintendents and principals in unionized and nonunionized school districts regarding their communication with their superiors? 6. Are there significant differences between the perceptions of principals in unionized and nonunionized school districts relative to their attitude toward their job? 7. Are there significant differences in the within districts perception of superintendents versus principals in unionized and nonunionized school districts regarding district climate? 8. Are there significant differences in the within district percsption of superintendents versus principals in unionized and nonunionized school districts relative to the principals' influence in district decision-making? 9. Are there significant differences between the perceptions of administrators in unionized and nonunionized school districts in regard to district climate? 10. Are there significant differences between the perceptions of administrators in unionized and nonunionized school districts regarding the principals' influence in district decision-making? 71 Methodology_and Instrumentation The population for the study consisted of 120 principals and 30 superintendents drawn in equal numbers from matched pairs of 15 unionized and 15 nonunionized Michigan school districts. The districts were matched according to three key demographic characteristics including district student enrollment, state equalized valuation per pupil and average teacher salary. A fourth factor used was geographical proxmitiy with a precondition for matching the districts that they be in the same or adjacent counties. The Rensis Likert Profile of a School (P05) questionnaire, principal and superintendent forms (See Appendices M and N), constituted the instrument used in surveying the administrators. The superintendent and four of his/her principals, two elementary and two secondary, were surveyed in each of the 30 districts. The Likert instrument is designed to record the actual human behavior within the organization as seen by members in its hierarchy. It registers impressive reliability indices (.95+) and satisfies all questions relative to the issue of validity. Participants in the study were asked to mail answer forms to the questionnaire directly to Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. for scoring and data analysis. Administrator responses were consolidated into unionized and nonunionized group scores and the means of the indices of management variables were compared by means of a t-test to determine statistical significance with non-retention of null hypotheses being set using an alpha of .05 as the criterion for level of confidence. Prior to reviewing the findings, a note of caution should be inserted. Since the validity of the Likert instrument is central to this research, 72 the writer must state that he is aware of reservations by some authors in management theory as to major tenets in the Likert model. Hoy, for example, speaks of the danger of overgeneralizing in applying theoretical knowledge from the behavioral sciences to management practices.1 He states that, "Instead of asking under what conditions the ideas and propositions are appropriate, theorists assume their ideas are always correct." Thus, in criticizing Likert's assertion that participative management is always the most effective scheme regardless of the organization or location, Hoy notes that, "Universal or grand theories of organization do not work well, a fact that may in part , explain the disillusionment with much theory and research in educational administration." Perrow registers a similar concern with a great deal more 2 He states that Likert'stheory, as with most human relations specificity. theories, considers all organizations to be alike regardless of 'differences in size, technology, markets, raw materials and goals. Perrow concludes that, "While much of management theory is moving to a position that there is no single best way to doing things, Likert, along with many others, continues to advocate one best way." 1Hayne K. Hoy, "Recent Developments in Theory and Research in Educational Administration,“ Educational Administration Quarterly XVIII: Summer, 1982, p. 2. 2Charles Perrow, 00m lex 0r anizations, Scott Foresman and Company, Glenview, Illinois, 1979, p. 119. 73 Much more could be stated in this regard, but it is the writer's purpose simply to draw attention to the fact that Likert has his critics, and the picture must be balanced in reading and accepting the findings of this or any research so dependent on one theory of human organization. DiscuSsion of Findings_ A restatement of each hypothesis will follow with a short summary and discussion of specific findings. Hypothesis #1 There is no significant difference between superintendents in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized districts with regard to their perception of the districts' organizational climate. Hypothesis One was not retained because superintendents in nonunion- ized school districts responded that they perceived the climate in their school system to be significantly more favorable than that responded by superintendents in unionized districts. Specifically, they perceived greater team cooperation, financial goal commitment and the total climate to be more favorable. The cumulative climate difference was significant at the .03 level and the difference in the climate components of team cooperation and financial goal commitment significant at the .04 and .05 levels, respectively. Hypothesis #2 There is no significant difference between principals in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized districts relative to their perception of the districts' organizational climate. 74 Hypothesis Two was retained because no significant difference was found in district climate as perceived by principals in unionized and nonunionized districts. In each of the factors constituting organi- zational climate, as well as the composite climate score, nonunionized principals scored more favorably than unionized principals, but only the decision process index approaches statistical significance (.12) and, therefore, the hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis #3 There is no significant difference between principals in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts with regard to their perception of the superintendent's leadership style. Hypothesis Three was retained since no significant difference was found in the superintendents' leadership style as judged by principals in the two types of districts. With the exception of support by the superintendent, principals in nonunionized districts scored more favorably on the leadership variables than their unionized counterparts. None of