A STUDY OF CONFLICTS EXPRESSED BY A SELECTED SAMPLE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATORS CONCERNING INVOLVEMENT IN EMPLOYEE NEGOTIATIONS Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JACQUELINE JEAN OATMAN 1970 "'"' ' .. -~:" .. Thee-as r. .A This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF CONFLICTS EXPRESSED BY A SELECTED SAMPLE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATORS CONCERNING INVOLVEMENT IN EMPLOYEE NEGOTIATIONS presented by JACQU EL I N E J EAN OATMAN has. been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH.D. ‘ degree in EDUCATION /J / 0-169 ' LIBRA Michigan State ' “University U ‘ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Wat ABSTRACT A STUDY OF CONFLICTS EXPRESSED BY A SELECTED SAMPLE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATORS CONCERNING INVOLVEMENT IN EMPLOYEE NEGOTIATIONS BY Jacqueline Jean Oatman The purpose of this exploratory study was to investi- gate the intra-individual conflicts arising from involvement in employee negotiations which a sample of public school educators would verbalize about in a personal interview. It was assumed that educators involved in employee negotiations were in a potential conflict producing situation and that it was probable that conflict would occur for those so involved. An Employee Negotiations Conflict Interview was devised. It was employed to conduct personal interviews with a final sample of thirty-two professional educators. Of these thirty- two, eighteen were affiliated with the Flint Education Associ- ation and fourteen with the Flint Federation of Teachers; of the thirty-two, ten were employee negotiations leaders and twenty-two were randomly chosen from the general memberships of the two organizations. Seven categories of possible conflict were defined and interviews submitted to four independent judges for Jacqueline Jean Oatman their evaluation of the number and types of conflict expres- sed in each interview protocol. Findings were that the sample expressed most conflicts in the Self Centered Goals-- Other Centered Goals and Right--Wrong categories; least conflict was expressed in the Lawful--Un1awful category. Thus the sample expressed most conflict between the goals for themselves and goals for others and about the non- statutory right and wrong elements of employee negotiations behavior. Least conflict was expressed about the legality of types of employee negotiations behavior. All interviewees were found by judges to be expressing conflict; judges differed only on the number and types of conflicts rated for each interviewee. Inter-judge agreement for four judges was at 78% for the Lawful--Unlawful category. A high level of agreement was not reached by four judges in any of the other categories. Two judges, however, agreed in 79% of all judgments for all categories. Other pairs of judges did not reach this level of agreement. There were not material differences in expressed con- flicts based on type of organization membership, i.e., union or association or on leader or non-leader role within an organization. It was recommended that greater attention to the general problem of employee negotiations in education and the implications for individual educators be given at the university teacher education level. A STUDY OF CONFLICTS EXPRESSED BY A SELECTED SAMPLE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATORS CONCERNING INVOLVEMENT IN EMPLOYEE NEGOTIATIONS BY Jacqueline Jean Oatman A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Psychology 1970 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It has been my great good fortune to work with Committee Chairman Dr. Louise Sause, throughout these years of graduate study, She has been the teacher whose continual support, assistance and guidance were a treasure freely and generously given and gratefully received. Special thanks are expressed to my colleagues, Dr. Raymond Bodwin, Mrs. James Creamer, Dr. I. Leon Maizlish and Mr. Thomas Ruhala who kindly served as the panel of judges for this study. Without the assistance of the educators in the sample, this study could not have been done. My apprecia- tion to them for assisting yet another student along the way. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 ii LIST OF TABLES o o o o o o o o o o o o o v LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Vi FOREWORD O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The PrOblem. O O O O O O O O O O 1 Related Literature . . . . . . . . 7 Need for Study. . . . . . . . . . 56 The Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . 56 Definitions. . . . . . . . .. . . 56 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Underlying Assumption . . . . . . . 57 Instrument of Investigation . . . . . 58 Areas of Investigation . . . . . . . 58 Limitations I O O O I O O O O O O 59 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 II. CONFLICT THEORY . . . . . . . . . . 61 Pertinent Literature. . . . . . . . 61 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 I I I 9 METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O O O O 8 o The Setting. . . . . . . . . . . 80 General Procedure. . . . . . . . . 83 The sample 0 O 0 O O O O O O O 0 85 Telephone Contact Statement . . . . . 86 The Personal Interview . . . . . . . 87 ENCI O O O O I O O O O O O O O 100 Conflict Categories . . . . . . . . 102 Instructions For Panel . . . . . . . 105 Panel of Judges . . . . . . . . . 107 Data Analysis Procedures . . . . . . 107 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 iii Chapter Page IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA. . . . . . . . . . 109 Inter- -Judge Agreement . . . . . . . 111 Frequency Figures. . . . . . . . 113 Sub- Sample Conflict Means . . . . . . 125 None and Other Categories . . . . . . 127 Qualitative Analysis. . . . . . . . 129 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 V. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS. . . . . . 133 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . 133 Observations . . . . . . . . . . 135 Implications . . . . . . . . . . 137 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . 147 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 BIBLIOGRAPHY. O O O O O O C O O O O O O 150 APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 160 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Inter—judge agreement. . . . . . . . . 112 2. Mean number of conflicts. . . . . . . . 126 Figure Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency of of of of of of of of LIST OF FIGURES conflict for total sample. PU SO LU LD EM RW AI conflict conflict conflict conflict conflict conflict conflict Vi for for for for for for for sub-samples sub-samples sub-samples sub-samples sub-samples sub-samples sub-samples Page 115 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 FOREWORD This study had its origin in the writer's concerns and questions raised in observing and talking with members of professional disciplines involved in employee negotia- tions. The writer had noted that increasingly, public employees in general and professional public employees in particular, seemed to be joining organizations or changing their existing organizations for the purpose of engaging in formal collective negotiations. Observations and dis- cussions with individual members of professions suggested that considerable personal, internal conflict was occurring in a number of those so involved. In the spring of 1968, the writer had the opportunity for some personal experience with several aspects of the problem while working in an agency during the time of employee negotiations. The combination of direct, personal experience and the previous observations and discussions intensified the writer's perceived need for information on the effect of involvement in the negotiations process on individuals. When readings in the area revealed that this was not readily available, it led to formulation of the purpose of this study. vii This study is designed to explore the sorts of intra- individual conflicts which a sample of professional, public school educators will verbalize regarding their