the leadership indices registered a significant difference, and only team building approached it, so the null hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis #4 There is no significant difference between superintendents in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized districts regarding their perception of the level of trust in and by superiors. ‘ Hypothesis Four was retained because no significant differences were found in the trust variables according to perceptions of superintendents in unionized and nonunionized districts. In each of the variables, superintendents in nonunionized districts scored more favorably than 75 those in unionized school districts. The level of significance set for use in theis study was not reached, however, and the null hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis #5 There is no significant difference between principals in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts relative to their perception of the level of trust in and by superiors. Hypothesis Five was retained because no significant differences were found in either of the trust factors or in the cumulative trust index as perceived by unionized and nonunionized principals. Unionized principals scored higher on the confidence and trust by the superintendent variable, while nonunionized princpals did so on the confidence and trust in the superintendent as well as on the cumulative trust index. None of the three scores approached statistical signifid cance, however, and the null hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis #6 There is no significant difference between superintendents in unionized school districts and-those in nonunionized districts with regard to their perception of their influence in district decision-making. Hypothesis Six was retained because no significant differences were found in any of the decision-making variables according to the perceptions of superintendents in the two types of districts. Interest- ingly, in contrast to the picture presented in the first five hypotheses, unionized superintendents scored more favorably on the decision-making indices than the nonunionized superintendents. The required level of significance was not attained in any of the variables; hence, the null hypothesis was retained. 76 Hypothesis #7 There is no significant difference between principals in ' unionized school districts and those in nonunionized‘ school districts regarding their perception of their influence in district decision-making. Hypothesis Seven was retained since no significant differences were found in any of the decision-making indices as perceived by unionized and nonunionized principals. Unionized principals scored more favorably than nonunionized on the use of ideas by the superintendent in academic matters variable, but scores of nonunionized principals exceeded those of unionized on the other three variables as well as on the composite influence index. Without the required statistical level being attained, the null hypothesis was, however, retained. Hypothesis #8 There is no significant difference between superintendents in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized school districts relative to their perception of communication with the Board of Education. Hypothesis Eight was retained because no significant differences were found in either of the communication variables or in the composite communication index, although the factor of information flow began to approach singificance. Scores of superintendents in nonunionized districts exceeded those of unionized on the Likert instrument. Hith the required level of significance not being met however, the null hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis #9 There is no significant difference between principals in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized districts in regard to their perception of communication with the superintendent. 77 Hypothesis Nine was retained since no significant differences were found in any of the communication indices as perceived by unionized and nonunionized principals. Only in the principal openness regarding the superintendent variable did unionized principals score more favorably than the nonunionized. With the communication composite not even approaching the required level of significance, the null hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis #10 There is no significant difference between principals in unionized school districts and those in nonunionized districts regarding their attitude toward their job. Hypothesis Ten was retained because no significant differences were found in any of the attitude toward job variables as perceived by unionized an nonunionized principals. Respectable levels of signifi- cance were attained in the worthwhile to do the best job (.07) and the attitude toward the school system (.08) indices, as well as the composite attitude variable (.06), but the .05 level was not-reached. In all of the attitude indices, nonunionized principals scored more favorably than the unionized. With the set level of singificance not being met, the null hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis #11, A There is nosignificant difference between superintendents and principals in unionized districts in their perception of district climate. Hypothesis Eleven A was not retained because the superintendents in unionized districts viewed their districts' organizational climate to be significantly more favorable than did the principals in those districts. The level of significance was measured at the .001 level. 78 Hypothesis 11,_B There is no significant difference between superintendnts and principals in nonunionized districts in their perception of district climate. Hypothesis Eleven 8 was not retained because superintendents in nonunionized districts perceived their districts' climate to be significantly more favorable (.001) than principals in nonunionized districts. Hypothesis 12, A There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in unionized districts in their perception of the principals' influence in district decision-making. Hypothesis Twelve A was retained because no significant difference was found in the decision-making variable as perceived by superintendents and principals in unionized districts. Superintendents scored more favorably than principals on this index but the figures recorded were far from being statistically significant; thus, the null hypothesis was retained. Hypothesis 12, B There is no significant difference between superintendents and principals in nonunionized districts in their perception of the principals' influence in ' district decision-making. Hypothesis Twelve B was not retained because the superintendents in nonunionized districts perceived the principals' influence in district decision-making to be significantly more favorable (.04 level) than the principalsirnnonunionized districts. Hypothesis #13 There is no significant difference between principals and superintendents in unionized districts and principals and superintendents in nonunionized districts in their perception of district climate. 79 Hypothesis Thirteen was retained because no significant differences were found inthe climate index as perceived by the combined administrators in unionized and nonunionized districts. The level of significance was notable but not significant at the .05 level as required in the study. Nonunion administrators scored higher than union administrators on the Likert instrument, but not sufficiently to not retain the null hypothesis. Hypothesis #14 There is no significant difference between principals and superintendents in unionized districts and principals and superintendents in nonunionized districts in their perception of the principals'~influence in district decision-making. Hypothesis Fourteen was retained because no significant difference was found in the decision-making variable as perceived by the combined principals and superintendents in the two district types. Nonunion administrators scored more favorably on the POS questionnaire than unionized administrators, but since the level did not reach significance, the hypothesis was retained. Summary_of Finding§_ In the need for the study, the research noted that the theoretical foundation of the research pointed to differences in organizational climate between school districts whose administrators are organized and those in which they are not. In comparing superintendents and principals with their peer groups in the two district types under consideration, however, it was found that in only one of the four 80 indices of comparison for superintendents was a statistically significant difference found and in none of the six variables in which principals were compared was there a statistically significant difference. In the general variable of district climate, superintendents in non- unionized school districts perceived the climate to be significantly more favorable than did their colleagues in unionized districts. It perhaps should be noted that although statistical significance was not reached in the other three indices in which superintendents were compared, those in nonunionized districts scored their districts more favorably than did superintendents in unionized districts in two of the three indices (trust in and by superiors and communication with the Board of Education), while the reverse was true in the third, influence in district decision-making. Similarly, though a significant difference was not achieved between principals in the six variables in which they were compared, principals in nonunionized districts perceived their districts and their individual situations more favorably than did their union counterparts in all six variables measured. Beside the comparison of colleagues/peers in the two district types, there were two other levels of ancillary comparison in this study. One involved a within district comparison of superintendents and principals; i.e., superintendents were compared to principals in each district type. In three of the four variables considered, statistically superintendents viewed their districts to be more favorable than did the principals. In the index of climate, superintendents in both district types perceived 81 their situations more favorably than principals. Relative to the principals' influence in decision-making, superintendents in nonunion districts perceived their districts to be significantly more favorable, and while superintendents in unionized districts scored their districts more favorably than principals in those same districts, the level did not approach statistical significance. In summary, superintendents perceived their districts, people and situations more favorably than principals. I The final level of comparison involved the merging of administrator rank in the two district types so that superintendents and principals in unionized districts were compared as one set with superintendents and principals in nonunionized districts as a second set. The variables considered were district climate and principals' influence in district decision-making. In neither instance was a significant level reached in administrator perceptions, but in both cases nonunion administrators scored their districts more favorably on the Profile of a School instrument. This is consistent with the findings in the balance of this study. In reducing the entire section on findings to statements carrying levels of statiStical significance in this study, it was found that: 1. Superintendents in nonunionized districts perceived the simple index of organizational climate more favorably than superintendents in unionized districts; and 2. Superintendents in both union and nonunion districts perceived organizational climate to be more favorable than principals in the two 82 district types, and superintendents in nonunionized districts perceived that principals exercised a greater influence in district decision- making than did the principals in those same districts. Conclusions The thrust of this research was directed toward a consideration of possible differences in organizational climate as perceived as a matched selection of administrators in unionized and nonunionized school districts. The major emphasis, as with earlier studies on this subject, was on the perceptions of principals, although attitudes of superinten- dents were an added dimension for consideration. As stated in the review of literature in Chapter I, researchers to-date of this issue have concluded that unionization for administrators, from the principals' perspective, results in improved salaries with no loss in job satisfaction or communication with superiors. It also revealed, however, that a loss in organizational climate and the princi- pal's voice in district decision-making accompany collective bargaining. The findings were less conclusive in the areas of trust and relationship with superiors. The weight of evidence in this study, though, is that unionization of administrators, again as perceived by principals, does not result in any loss in organizational climate or in the variables associated with it including involvement in district decision-making. This research, as it relates to climate and influence in decision-making, contradicts that of all other research reviewed on the subject. Stated another way, 83 unionization for principals brings increased material benefits with no