involvement in employee negotiations. The personal interview was selected as the investigative tool for this exploratory study. Thus maximum freedom of response is permitted the individual in dealing with the personal material of internal conflicts. In the ensuing chapters, we will look first at the problem of increasing employee negotiations in the sphere of education and thence at the need, purpose and overall plan of this study. Next, material concerned with theory of conflict will be discussed followed by presentation of the methodology or procedures for this study. Final chapters will analyze data obtained and discuss conclusions and recommendations. viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem Employee negotiations in education is increasing but there is a dearth of information about what happens to the individual educator in the course of employee negotiations. It is noted in the literature that former President John F. Kennedy's executive order of 1962 giving federal government employees the right to bargain collectively regarding salary and conditions of employment provided the initial impetus to organization of all segments of public employees, including teachers, for the purpose of collective bargaining with public employers.1 The attempt to organize with the intent of bargaining collectively and to use a major tool of collective bargain- ing, the strike, to gain desired ends, is not new to the educational profession, however. The first teachers' union in the United States was organized in Chicago in 1897 and there has been activity aimed at improving teachers' lots since that time by labor unions and professional education 1"Public Employees Ask For a Better Shake," Business Week, December 3, 1966, 92-98. associations. Since the orgainzation of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) in 1916, teacher union mem- bership has grown from 7,000 in 1930 to 140,000 in 1968 with forty thousand in New York City alone. Of 300,000 college faculty in 1968, ten thousand were unionized, mainly in New York, California, Illinois and Michigan. A 1967 survey published by the American Association of Higher Education says that junior colleges and former teacher colleges will be the first to unionize, basically because these institu- tions lack a system enabling faculty to share in decisions. Marmion in citing these statistics adds his own speculation, that church related institutions also are fertile fields for unionization and that California is most likely to be the first state with a considerable number of unionized college faculty.l Klass who believes that unions are the answer for teachers and who thinks the issue of whether strikes and collective bargaining are acceptable practices for teachers is dead, says that as early as 1932, the Chicago teachers struck to protest working conditions.2 Similar circumstances prevail in England with the National Union of Teachers. The Times Educational Supplement notes that the first known strike of teachers was in 1896 in Portsmouth, England and 1Henry A. Marmion, "Unions and Higher Education," Educational Record, 49 (1968), 41-48. 2 . . Irw1n Klass, "The New Breed of Teacher," The American Federationist, 69 (November, 1962), 1s5. that, "Teachers have been striking, at intervals, for over sixty years-~and almost always about money." The same article provides an interesting forecast, "Teachers have never yet indulged in a national strike, but it is fallacious to believe that professional ethics would prevent them doing so now."1 Some surveys have been done about American teachers' attitudes toward striking. Business Week and Senior Scholastic quote National Education Association (NBA) surveys showing that in 1965, 53% of the nation's teachers 2 favored strikes but in 1967, 59% did. Senior Scholastic goes on to state, "More than half of the nation's teachers favor the use of strikes in extreme situations after other alternatives have failed; eight out of ten teachers favor the use of sanctions."3 Business Week4 and Weisenfeld5 say that in 1967, one fourth of all the nation's teachers were working under collective bargaining agreements. Regarding teacher strikes, they count 129 teacher strikes from 1"Not the First Time: Teachers' Strikes Since 1896," Times Education Supplement, 2397 (April 28, 1961), 841. 2"Where Unions Have the Most Growth Potential," Business Week, (October 21, 1967), 76-78. 3"More Teachers Favor Strikes," Senior Scholastic, 91 (October 26, 1967), 29. 4Business Week, op. cit., pp. 76-78. 5Allan Weisenfeld, "Collective Bargaining by Public Employees," Monthly Labor Review, 89 (June, 1966), 610-12. 1940-1966, 33 in 1966 and estimate more than 75 for 1967. Interestingly, Nesvig cites the figures for public employee strikes including teacher strikes for some of the same years: There were 28 public employee strikes in 1962, 42 in 1965, 150 in 1966 and he estimates, more than 300 for 1967. The same author emphasizes that education is the biggest battleground in public employee strikes and says the disguised or "quasi-strike" such as "blue flu" or "professional days," is also of concern as are mass resigna- tions and work-ins where employees go to work but do not actually work.1 That teacher strikes are on the increase is evident; nearly half of the thirty six teacher strikes from 1960-1966, were in the 1965-66 school year.2 Stinnett says that teacher unions had their formative years from 1902-1920 and states that at the end of this time, in 1920, the NEA was reorganized into a more democratic structure.3 Since that time, NEA has grown to a membership of one million in 1968 with the AFT claiming 151,000 mem- bers the same year. Of note is the fact that AFT membership is centered in the very large cities of the nation, New York lGordon T. Nesvig, "The New Dimensions of the Strike Question," "Collective Negotiations in the Public Service," ed. by F.A. Nigro, Public Administration Review, 28 (March, 1968), 111-47. 2"Teachers on the March," Economist, 222 (March 4! 1967): 829. 3T. M. Stinnett, "Causes of New Militancy Among Teachers," School and Society, 96 (March 2, 1968), 152-55. City, Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia and the like.1 In 1967, NBA had negotiated 93.7% of existing teacher-employer contracts and AFT, three per cent of existing contracts.2 In 1964, the AFT was new to the list of unions with 100,000 or more members.3 Similar growth in unionized employees is true for public employees in general. Business Week states that public employees are currently the area of greatest union growth and unrest and goes on to say, " . . . wage levels that lag behind those in private industry have created a militance . . ."4 In 1966, the American Federa- tion of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) had 300,000 members at the state and local levels while AFT had 113,000 at the same levels. From 1963-1966, membership in AFT increased 69% and in AFSCME, 26%. Ten per cent of the members of AFSCME are college trained.5 In April, 1966, the figure for state and local government employees who were union members was only seven per cent of the total number so employed.6 l"Why Teachers Strike." Newsweek, 71 (March 25' 1968)' 63. 2Victor Riesel, "Blackboard Power," Michigan Education Journal, 45 (November, 1967), l. 3H. P. Cohany, "Trends and Changes in Union Member- ship," Monthly Labor Review, 89 (May, 1966), 510-13. 4"Public Employees Ask For a Better Shake," Business Week, (December 3, 1966), 92. 5Ibid., pp. 92-98. 6"Settlement of Disputes in Public Employment," Monthly Labor Review, 89 (April, 1966), iii-iv. Jerry Wurf, president of AFSCME believes that this union has a potential membership of two million exclusive of teachers since they have their own union. He says that of the three groups of public employees included in this union, blue collar, white collar and professional, the latter group is the growing group.1 Cohany states that in federal service, organized by the American Federation of Government Employees, fifty per cent of the union members are white collar and states that unions generally are gain- ing more public, and more white collar, employees in their membership.2 In general, consensus seems to be that the AFL-CIO is very anxious to establish itself in the growing white collar and professional occupations.3 Further consensus is that in large part, the competition for teacher membership from this union has been responsible for pushing the NEA to greater action in behalf of its educator membership. Rivalry between AFT and NBA is called, " . . . the most important single factor in the startling spread of the teachers' labour movement."4 lJerry Wurf, "Coming: Unionized Government," U.S. News and World Report, 61 (September 26, 1966), 96«99. 2Cohany, op. cit., pp. 510-13. 3"Teachers Learn to Strike," Economist, 203 (April 14, 1962), 152. 4"Teachers on the March," Economist, 222 (March 4' 1967), 829. Thus, the past few years have seen rapid growth in organization for, and participation in, employee negotia- tions in education. This has been a part of a movement among professional, public employees in general. A review of additional, related literature is enlightening in looking further at the problem of increasing employee negotiations in education and the effect on the individual educator. Related Literature Now, in the decade of the nineteen sixties, teachers have become more actively militant in seeking redress of employment grievances. Numerous authors attempting to explain this state that teachers have suffered from low salaries, little voice in conditions of employment and treatment less than fitting for the status of a professional person. Beyond this, however, authors reviewed separate on what is seen as the primary reason for greater action and specifically, greater militancy on the part of teachers as a total group. Several authors conclude that "power," the lack of, and desire for, is the primary motivating force. "Public Schools, Pursuit of Power"1 appearing in Time Magazine concludes that in spite of their rivalry for teacher member- ship, both the NBA and the AFT agree that teachers are determined to have a say in the things which affect them. The article cites Albert Shanker, president of the New York lTime, 90 (September 22, 1967), 43-44. City federation of teachers' union as saying that teachers want power and further that present day teachers cannot be held responsible for the failures of schools because they have no power over vital factors such as curriculum, dis- cipline, teaching innovations and the like. Victor Riesel, well known labor writer labels the struggle between the AFT and the NEA for membership in the following way: "Blackboard power is the name of the game, . . . ." "Blackboard power will mean--eventua11y--terrific influence over the nation's youth. There is the real issue."1 Wildman2 writing on the causes of greater teacher militancy states that teachers usually mobilize because of salary but that their basic motive is power. He quotes Donald Wollett, attorney for NBA, "'Teachers have, . . . , a kind of one-dimensional professionalism-professional responsibility without professional authority.”3 West discusses his view that salary and working conditions are important but that even more important is the belief that a teacher only is supposed to teach and never have a hand in policy making or administering. He feels that new teachers are providing much of the impetus for change and states, "They understand that professionalism is not synonymous with lRiesel, op. cit., p. 1. 2Wesley A. Wildman, "What Prompts Greater Teacher Militancy?” American School Board Journal, 154 (March, 1967), 27-32. 3 Ibidol p. 280 subservience. They insist that professionalism gives them rights as well as responsibilities-- . . . to have the right of full partners in making those decisions that affect the conditions under which teachers teach and children learn."1 Blanke lists six powerful social forces which he feels will cause collective teacher action to become a part of all school systems and says that increased professionalism of teachers will cause greater conflict between teachers and administration because the professional feels responsible to suggest and implement improvements.2 Other factors cited as reasons or explanations for greater teacher action and militancy run the gamut from specific current issues, e.g., salary, to general, long term, historical issues, e.g., piled up frustrations. For example, Labor Month in Review says, " . . . economic demands continue to be the major cause of teacher strikes as well 3 as other public employee strikes." U.S. News and World Report in February, 1968 ran an article titled, "Why Teachers 4 It cites NEA Strike: Too Little Pay, Too Much Work." figures showing that when compared with non-professionals, teacher's salaries have risen faster than many other groups 1Allan M. West, "What's Bugging Teachers," Saturday Review, 48 (October 16, 1965), 88. 2Virgil E. Blanke, "Teachers in Search of Power," Educational Forum, 30 (January, 1966), 231438, 3"Settlement of Disputes in Public Employment," Monthly Labor Review, 89 (April, 1966), iii-iv. 4 84-85. U.S. News and World Report, 64 (February 19, 1968), 10 but that when compared with other college graduates holding a bachelor's degree, only a secretary had an average annual starting salary lower than a teacher. The following month, Newsweek in an article also titled, "Why Teachers Strike,"l says that the changing nature of the teaching force explains the new militancy. The fact that one half of all public school teachers today are men, that teachers are young and aggressive and that teaching jobs are plentiful provides reason for increased militancy and for strikes. Sam M. Lambert, NEA Executive Secretary is quoted as saying that teacher strikes in the winter of 1968 are, "' just the '"2 Berube prelude to really big trouble in the years ahead. writing about a strike at St. John's University in New York City discusses why college professors picket.3 He says that with college expansion, the college professor finds himself in a "hired hand" role as a "cog in a giant educational industry" and that this leads to dissatisfaction. At St. John's, when the administration ignored the American Associa- tion of University Professors attempting to speak for the faculty, this group joined with the United Federation of College Teachers, a local union of the AFT in revolt and struck the university in January, 1966. lNewsweek, 71 (March 25, 1968), 63. 21bid., p. 63. 3Maurice R. Berube, "Strike at St. John's: Why the Professor's Picket," Nation, 202 (February 14, 1966), 172-74. 11 Stinnett also cites the feeling of being but a cog in a machine as one of three causes of teacher militancy.1 He lists as causes: " . . . mounting anger of teachers with economic injustice specifically and with the relative economic neglect of schools generally."2; " . . . changed working conditions and the changed fabric of the teaching profession."; " . . . the hunger to be a real part of a creative enterprise, not cogs in a well-oiled machine."3 Dorothy Rogers suggests that the stereotype of a teacher held by the public leads to poor salaries and low self esteem on the part of the individual teacher.4 Her study asked a sample of elementary teachers and college students preparing to become elementary school teachers to select adjectives they felt the public might use in describ- ing a typical teacher. Results showed that the average sample member thought that the public's opinion of a teacher was generally unflattering and that the following specific descriptions applied: average intelligence, conventional, self reliant, unselfish and cheerful. The author feels that changing the sterotype is necessary if teachers are to be leaders in today's world. lStinnett, op. cit., pp. 152-55. 21bid., p. 152. 31bid., p. 153. 4Dorothy Rogers, "Implications of Views Concerning the 'Typical' School Teacher," Journal of Educational Sociology, 23 (1950), 482-87. 