loss in climate, relationships or involvement in district matters. The obvious question is why. Why do the findings of this study differ from previous work on unions and climate. The writer would speculate that the union movement (school administrator) in Michigan, which is now more than a decade old, has come of age. There has been a maturing of attitudes and relationships in both individual districts and the movement as a whole. Principals, superintendents and Boards of Education have learned to live together and to approach collective bargaining as a problem solving mechanism rather than a meeting of adversaries where constant bickering over territory and role definitions cloud discussion of issues of mutual interest. That same spirit by and large marks relationships in nonunionized districts in the state today. The decision on whether to unionize, based on these findings, should thus be made on local circumstances and issues without the trauma of weighing the benefits and tradeoffs that marked the debate in the past. This is not to suggest that hostility and antagonism might not characterize school districts, especially in the initial effort to unionize. Boards of Education members and superintendents may still take the matter personally and principals will still use their new found status as a club rather than a vehicle for improving communication. The message of this research, however, is that Boards, superintendents and principals in unionized districts in Michigan are not necessarily adversaries locked in continuous confrontation. They can and do work‘ together in the same spirit of cooperation as their nonunionized counter- 84 parts. The climate in organized districts is as favorable and as positive as that in districts in which middle managers are not organized. Given the history of hostility characterizing the union movement in the early 1970's, this seems unlikely if not incredible. It bodes well for the future not only of policy makers and policy administrators but for all participants in public education. Recommendations Based on the preceding findings, the following recommendations are made for additional research. 1. It is recommended that this study be replicated in other areas of the country. Findings from this research in Michigan show that there is no significant difference in organizational climate and associated variables as perceived by unionized and nonunionized elementary and secondary principals. Michigan's union movement in educational administration is now more than a decade old. The growth of unionism among administrative units across the country, however, is still in its infancy, and further research using the Likert instrument might be used to determine whether these findings are unique to more 1 mature bargaining units or can be found consistently in other areas where the movement is relatively young. An ancillary finding in this study showed a more favorable difference in district climate as perceived by superintendents in both unionized and nonunionized districts as opposed to the perceptions of principals in those same districts. A possible explanation was furnished in an earlier chapter that, in essence, 85 indicates that heads of organizations tend to rate their organizations uniformaly high on Likert variables. 2. It is recommended that the Likert Profile of a School instrument be used to test for possible significant differences among other categories of school personnel such as Board members, teachers and/or students to gather more information regarding the impact of unionization upon organizational climate as perceived by these groups. Added to the results of this study and others cited in this research, a more complete analysis of district climate would be possible. The involvement of students in further research offers a particularly intriguing possibility. 3. It is recommended that additional research be undertaken using longitudinal methodology. Such a design would permit a review of the developmental history of the union organizations. Studies such as this one with the survey approach are a "slice of history" with all the shortcomings thereof. They would not in this instance, for example, take into consideration unique district variables with localized nuances in district climate. 1 4. The recent cost cutting practices of management in business and industry as a reaction to the worst downturn in the American economy since the Great Depression has spawned a defensive response on the part of white collar workers to unionize as a means of protecting jobs and venefits. Further research comparing and analyzing the current growth of unions in education (administrators) and industry (white collar personnel) might be used to determine correlations in the respective movements . 86 Implications The findings and conclusions of this study carry specific 'implications for those with an interest in public education. Previous studies addressing the issue of the impact of administrator unionization upon organizational climate have, for the most part, stressed the negative features of union membership for both the administrators and the school districts they serve. As stated in the section on Conclusions, the summary of the literature found in Chapter I of this study concluded that while salary and fringe considerations improve with union status, with no apparent loss in job satisfaction or in communication with superiors, the negative effect on district climate and reduced voice in district decision-making is substantial. The underlying suggestion is that the price to pay for unionization is too substantial even given the material enticements. In this study, however, no loss in any of the climate variables associated with unionization was demonstrated. There was no significant difference in the perceptions of unionized and nonunionized administrators in district climate, trust in and by superiors, influence in district decision-making, communication with the superintendent or attitude toward job. In summary, based on the results of this study and previous research on the tOpic, it appears that unionization will bring superior material benefits, a major factor precipitating unionization, with no apparent loss in relationships, communication or influence in district decision-making. The question must be one of why not organize. The gains appear to be substantial, the liabilities virtually nonexistent. 