12 Cass and Birnbaum state that the battle between AFT and NBA for members and control is an important factor in teacher militancy but that job satisfaction is equally important.1 They state, " . . . it seems clear that when other professional rewards are lacking, the emphasis on salaries rises."2 The push for members and control on the part of the two groups is, in the authors' opinion, because it is the economic and political power of a group which wins increased salaries and status from society. These authors introduce an interesting explanation for the increase in teacher militancy now; they state that the reason teachers could slip the "middle class behavior mold" and picket in the streets is because of the 1960's acceptance of civil disobedience, protests and demonstrations which made it acceptable. Further, they feel that teachers feel more alienated from school and community as everything gets larger and more involved and that while today's teachers are better educated, they are less dedicated and more pragmatic. This plus the feeling of alienation leads to teacher group soli- darity and militancy which in turn increases alienation. Once the circle is established, the militant approach can become self-perpetuating. lJames Cass and Max Birnbaum, "What Makes Teachers Militant," Saturday Review, 51 (January 20, 1968), 54-56. 2 Ibid., p. 54. 13 Another article lists four reasons for teachers unionizing: more men in teaching, more from working class backgrounds, more Negroes and better trained teachers, i.e., 90% with Bachelor's degrees and 25% with Master's degrees. The article further states, "Militancy has paid off." Salaries have risen rapidly. " . . . it is not surprising that the teacher of the nineteen sixties is less worried about the blue collar connotation of collective bargaining and more determined to get good pay for an exacting, pro- fessional job."l Klass states, "The time lag toward educational reform, plus the nagging grievances inherent in a metropolitan school system, made the issue of whether teacher strikes and collective bargaining are acceptable practices in the 'profession' sound hollow, the archaic echoes of a period when the subdued and colorless image of the teacher pre- vailed."2 It seems clear that increased teacher action, militancy, bargaining, striking and the like, have benefited teachers at least in tangible economic ways. Several writers point out that teacher salary has risen rapidly although it is still behind that of comparable professional groups. For example, Gibberd points out that in Britain, current teacher l"Teachers on the March." Economist, 222 (March 4’ 1967): 829. 2Klass, op. cit., p. l. 14 . . l . . . salaries represent 1938 purcha51ng power. Likew1se, in non salary, economic benefits, gains have been made. Senior Scholastic quotes results of a 1966 AFT survey of 413 school systems. The report indicates, " . . . dramatic improvements have taken place in the critical areas of teacher fringe benefits and teacher working conditions." The article cites a statement by Charles Cogen, AFT president. "'However, it is clear that teachers still have a long way to go until H,2 they catch up with their private industry colleagues. . . . There have been other results too. U.S. News and World Report states that the bill for higher teacher salaries worries the taxpayer. The article states that the total 1968 expense for United States public schools was over thirty one billion dollars and that local governments spent 53.7% of their tax money on public schools.3 Other results have been to develop national and inter- national standards for teachers and teacher benefits. For example, as a result of a 1967 Montreal teacher strike, Mr. Daniel Johnson, government leader of the province of Quebec, pushed through a law banning teacher strikes until July, 1968. The law also set a uniform provincial salary lKathleen Gibberd, "Teachers in Revolt," New Statesman, 74 (July 21, 1967), 78. 2"Teacher Benefits; Fringe Benefits and Working Condi- tions," Senior Scholastic, 88 (March 25, 1966), 4. 3"Why Teachers Strike: Too Little Pay, Too Much Work." U.S. News and World Report, 64 (February 19, 1968), 84-85. 15 scale and provided for government negotiation of teacher contracts rather than for local school board negotiation.l It is of note that another author, West, stated that the negotiating process poses a major threat to local autonomy, " . . . since the new breed of teacher is right, he will ultimately prevail. Prolonged intransigence by school boards can only deepen and widen the area of conflict."2 On an international level, experts from 29 nations working through NEA, UNESCO and the International Labor Organization met in Geneva in 1965 and agreed on recommendations regarding teacher preparation standards and conditions of employment.3 Again on a national level, Gibberd4 in discussing the Con- ference of the National Union of Teachers in England describes it as refusing to take stands and taking a very conservative posture in the face of current problems. "At a time when education is exploding with new ideas this, the largest and most important of teachers' conferences, mostly talks about things which have been discussed before."5 She goes on to luclobbering the Teachers," Economist, 222 (February 25, 1967): 721. 2 West, op. cit., p. 88. 3"Improving Teachers' Status World-Wide," National Education Association Journal, 55 (April, 1966), 45-45, 4Kathleen Gibberd, "Conservative NUT," New Statesman, 73 (March 24, 1967), 402-3, 5 Ibid., p. 402. 16 point out that the group will not deal with the questions of pay differentials or teacher aides or that if it does, it is only to take a stand against such things. Pertinent to long term considerations for educators are attitudes already present and developing around the question of how teachers achieve their employment goals. Most attitudes surveyed can be grouped into two categories, for the negotiating-striking process and against it. Several authors suggest alternatives which merit consideration. Writers whose attitudes are favorable to teacher organizations' current techniques cite several favorable results. For example, Mary Griffin discussing the role of teacher organizations as change agents states, " . . . teacher organizations seem to be shaping school policy and public understanding."1 Raskin quotes Shanker, president of the New York City teachers' union as saying that teachers have learned that striking nets gains that cannot be obtained in any other way.2 In an NBA opinion poll of public school classroom teachers asking, "Do you believe public school teachers should ever strike?", 53% said yes in 1965 and 59% said yes in 1967 to the same question. Opposition to strikes decreased most sharply in the Northeast with the West lMary D. Griffin, "Teacher Organizations as Change Agents," School and Society, 96 (April 13, 1968), 242-43. 2A. H. Raskin, "Strikes by Public Employees," Atlantic, 221 (January, 1968), 46-51. 17 showing greatest opposition to strikes. Strike support was greatest in schools of more than three thousand pupils, among secondary rather than elementary teachers and among men than among women. More teachers, almost 80%, favor sanctions compared to the 59% favoring strikes.1 Carr reports on an International Magna Charta for Teachers.2 This prOposes that teachers be full partners with government and other authority which employs teachers. It also states that after exhausting all avenues to settle disputes between employer and employee, teachers should have the right to take the same steps cpen to other organizations in defense of their legitimate interests. In addition, certainly NEA at a national policy level and AFT at the same level have favored the right for teachers' organizations to use a number of means, including strike, to obtain their several goals. On the other side, however, a number of writers cite reasons for opposing such behavior on the part of teacher groups while some others merely spell out some inherent problems without taking a personal position about the right or wrong of various solutions. 1"Teacher Opinion Poll; Strikes and Sanctions," National Education Association Journal, 56 (October, 1967), 38-39. 