87 All of this is from the principals' perSpective which was the major focus of the study. It is also important to note that a significant part of this research focused on perceptions of superintendents relative to administrator unionization. One important finding showed superintendents in nonunion districts perceiving a more positive district climate than those in union districts. Hhile principals may well benefit from a union posture, superintendents still have reservations since unionization for administrators affects the superintendent's role in managing the district. He/she will continue to play a major part in the continuing debate that will determine the direction for middle management. His/her role in establishing a positive district climate that attends to the needs of his/heradministrative team may well be a deciding factor in the decision on whether or not that team chooses to organize. The plot is an interesting one and the stakes substantial for both the providers and recipients of public education in the remainder of this century. APPENDICES 88 APPENDIX A LETTER TO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 89 31 f a I I. 5‘ 1. lvl 1' Grand Blanc Community High School ., “a“ , .~ ~ -—— .muwmiuirv nu “I901 - fie; (‘4...J - October 12, 1981 Mr. Jack Biddle, Executive Director Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals 401 South Fourth Street Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Dear Jack: I am submitting the attached for your consideration. If you approve it, I am willing to underwrite the cost of postage for the project. You could either call me after considering my request or see me personally in your office at the meeting of the Publications Committee next Monday, October 19. I appreciate your interest. Sincerely, Zia/W Robert J. Burek Principal dp Enclosure noun or eoucmon " "is 5") lillian 6. Mason, President * William l- BCMOII. 7'98“!ka Kg)” Delores M- Banitki. Vic-I Proddonl lam-c M. Inlancnn, Tun... APPENDIX B ENDORSEMENT LETTER FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 91 Wichzgan ~z/qssociation of Secondary School Principals Executive Director , , , , , Bureau of School Services JACK 0. 3mm: Serwng Secondary Administrators Since 191 _1 ‘01 s sounhmm Alsatian Director President President-Elect Mrsfidsm Ann 1:30;) :MCh 9n748103 ROBERT RODDA WILLIAM J. PAPPAS ROBERT DOCTOR GEORGE SARGEANT Northview H.S. Petoskey H.S. Reed City H.S. Grand Rapids ' Petoskey Reed City October 30, 1981 mugscmamuclm: Inoooperetionvithoneorounsdaersvhoisdoingestndyentheosqerieon ofuinisedvs. non-'Inionineddistricts. lvonldlihsyoutoooqletsthsenclosed smdiichshoulilteke‘lsesthenmeninute. Ouroaioshuhednenyinquiriesutothsextsntotorqsnissdheminingmits endtheensverstruthsenrveyouhelponr-sbers. niesmyisonlyepseii-imeuptonrdstheooqletsetndyihichviuinwln Wetlikeschool districts. _, . 'Sinoerelyyours. M 5' 4,9”— chk D. Bittl. .xascutiyem Plusenotethetyonsrethecnlyeunistretorinyonr-dietdcttorsoeive this surveyendthsreroreitiehopsdthetyouvinooqletemdretnrnittojhem‘ ottiosnolsterthenloveflaers, 1981. Wile ‘ ’92 Affiliated with - Michigan Congress of School Administrator Association I National Association of Secondary School Principals [The University of Michigan . "93 SURVEY OF CRGANIZATIML STATUS Michigan Public Schools November, 1981 Please respond to the following questions on the organizational status or your district at the tires of .you receiving the survey. a 1.0 Dimet mu ‘ District Name 2 District enroll-ant (4th Friday. 1981-82) 2 - High School Hall: High School Enrollment: Principal's Ham: District Type (Check host appropriate) m Suburban m1 Other (Please specify) 2. muons). Status ’ ' “ ..- . status or District (Check one) L__‘“iinionissd __uon-Cnionissd If mimissd district. please respond to the following question Year in which unionisatim secured: Process for achieving unionization (M one): Petition W by board of education __ mac election ' . __ Other (Please specify) ' 3.. Due Dues paid by you for local mien 8 Does your district pay MASSP dues? Yes No 4. y 222 are a unionized district ‘glease'check: Conditions are far better after organising Conditions are better after organising ‘ Conditions are the. seen after organising conditions are worse arter organising Mmroryoucocperstionontheeurvey. Pleas‘ereturntothetollouingeddress by November 6: 1981: ' ' Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals 401 South Fourth Street Ann Arbor. Michigan 48103 APPENDIX C LETTER TO HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 94 G .3; rand Blanc Community High School .{Q g _ ' r agmflelywiianir eise CthOt .r”” ' m 2253 December 1, 1981 Dear High School Principal: I am currently involved in a dissertation dealing with a com- parison of unionized (administrative) versus non-unionized districts. Approximately a month ago, Jack Bittle, Executive Director of the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals Association, cooperated with me in this study by directing a survey to your attention. Either the survey didn't reach your desk or it was lost in the mail on its return, as the response was not received by Mr. Bittle. I am asking you to complete the enclosed survey and return to me by December 11. Please note that the survey is point- ed toward administrative bargaining units and that you are the only principal in your district receiving the instrument. - Your cooperation in a prompt response is appreciated. Please feel free to call me if you have questions. Sincerely, J/KM Robert J. Burek, Principal Grand Blanc High School dp Enclosure 95 Va 6’ soup or soucmon Kl' "’" 93?) iillian 6. Mason, Presidenl William I. lemon, Treasurer fl\ DIkM!5h‘.Bankifi.Vk!leddenl Inmaeh‘ kflnnnn Tando- APPENDIX D MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH ADMINISTRATIVE BARGAINING UNITS 96 Michigan School Districts With Administrative Bargaining Units October, 1981 District Adrian Ann Arbor Bay City Benton Harbor Birmingham Brandon (Ortonville) Bridgeport Buena Vista Bullock Creek Byron Center Cadillac Carrollton Carson City-Crystal Cassopolis Centerline Centerville Chippewa valley Clawson Dearborn Dearborn Heights (Annapolis) Detroit Dexter DeWitt East China (St. Clair) Ecorse Farmington Ferndale Flint Flushing Garden City Gilbralter (Rockwood) Grand Haven Grand Ledge Hamtramck Harper Whods Hazel Park Highland Park Holly Indian Lake Inkster 97 County Lenawee Washtenaw Bay Berrien Oakland Oakland Saginaw Saginaw Midland Kent Wexford Saginaw Mbntcalm Cass Macomb St. Joseph Macomb Oakland Wayne Wayne Wayne Washtenaw Clinton St. Clair Wayne Oakland Oakland Genesee Genesee Whyne Wayne Ottawa Eaton wayne wayne Oakland Wayne Oakland Cheboygan wayne Enrollment 5200 15100 10511 8712 8774 3064 4390 2450 2005 1490 3608 1650 1560 1715 3780 1071 6543 3500 13584 3200 211825 1872 4625 2561 10839 4569 33500 4515 7154 4015 5000 5527 2187 969 6900 6603 4290 800 3774 Ir District Iron Mountain Ironwood Jackson Jackson Northwest Lakeshore (St. Clair Shores) Lakeview Lakev-iew (St. Clair Shores) LakeVille (Otisville) L'Anse Creuse Lansing Lapeer Leslie Lincoln Park Livonia Manistee Marquette Mayville Melvindale Monroe Mt. Clemens Mt. Morris Muskegon Heights North Adams Northville Northwest (Jackson) Oak Park Ovid-Elsie Oxford Paradise (Whitefish) Pinckney Plymouth Pontiac Port Huron Redford Union Riverview Rochester Romulus Roseville Boyle Oak Saginaw Township Southfield Southgate South Lyon Swartz Creek Taylor Thornapple-Kellogq (Middleville) Trenary van Buren (Belleville) 98 County Dickinson Gogebic Jackson Jackson Macomb Montcalm Macomb Genesee Macomb Ingham Lapeer Ingham Wayne Wayne Manistee Marquette Tuscola Whyne Monroe Macomb Genesee Mnskegon Hillsdale wayne Jackson Oakland Clinton Oakland Chippewa Livingston Wayne Oakland St. Clair Wayne Wayne Oakland Wayne Macomb Oakland Saginaw Oakland Wayne Oakland Genesee Whyne Barry Alger Wayne Enrollment 503 1534 3700 5214 1800 3730 3074 8279 23441 7402 1710 6510 20530 2200 4525 3014 7980 4421 3210 647 3949 3700 3550 2074 3040 96 3550 16546 18100 13762 5203 2900 9813 5800 8687 10425 5949 9900 5356 4000 5360 16004 1950 167 7189 District COunty Enrollment Van Dyke Macomb 4866 Walled Lake Oakland 9875 Warren Macomb 25292 Waverly Ingham Wayne-Westland Wayne 17826 West Bloomfield Oakland 5184 Westwood (Inkster) Wayne 3185 Wbodhaven (Romulus) Whyne 4745 Wyandotte Whyne 5303 Yale St. Clair 2184 Ypsilanti Washtenaw 6735 Source: Knoester, William.P., The Impact of Middle Management Unionization on Administrative Decision Making in Selected Michigan School Districts (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 77-31, 644). * Schools additional to Knoester's list identified in a survey administered to all Michigan high school principals in Ocotber, 1981. APPENDIX E LETTER TO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 100 EGrand Blanc Community High School sasmmflyma Iem III! Iuon February 22, 1982 Mr. Jack Bittle, Executive Director Michigan Association for Secondary School Principals Bureau of School Services 401 S. Fourth Street Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Dear Jack: I am once again asking your assistance relative to my doctoral dissertation. Having established a matched sample of 30 Michigan school districts (15 union- ized, 15 non-unionized) for my study of climate differences in these districts. I will be approaching superintendents in each of the 30 districts for permission to conduct the survey. Following approval of the superintendents, I will be .forwarding surveys to the superintendent and two elementary and two secondary administrators in each district. You could assist me in two ways: 1. Since I will be contacting the superintendents in these districts' for approval to conduct the study, initially by letter and then by phone; I would like to have the support of the Michigan Association of School Administrators for the study. Would you please contact the leader of MASA in the next week to establish my credibility so that when I contact him or her I will be a familiar name. I will request a letter of the MASA president which will accompany my letter to the superintendents requesting their districts' involvement in my study. 2. In a month, I will request of you a similar letter which will accom- pany my letter to the elementary and secondary principals in districts participating in the study. I anticipate sending these letters out in early April and the surveys out just after Easter. I will call you at the time the letter is needed. I trust this is not too much of an inconvenience, Jack. I have appreciated your help to date. I'll call you early next week to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Robert J. Burek, Principal ‘ Grand Blanc High School soup or roucmon ‘44 Ulllan 6. Mason, MI“ ”mes M. ”We Trustee f \ Delores M. eanacn. Vice President 101 Hm", L Mm, ,m (r as; 93‘} ' AnnM.Ford, Secretary MarkSJ’elllng. TnIslee Nil w , William L Benson, treasurer {\ \-/y" APPENDIX F ENDORSEMENT LETTER FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 102 With igan {Aswan tion of Secondary School Principals Ear-arms Director , , , Bureau 01 Schoc: Smwces JACK 0. mm; Serving Secondary Administrators Since 791 1 401 5. 50mm 5...... . . . Ann Arbor, MlCflIQdH 48103 Associate Director Pruodem President-Elect Vice-President (313, 769-5497 ROBE RT RODDA WILLIAM J. PAPPAS ROBERT DOCTOR GEORGE SARGEANT Northwew H.S. Pewskey H.S. Reed Cm] H.S. Grand Rapids Petoslwy Reed City March 1, 1982 Dr. George Carver, Supt. Livonia Public Schools 15125 Farmington Road ’Livonia, Michigan 48154 Dear Dr. Carver: A member of our Association is conducting a survey of thirty Michigan school districts as part of his doctoral dissertation. He has established a matched sample of 15 unionized and 15 non-unionized school districts to study the climate differences in these districts. Robert J. Burek, Principal of Grand Blanc High School, will be contacting you shortly to receive your permission before contacting the schools. It is my hope that you can give him a letter of support. . , 'Thank you for your assistance. 2%,. , Sincerely yours , Jack D. Bittle {k\| Executive Director cc: Robert J. Burek JDB/ila 103 1 "drum" mm 2'. mm”... (mun... do! "u tum? Alluullifillozlul Assuugmcm ’ Naumml l\5)lk'l,4luln nl Secundaw School Pumas-w. 'l ho? Hum-w” n! MuJ-nwl a‘. APPENDIX 6 ENDORSEMENT LETTER FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS 104 IVONIA 15125 Pennington Road 0 Livonia, Michigan 48154 0 Phone (313) 422—1200 March l6, 1982 To Whom It May Concern: Mr Robert J. Burek, principal of Grand Blanc High School, is complet- ing his doctoral degree from Michigan State University. His disser- tation involves a comparison of Michigan school districts in which administrators are unionized versus an equal number of districts in which there is no union for administrators. It is his desire to ana- lyze the two populations to determine if there is a difference in the educational climate between the unionized districts and the nonunion- ized districts. Mr. Burek will be utilizing a standardized, creditable process to make his analysis. The purpose of this letter is to suggest that districts that are_invited to participate in the study may find this endeavor to be worthwhile and worthy of their participation. Mr. Burek's investigation will not create any type of disruption for the school district, nor will there be any information released which would serve as a barrier to a district's par- ticipation. In summary, I would encourage districts that are asked to participate to give serious consideration to the invitation, for I believe the study is timely and very worthwhile. Re ctfysubmi:ted , George G. Garver President Michigan Association of School Administrators GGG:Wp 