2William G. Carr, "An International Magna Charta for Teachers," National Education Association Journal, 55 (December, 1966), 42-44, 18 George Taylor writing on the public interest in educa- tional collective negotiations states, "Assertion by teachers of the right to strike, in my opinion, not only interferes with the fashioning of effective procedures but is viewed by the public as an infringement upon its fundamental inter- ests."1 He states that the primary function of an employee organization is to improve the well-being of its membership but that this, in the case of teachers, must be reconciled with public demand for extensive improvement in the quality of education and the productivity of educators. In the end, both administrative and teacher organizations must satisfy the public which is basically different than the group which must be satisfied in private sector negotiations.2 He goes on to say that, "The greatest concern of the public about collective negotiations in education . . . whether the pro- cess will improve or decrease the chances of developing an educational program adapted to the needs of a changing world." "The traditional organizational structure, i.e., the board-administrator-teacher relationship, has become increasingly ill-adapted to meet the public interests, diverse and conflicting, and the public has failed to respond to the simple argument that 'nothing is wrong that 1George W. Taylor, "The Public Interest in Collective Negotiations in Education," Phi Delta Kappan, 48 (September, 1966) I 210 21bid., pp. 16-22. 19 more money won't cure.”l Similarly, Holzman states that teachers, " . . . are getting trapped between the rising antagonism of the general public and the professional poli- ticians who have to account for public funds." As a result, he points out that the American Association of School Admin- istrators at its March, 1968 convention reached consensus to start open warfare against strikes. He also quotes George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, "'Perhaps the best answer in this field is some system by which unions of these employees could subscribe to a voluntary arbitration, handed down by an impartial party and binding on both sides.”2 A number of comments culled from news media in 1967 yield some information about attitudes toward teacher strikes.3 From an article in the Christian Science Monitor regarding the need to find techniques which permit teachers to obtain a fair shake without jeopardizing the public interest, "The communities must find ways to make teacher- school board negotiation work. And teachers must help find "4 it. The Williamston (Michigan) Enterprise attributed difficulties in professional negotiations to communication failure between teachers and school boards. The New York lIbid., p. 17. 2Seymour Holzman, "Teacher Militancy: It's Only the Beginning," Senior Scholastic, 92 (March 21, 1968), 4 3"Comments by the News Media on Teachers and Strikes," Michigan Education Journal, 45 (November, 1967), 38-39. 4 Ibid., p. 38. 20 Timgp stated that the New York City teachers' strike set a bad example for children and encouraged other groups to break the law. Since New York's Taylor Law provided for mediation of disputes but forbid striking, teacher behavior was considered especially negative. The Times stated, "The city cannot yield to UFT (United Federation of Teachers) irresponsibility." Similarly, the Detroit Free Press stated, "What troubles us is the ability of a group of teachers to defy state laws forbidding public employees to strike and to dictate salary schedules unrelated to a school board's reasonable prospects of meeting them."1 In 1963, while teachers were wanting stronger sanctions from NBA and to withhold services to obtain desired ends, the National Association of School Boards went on record as refusing to countenance sanctions, boycotts or strikes. In addition, this association strongly opposed collective bar- gaining for teachers.2 A New York correspondent writing about public service and public interest says, " . . . over- whelming weight of legal authority is that a strike against 3 the state is a form of rebellion and therefore illegal." Raskin4 cites historical opposition to public employee 1Ibid., p. 39. 2"Militant Teachers," Economist, 203 (JUIY 13: 1963)! 129. 3"Public Service and Public Interest," Economist, 221 (December 17, 1966), 1245-46. 4Raskin, op. cit., pp. 46-51. 21 strikes from Governor of Massachusetts, Calvin Coolidge in 1919, President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937, Mayors LaGuardia and Wagner of New York and President John F. Kennedy in 1962. He states that the rapid growth of govern- ment as an employer has led to erosion of the no strike against government rule and the most basic question to be answered is whether the prohibition on strikes against government can be made to work. He suggests that assess- ment of the no strike position must look at the question of the essentialness of the public service in question to know whether such a strike can be permitted. Likewise, he feels that the question of whether both the public employee and the public are getting a fair shake must be looked at and quotes Albert Shanker of the New York City Teachers' Union as saying that they have learned that striking obtains gains. they cannot obtain in any other way. Raskin suggests that part of current public employee turmoil, " . . . is the general rebellion against all institutions, and what insti- tution is stuffier, more tradition-ridden than government itself?"l Boutwell responding to the question of whether it is right for teachers to strike since they are public employees, states the opinion that it will be years before agreement is reached on the question of the right to strike. In the interim Boutwell says that while the law forbids it, teachers 1Ibid., p. 50. 22 do it anyway. He does favor negotiations and states that 1 teachers have a right to speak and to be heard. A Life magazine editorial says that the public is against strikes of public employees. The writer states that new laws are needed to insure that all three parties, the public, the public employer and the public employee, are dealt with fairly.2 The negative propaganda use of information about teacher strikes and student demonstrations about this and other issues, is illustrated in an article in a Greek language newspaper circulated in an Albanian mountain town. The essence of this press coverage is that capitalists control education in the United States and keep it from the poor. For this reason, youth in America are demonstrating, according to this article.3 Some writers state strong, clear convictions that strikes and negotiating processes will not work or are wrong. Lesure states, ” . . . the strike, or the sanction, or black- listing as a bargaining weapon is not, in the long run, in the best interest of teachers." "Strikes or sanctions and professional recognition are mutually exclusive--teachers cannot have it both ways." He equates the techniques of union strikes and NBA sanctions with coercion and extortion 1William D. Boutwell, "What's Happening in Education," PTA Magazine, 61 (January, 1967), 17-18. 2"Strikes That Can't be Tolerated." Lifer 64 (March 1: 1968), 4. 3"Closed School Doors," Atlas, 12 (July, 1955)! 37‘38° 23 and feels that these will obtain neither professional pres- tige nor really high salaries for teachers.1 John Maguire2 says that professional negotiations are not the answer and suggests that teachers can and should learn from history. He states that a look at the American labor movement shows, " . . . the major successes of trade unionism in the United States have come through political action rather than through collective bargaining."3 Maguire urges teachers to become politically active, to endorse and campaign for people in agreement with them and cautions that collective bargaining is only one step in the process. Wesley Wildman4 of the Industrial Relations Center of the University of Chicago says that strikes of public employees do not make sense because public services are monopolies created by the public for essential services and without competition, the strike loses its effectiveness. He states that, "Collective bar- gaining . . . is essentially a power relationship and a process of power accomodation, with emphasis on compromise and concession in matters over which there is conflict 5 between the parties involved." Instead of strikes to end 1James S. Lesure, "And Gladly Strike?" Saturday Review, 49 (February 19, 1966), 79. 2John W. Maguire, "Professional Negotiations are not the Answer,“ School and Society, 96 (April 13, 1968), 241-42. 3 Ibid., p. 241. 4Wesley A. Wildman, "Conflict Issues in Negotiations," Monthly Labor Review, 89 (June, 1966), 617-20. 5 Ibid., p. 617. 24 bargaining impasses, Wildman recommends fact finding, mediation and arbitration. He states that, "Rationality, principle, and understanding in depth of all the problems of running a school district will be the weapons here, not the simple exercise of collective power."l Many writers have seen the basic issue in all of the teacher turmoil regarding strikes, sanctions, negotiations, organization membership and the like as revolving around the question of professional versus unprofessional behavior for teachers. In large part, these writers equate profes- sional with membership in NBA and its affiliates and unpro- fessional with trade union or AFT membership. For example, Starie and Spatafora cite three major differences between NBA and AFT in program, method and philosophy. They state that teacher welfare is the total union program but only a part of the NBA program; they see as the two major purposes of NBA, to elevate the character and advance the interests of the teaching profession. Regarding method, the authors believe that the union thrives on conflict and the NBA on cooperation. In philosophy, they see the AFT as having allegiance to the working class but the NBA believing that teaching is a profession, as having allegiance to all, not 1Ibid., p. 620. 25 just to a special group.1 Batchelder2 writes in the same vein about the struggle between AFT and NBA which he describes as unionism versus professionalism. "The fundamental issue, therefore, is the union approach to teaching and to public 3 "Basic dis- education versus the professional approach." agreement between the NBA and the AFT may be concisely stated in two words: responsibility and independence."4 He sees the problem as one of responsible, honorable action and independence in teaching as opposed to the union which claims allegiance to all others in the labor movement and conflicts with the position of NBA that teachers cannot gear teaching to a special interest group. Batchelder states, "The free- dom and independence of the educational process are at stake. The outcome will affect the public as well as teachers.“5 "The teaching profession must not become embroiled in second- ary boycotts arising from labor disputes."6 He feels that contrary to the NBA position, unions want teachers to be a 1John H. Starie and Jack Spatafora, "Union or Profes- sional Membership: A Matter of Philosophy and Program," National Education Association Journal, 51 (March, 1962), 80-81. 2Richard D. Batchelder, "Unionism Versus Profession- alism in Teaching," National Education Association Journal, 55 (April, 1966), 18-20. 3Ibid., p. 18. 41bid., p. 19. 51bid., p. 19. 6Ibid., p. 20. 26 union member first and a teacher second. Likewise, Shoben deals with the question of professionalism.1 Regarding the New York City teachers' strike he says, the UFT was big enough to put the school board over a barrel and did so. He goes on to say, "There are, however, some troubling facts and implications here that thoughtful men cannot ignore. These matters go to the heart of the nature of teaching as a profession and bear strongly on the future of the educa- tional occupations."2 He cites three major areas which he feels must be considered. First, regarding the question of an illegal strike, Shoben states, "Unless one feels that the ends justify means, the fact that the additional money is rightly deserved and long overdue for most--not a11--of New York's teachers is quite beside the point."3 The second concerns the question of, " . . . whether teachers in some larger sense have a 'right' to strike." He says in respbnse, "In voluntarily entering the profession of education, do not teachers obligate themselves to the children who are educa- tion's object?"4 He sees the teachers' strike as an action against children, a refusal to render promised service to them. Thirdly, he believes that New York teachers operated 1E. J. Shoben, "When Teachers Strike," Teachers College Record, 65 (November, 1963), 164-67. 2 Ibid., p. 164. 31bid., pp. 164-65. 4Ibid., p. 165. 27 on the principle that might makes right and generally allied themselves with trades rather than professions and in so doing, set a poor example for children. He states, " . . . in resorting to the strike, New York's teachers . . . were not acting as a profession. . . ." "In using the ultimate weapon of labor, teachers have defined themselves as hired hands, . . . ."1 Shoben expresses his belief that teachers should take a firm approach to get what they need and should have but feels that it must be more professional, i.e., not labor union. Cohodes agrees saying, "All that's left to stOp teachers from acting like plumbers and longshoremen is the wobbly notion that teaching is a profession." He goes on to say, "Teachers, we suggested may be getting more than they bargained for when they strike. What they're getting, we contended, is a black eye among those who believe that a profession should be concerned with service 2 Arbuckle rather than with coercion of communities." writes, "Teachers today appear to want the best of two worlds: the status of the professional, but the level of responsibility of organized labor; the financial return of the professional, but the hours of organized labor."3 He lIbid., p. 166. 2A. Cohodes, "Teachers May Lose More Than They Bargain For," Nations Schools, 79 (January, 1967), 37. 3Dugald S. Arbuckle, "Professional or Technician?" Education Digest, 33 (November, 1967), 12. 28 further states that when teachers insist that there is no way to evaluate them as often happens in union or non- professional organizations, the end result is that good and poor teachers get the same salary. He maintains that teachers can and should be evaluated and that very large salaries should be paid to the few teachers who are capable of producing at very high levels. He points out that pro- fessionals as opposed to technicians, are rewarded for individual effort and skill and ask reward based on actual not assumed, production. The professional is willing to risk a meager return for the possibility of high remunera- tion while the technician wants a guarantee for everyone. He further states that union bargaining makes each individual a thing and does not deal with each teacher as an individual.1 Arthur Corey2 writing about courses open to teachers if professional negotiations fail states that for teachers, the strike is inappropriate, unprofessional, illegal, out- moded and ineffective. He sees the strike as inapprOpriate because the public employer does not have unlimited money and loses nothing in a strike as does the private employer who loses sales and money. Further, he says that a public strike is a threat to the public welfare and government and therefore cannot be permitted. Corey labels a strike lIbido, pp. 12-150 2Arthur F. Corey, "Why Teacher Strikes Must be Rejected by the Profession,” Nations Schools, 70 (September, 1962), 69-72. 29 unprofessional citing the opinion that a professional's first duty is to his patient and second to himself. He states that any practitioner who reverses this order is a quack according to Oliver Wendell Holmes. He says, " . . . professional ends may not be gained by unprofessional means."1 The fact that a strike breaks a contract and that this is against the ethics code of teachers, makes a strike unethical. He clearly states that a teachers' strike is a strike against children. Since laws deny the right of public employees to strike, such a strike is illegal and Corey sees it as outmoded because in his opinion, strikes are progressively less effective even in the private sector. He feels that the strike is an ineffective weapon because teachers are no better off after, than before, recent teacher strikes in his opinion. In summary, Corey favors sanctions as an appropriate step if negotiations fail; he sees sanctions as effective, ethical, professional and with the advantage of a local group being backed by state and national associations as well. Melby joins with others in urging professional unity through professional association to meet current educational challenges. He states that unions do not create a free, creative and independent 1Arthur F. Corey, "Strikes or Sanctions? What Should Teachers Do If Professional Negotiations Fail?" National Education Association Journal, 51 (October, 1962), 14. 