105 ”Excellence in Education — Pride in Accomplishment” APPENDIX H . LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS FOR APPROVAL FOR DISTRICT PARTICIPATION 106 I O O . -: Grand Blang CommunityAngh ,Schggol 1. --——r "‘|'i§odl-io'lly§8§¢l'""' IIII ICIOOL . . T; ,l April 2, 1982 I am a high school principal and currently completing requirements for a doctoral degree from Michigan State University. My dissertation deals with possible educational climate differences between districts in the State of Michigan in which administrators are unionized and those in which they are not. I have selected a matched sample of twenty districts (forty total) as the base for the comparison. My reason for writing you is to solicit your approval for your district’s inclusion in the study. Should your answer be affirmative, I will in May be asking you and two each of your elementary and secondary principals to participate in a survey dealing with this issue. All responses will be held in the strictest of confidence and district and individual anony- mity will be preserved. Dr. George Carver, Superintendent of the Livonia Public Schools and President of the Michigan Association of School Adminis- trators, has endorsed this study in an accompanying letter. If you approve, please endorse the accompanying note and return to my attention by April 15. I appreciate your cooperation in this study. A copy of the results of the survey will be mailed to you if you wish. Sincerely, Robert J. Burek, Principal Grand Blanc High School BOARD or EDUCATION 1‘ v/j” L“!!! C. Mason, WI ”In” M ”hm 1m ‘x . ", ;§ x.- ~ Delores M. Iankki. Vice President 107 Edward I. Parker, Trustee K 1 ? 9].} Ann M. Ford. Secretary Mark 5. telling. trustee “W ‘V/ 7" 108 District Name: Superintendent's Name: Yes, I am approving my school district's par- ticipation in the study comparing institutional climate in unionized (administration) and non- unionized school districts. ] No, I cannot approve my district's participa- . tion in the study. Superintendent of Schools (signature) Mail to: Robert J. Burek, Principal Grand Blanc High School 12500 Holly Road Grand Blanc, MI 48439 Please return by April 15. APPENDIX I LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS FOR PERSONAL PARTICIPATION IN SURVEY 109 ‘Dear I am asking your cooperation in completing the enclosed survey, the results of which form the basis for my dissertation, "A Study of the Perceptions of Unionized and Nonunionized School Administrators Regarding District Organiza- tional Climate". The survey assesses your attitude relative to a number of variables affecting the working environment in your district. As the title of the dissertation suggests, a comparison will be made between a matched sam- ple of 15 unionized and nonunionized school districts in the state of Michigan. Your personal confidentiality and the anonymity of your district will be pre- served in this study. At no time will your name or your district's name be identified in the survey results or in the write-up of the research. From the standpoint of the validity and integrity of the study, it is critical that you complete the survey. You previously endorsed your district's par- ticipation in the study, and, you and four of your district's principals, two elementary and two secondary, have been asked to become involved. The attached sheet contains specific directions to follow in completing the survey and in mailing out the results. If you have any questions regarding the survey, please call me at 313-694—8211, extension 163 or 164. I know that this request comes at the busiest time of the year, and I sincerely appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Robert J. Burek, Principal Grand Blanc High School noun) or toucmon V ~/7 Lillian 6. Mason, President 110 lame: M. Johnson, Trustee r V Delores M. Daniela, Vice President Edward L Parker, 1m All 1’ 9 Q ,3. Ann M. Ford, Secretary Mark 5. Telling. Trustee WW} ' APPENDIX J LETTER TO PRINCIPALS FOR PARTICIPATION IN SURVEY. 111 tints-itlfl‘nTYII m.r:r,.u t “I, . ‘- .1 2.‘ Dear I am asking your cooperation in completing the enclosed survey, the results of which form the basis for my dissertation, "A Study of the Perceptions of Unionized and Nonunionized School Administrators Regarding District Organ- izational Climate". The survey assesses your attitude relative to a number of variables affecting the working environment in your district. As the title of the dissertation suggests, a comparison will be made between a matched sample of 15 unionized and nonunionized school districts in the state of Michigan. Your personal confidentiality and the anonymity of your district will be * preserved in this study. At no time will your name or your district's name be identified in the survey results or in the write-up of the research. From the standpoint of the validity and integrity of the study, it is critical that you complete the survey. Your superintendent has endorsed your district's participation in the study, and he and four of your district's principals, two elementary and two secondary, have been asked to become in- volved. The attached sheet contains specific directions to follow in completing the survey and mailing out the results. If you have any questions regard- ing the survey, please call me at 313—694—8211, extension 163 or 164. I know that this request comes at the busiest time of the year, and I sin- cerely appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Robert J. Burek, Principal Grand Blanc High School noun) or EDUCATION E, ~/4 I \r‘ lillian G. Mason President 1 hansNLkfimumnTnuhe ,, 3\ Delores M Ianiclri, Vice President Edward L Padres, Trustee 9“? Q ' \i 33:: 91- fog-I; _ s...... ,,,, t! 777777 M... 5. ran, rm “is? will APPENDIX K ENDORSEMENT LETTER FROM MICHIGAN ELEMENTARYAND MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ASSOCIATION 113 f ‘11:“ atoms counrrrn — 1'1 or. Jinn Jenn Pro-learn P. 13.6an lomontary x m Iou loo-mm Lakovlow £33an 13 a. film: strut Lawton 4.50 Luna! Itto Mules. Prosldont- Elect rnontary gamma Vllllhn snatch st-Prnsldsnt Community Center School 2900 Won ultoun Auburn Haunts W Gnyllng 4 78 John nloctonoon, Treasurer Oust-r Elementary 5003 w. Alooin flood Monroe 0161“ Robert minim. NAB? Monantatlve Holden Elementary Calla Sterling Mount: M11 “DEMON BRA!" Georgina logo-nun” Currlculurn a gym-Woman Oommunlty Schools Imfl lilo Plimlllml Wflhm Douala Patna-Io Yalrn Bowl-Mary 1600 Carter m mm I's'os'w VE'. '0!th 1 3.. on 3“,? Henry Mn Rosy" Mound Elementary A06 Lakesnoro Drive Gr! no Haven 49611 Poul mm mElornsntary 175 W Sunset Blvd. Rosco masts: MOTH!" SIMr culls Elementary 219 SIMI' Crook Rood ram use: ‘11:) MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY and MlDDlE SCHOOI PRINCIPAIS ASSOCIATION ROOM 9. MANLY MILES BLDG. 0 1405 S. HARRISON RD. EAST LANSING. MICHIGAN 48823 O PHONE 517 353-8770 ~ ~ I. M “y "I on W ”I Dear I have reviewed the rasearch plan of. V'Mr‘L'ngoberty, Burek. His research entitled, "The Perception of {unionized “and Non-Unionized School Administrators Regarding school District Organizational Climate" carries the possibility of providing us with some very meaningful information. - ' ‘ I personally endorse this study and hope the when you receive the questionnaire you will take the time to‘fill it rout and return it to Bob Burek. The results OISE-1'3 research Will be made blown to :MEMSPA members. William‘Mays, Jr. . , _ , Executive Secretary- ‘ '- ' WM:bg 114 Affiliated with The National Association of Elementary School Princlpals APPENDIX L ENDORSEMENT LETTER FROM MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 115 Wich igan :flssocia tion of Secondary School PrincipaIs Executive Director , , , , Bureau of School Services JACK o, BITTLE Sorvrng SECODUJIY AdITIINIStfatOfS Since 7977 401 5. Fourth 5"." A M“ ‘ Associau Director Pram t Presrden' t-Elect Vice-Presoden' t ""133, 76'? 3:748103 ROBERT RODDA WILLIAM J. PAPPAS ROBERT DOCTOR GEORGE SARGEANT Northvicw H.S. Pctoskey H.S. Reed City H.S. Grand Rapids Petoskey Reed City As Executive Director for the Michigan Association of Secondary school Principals, I endorse the work that Bob Bureh;is doing in ”The Perception of unionized and Non- Unionized School Administrators Regarding School District Organizational Climate.“ I hope you.will cooperate in the survey as Bob will make his results known to the :nenbers of MASSP. This could have considerable influence on administrators who are considering organizing. Sincerely yours. /4$ack D. Bittle . Executive Director JOB/11a 116 Affiliated with - Michigan Congress of School Administrator Association / National Association of Secondary School Principals I The University of Michigan APPENDIX M PROFILE OF A SCHOOL—SUPERINTENDENT FROM 117 "I“ Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. Consultants in Organization Diagnosis and Human Resource Development 313-769-1980 August 23, 1982 Mr. Robert Burek 8482 Belle Bluff Grand Blanc, Michigan 48439 Dear Mr. Burek: Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. is pleased to grant you permission to use the Profile of a School (POS) Principal and Superintendent ques- tionnaires in your dissertation research. You may, of course, include a copy of the survey instruments in your bound dissertation. we would very much like to receive a final copy of your report. Good luck. RCS/h 118 Suite 401 Wolverine Tower, 3001. S. State Street, Ann Arbor, Michiaan 48104 PLEASE NOTE: Copyrighted materials in this document have not been filmed at the request of the author. They are available for consultation, however, in the author's university library. These consist of pages: 119-125 127-136 138-139 Uni ' films lntemational 300 N. ZEEB RD.. ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 (313) 761-4700 119 PROFILE OF A SCHOOL form 7 superintendent This questlonnalre is designed to learn more about how students, teachers, principals, central administration, and others can best work together. The aim is to me the information to make your own work, as well as that of your associates and students, more satisfying and productive. . if the results are to be helpful, It is important that you answer each question as thoughtfully and frankly as possible. This is not a test, and there are no right or wrong answers. The answers to the questions are processed by computers which summarize the responses in statistical form so that individuals cannot be identified. To ensure complete confidentiality, pleas do not write your name anywhere on the questionnaire or answer sheet. n. A WW“) 1972. revised renown. Gibson UlrertandReneisleerr Distributed by Rensis Ukerr Associates, inc. Allrlgmareeened. New __ _ _ mmrnmmm MWMWNMUkmmo-rnfs lno mm.Mhhlglna10‘. 120 INSTRUCTIONS Each question has eight possible responses. Please answer by filling one of the numbered circles on the answer sheet. For example, suppose that the question were: m OF‘rEN manna How often doeetheeun shine In your town? 0) ® @ ® © 6’) If you think that the sun shines “often,” you would fill In circle (5) or .You would fill in © If you feel that the situation Is closer to “sometimes.” You would fill in If you feel that the situation Is clmer to “very often." When questions are asked about teachers or students in general, answer the questions to describe the average situation or reaction. it you do not find an answer that exactly fits your needs, use the one that is closest to it. If the question Is not applicable to your situation, please omit answering that question. The answer sheet is designed for automatic processing by computer. Therefore, be sure to follow carefully the specific directions on the answer sheet for marking your responses. BE SURE TO USE THE ANSWER SHEET FOR MARKING YOUR RESPONSES, and not the questionnaire itself. On the back of the answer sheet, please write the name of your school In the space provided. Also, fill in the circle that best describes your position. The person who Is administering the survey should provide you with coding Information to identify your school district, your school, department, and type of school (elementary, junior high, etc). Write the code numbers in the boxes provided. For each number, fill in the circle to the right of the box that corresponds to that number. IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE CODING INFORMATION, PLEASE ASK THE SURVEY ADMINISTRATOR FOR iT. When you have filled In the coding Information, turn to the front of the answer sheet and start with question No. 1. % j How often is your behavior seen as friendly and supportive by: 1. the board of education 2. central staff (such as heads of personnel, curriculum, business and finance, research and planning) 3. principals 4. teachers 5. students Howmuchoonfldenceandtrustdoyouhaveln: 6.theboard [mulfl 8. principals How much confidence and trust do the following have in you: 9. theboard 10. central staff 11. principals Howoftendoyouseekmdueetheldeasand opinionsof: 12. the board 13: central staff 14. principals How often do the following seek and use your ideas: - 15. the board 16. central staff 17. principals What is the general attitude of the following towrdyourechoolsystemasapiacetowork: 18. central St.“ 19. principals How free do the following feel to talk to you about their problems: 20. central staff 21 . principals ' 121 E O @699 9 @@@@ @ @@@@<3<3<><3 o o o o c><3 o o o @ C><3<><3<3<3<3 e o o c><3C><3 o o o c><3<><><3<3<3<3 @ o o o C><>