3O profession which he feels teaching must be in order to do right by children.1 On the other side, Lieberman says teachers often do not strike because most think it unprofessional and further believe that public employees should not do so. He cites other professions' codes of ethics which demand withdrawal of services under certain circumstances, e.g., the lawyer whose client wants to use unethical means. Lieberman says that teachers should be obligated to withdraw services under certain circumstances. While he sees nothing which should automatically negate teacher strikes and writes in defense of same, he concludes that teachers should develop tech- niques for resolving issues without needing to resort to striking.2 Robert Bruker3 in line with the recent coloring book fad says that a current Educator's Coloring Book would contain a picture titled, "I am a teacher, color me humble." However, Son of Educator's Coloring Book would show a picture, "I am a teacher, color me sick and tired." He states, "It has become fashionable for persons outside of teaching to tell teachers how to do their jobs."4 He quotes Professor 1Ernest O. Melby, "Advancing the Cause of Education," National Education Association Journal, 52 (1963), 29, 2Myron Lieberman, "Teachers' Strikes: Acceptable Strategy?", Phi Delta Kappan, 46 (January, 1965), 237- 3Robert M. Bruker, "Color Me Humble," Clearing House, 42 (September, 1967), 33-35. 4 Ibid., p. 33. 31 Harold Benjamin, "'Free men cannot be taught properly by slaves. Courageous citizens cannot be well educated by scared hired men.”1 Bruker feels that teaching is an underdeveloped profession with no effective organization because teachers do not govern or discipline themselves. They do not establish the requirements for admission to the profession and have no organized body of knowledge which a new person must learn in order to be admitted. He favors combining NBA and AFT with compulsory membership for all teachers and with the goal of building a true profession. He feels that, " . . . professionalism and economic welfare complement each other."2 Therefore, he does not feel that negotiations are unprofessional. Bruker feels that when teachers demand mutual respect, trust and equality, they will get it and salaries, and will be considered profes- sional as well. George Brooks presents a case for teachers' unions based on the premise that teachers' interests are different from the interests of administration and that administrative decisions often have political overtones. For this reason, he feels teachers need unions and feels that the union best can articulate the teachers' interest. He says, "To assume that the interests of the teachers will always have priority or will even be carefully protected by the administrator is lIbid., p. 34. 21bid., p. 35. 32 a patent absurdity. The special interests of the teacher need articulation and representation. And for this purpose, only a union is well designed."1 Dorros of NBA replies with a case for an independent professional teachers' association, " . . . independent professional associations provide structure and program for both the cooperative promotion of the broad professional goals of all educators for the good of the student and society and for the effective protection and advancement of the special interests of the classroom teacher."2 Posey in 1968 states, "The policy of the NBA is now hardly distinguishable from that of the AFT, and it may well be that Lieberman and Moskow's prediction that the NBA and the AFT may ultimately merge will come to pass."3 He feels that the use of union tactics by teachers and the increased militancy of teachers specifically and public employees generally is because it yields success. Further, he presents the opinion that teachers' use of union tactics is not an abandonment of professionalism; union concerns for smaller classes, teacher aides and the demand 1George Brooks, "A Case for Teachers' Unions," Monthly Labor Review, 87 (March, 1964), 292. 2Sidney Dorros, "The Case for Independent Professional Teachers' Associations," Monthlnyabor Review, 87 (May, 1964), 543. 3Rollin B. Posey, "The New Militancy of Public Employ- ees," "Collective Negotiations in the Public Service," ed. by F. A. Nigro, Public Administration Review, 28 (March, 1968), 115. 33 for better public service is professional according to Posey.l Doherty presents some interesting research data regarding attitudes toward labor of teachers who grew up in blue-collar families. He says that in the past teachers were almost exclusively from the middle class but now are being drawn from blue-collar workers' families. In the past, schools have emphasized the violent role of labor and ignored the more positive aspects but now teachers will present less anti-labor bias in class presentations, according to him. However, he sees blue-collar background teachers as handi- capped in another way. Using a sample from New York State College students preparing to be social studies teachers, an attitude scale showed that those who were children of blue-collar, union member fathers shared the same anti-labor bias of farm and white-collar background students. Students with a union background showed more cynicism about unions than others and some indicated that teachers' unions were the answer for teachers. Doherty theorizes that these results are influenced by the fact that teaching is a way into the middle class for blue-collar children and that they wish to shed anything which smacks of their blue—collar lIbid., pp. 111—47. 34 background, e.g., unions.1 Wildman2 explains the drive for union organization of teachers; he points out that the public school teacher is a unique public employee in that he is also white-collar and professional. He says that trade unionists hope that organizing teachers will push other white-collar workers to identify and associate and will diminish the, " . . . predominantly blue-collar image of organized labor . . . "3 Darland4 says that it is good that individual teachers want a part in governing their own profession, e.g., through the results of negotiations. He states, "We sense a new day dawning. . . . Teachers are refusing to be mere 'Bureaucratic functionaries' and they are saying so through action. They are demanding new rights, protections, oppor- tunities for involvement in their business." He feels, however, that teachers should be concerned with education as a whole, not with just the teaching profession. He suggests that this is a legitimate area for academic study; "Surely the question of how the teaching profession is to 1Robert E. Doherty, "Attitudes Toward Labor: When Blue-Collar Children Become Teachers," School Review, 71 (1963): 87-96. 2Wesley A. Wildman, "Collective Action by Public School Teachers," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 18 (October, 1964), 3-19, 3 Ibid., p. 8. 4D. D. Darland, "It is Academically Respectable," Journal Teachers Education, 15 (December, 1964), 355-56. 35 be governed deserves more attention than it is now receiving. In our free society, it is a respectable area of academic concern, with profound sociological and political implica- tions."1 Darland's hope is that the present activity in negotiations might trigger the establishment of such study. Unlike many writers, Carr suggests that there are dangers to public education in union programs.2 He feels that since the union has policies on economic and social issues which it advances through political commitments, this is a dangerous alliance for teachers who should be for all people, not just for a special interest group. He states, "The . . . major problem . . . arises from the continuing efforts of the AFL-CIO to take over the teaching 3 On the opposite side, John Livingston4 profession." writing about higher education quotes Thorsteen Veblen on why professors will not engage in collective bargaining, "'a feeling prevalent among them that their salaries are not of the nature of wages, and that there would be a species of moral obliquity implied in overtly so dealing with the matter.”5 Livingston says this is not so much the case now lIbid., p. 356. 2William G. Carr, "The Assault of Professional Independ- ence," Phi Delta Kappan, 46 (September, 1964), 17-18. 3 Ibid., p. 17. 4John C. Livingston, "Collective Bargaining and Pro- fessionalism in Higher Education," Educational Record, 48 (1967), 79-88. 5 Ibid., p. 79. 36 with California State Colleges leading the way with AFT unions. He sees union tactics as, " . . . the only effective means to enforce and maintain standards appropriate to the profession." "The charge of 'unprofessional conduct'p therefore, is irrelevant to what is going on, unless we examine more closely the nature of our professional commit- ment and its pertinence to current practices." He states that younger faculty see the ritual appeal to professionalism as a dodge to make poverty more genteel. Livingston says, " . . . many faculty unionists see it (collective bargaining) as the best way of recovering and revitalizing professional ideals which have been corrupted, distorted, and enfeebled." " . . . traditional practices have undermined rather than promoted professionalism."l He states that self imposed faculty hierarchy, merchandising of education and a commit- ment to intellectual integrity and a life of reason which is incompatible with the politics of public higher education are the traditional practices against professionalism. He says that the, " . . . market place values in the academic pecking order . . . ", promote unionism and that, "Younger faculty often see collective bargaining as a means to rescue the professional ideal, and their professional images of themselves, from the phony professionalism of faculty evaluation." He goes on to say that peer evaluation equals, 1Ibid., p. 80. 37 "A form of ritual cannibalism which no other profession has inflicted upon itself, . . . "1 He concludes that a desire for protection from competition, protection from the publish or perish dictum, attracts faculty to union and desire to protect the integrity of the profession from peer evalua- tion, from the tendency to curry favor to gain a good evaluation leads to a union. He suggests that unionists may be more professional in these respects than traditional faculty. Regarding collective bargaining, he says, " . . . my own experience leads me to conclude that genuinely pro- fessional considerations have much greater weight in the collective bargaining movement than do economic ones."2 Lortie3 addressing himself to the question of profes- sional, what it is and whether teachers are, states, " . . . professionalization . . . process in which an occupational group develops in a direction characterized by increasing self rule, increasing clarity of membership, and increasing 4 He further states, "And what professionaliza- prestige." ition means in large part is the substitution of control by the customer with substitution of control by the colleague group."5 He points out that teachers do not have self rule 1Ibid., p. 82. 2Ibid., p. 85. 3Dan C. Lortie, "Are They to Become Professionals?" Michigan Education Journal, 44 (May, 1967), 39-41, 4 Ibid., p. 39. 5Ibid., p. 40. 38 since they are ruled by boards and laymen, do not have control of membership, e.g., non-certified people can be teachers, older teachers do not educate the newer ones and have been very poor in building up a body of knowledge and research about teaching. Lortie states that in important ways, teaching is not organized as is typical of high pro- fessionalism. He states his opinion that he is not sure teachers are trying to professionalize and may be obtaining just better working conditions. He points out that with such an important social function as education, the public may not stand for teachers professionalizing and controlling education but concludes that the choice about whether to become professionals is at least partially the teachers' choice. Niehaus also puts the burden on teachers to make themselves true professionals. Among other suggestions, he feels teachers should increase their skills, be more inner directed and obtain more than a minimum level of training to be truly professional.1 Strauss writing about problems of unionizing in another profession, sheds further light on problems for teachers.2 He states that in 1957, engineering unions were, " . . . among the white hopes of the labor movement." "If engineers, lStanley W. Niehaus, "The Anatomy of Professionalism," Clearing House, 41 (May, 1967), 515-19. 2George Strauss, "Professional or Employee-Oriented: Dilemma for Engineering Unions," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 17 (July, 1964), 519-33. 39 among the most 'white collar' of white-collar employees, could be organized--so many unionists argued--then white- collar organization generally would be easy."1 Today, the leadership is demoralized and defeatist and the movement full of animosity and policy conflict and the union has found that it could not sell itself to engineers. One of the reasons for this is, " . . . there are real conflicts between the engineers' interest as an employee and his interest as a professional, and every engineering union must decide to what extent it will serve as a normally employee- oriented union and to what extent it will act as a profes- sional association."2 Strauss spells out in some detail the conflict between an individual being simultaneously, an employee and a professional and states that this conflict further weakens a union of professionals. Basically, he feels there is nothing inconsistent in unionism and profes- sionalism but being an employee as well as a professional creates problems. For example, a person with an employee orientation wants equality for all, including salary equality while the professionally oriented person wants protection of his superior status and individual recognition. Similarly to the question of whether non-professional technicians working with engineers could be included in the bargaining unit, the employee would say yes but the professional would lIbid., p. 519. 2Ibid., p. 520. 40 say no. It would seem that many of these same sorts of conflicts could exist for other professionals, specifically in this case, teachers. Further information regarding non-educator, public employees can contribute to an attempt to gain a somewhat broader perspective. For teachers and their increased organizational activities are only one part of a more general movement of many public employees and of many pro- fessional employees as the previous statements regarding engineers would indicate. A ZEEE magazine essay titled, "The Worker's Rights and The Public Weal" states that three major things are needed to cope with the problems of public employees: recognition of their right to organize and to bargain collectively, development of appropriate bargaining procedures so that strikes are not necessary and recogni- tion of the difference between types of public service, specifically that some are more necessary than others. In illustrating the magnitude of the problem, it is pointed out that one sixth of the national work force, 12,000,000 people were in public employment at the time of the article in 1968. Further, that in 1966, there were 142 work stop- pages by public employees and that these are expected to increase; for example, Dr. Sam Lambert, Executive Secretary of NBA is cited as predicting 250 teacher strikes alone 41 for 1969. The article concludes that anti-strike laws clearly do not work and are not the answer. I Social Workers in New York City Welfare offices in 1965 and in Chicago in 1966 went on strike to obtain col- lective bargaining contracts.2_ New York workers succeeded but their Chicago counterparts did not; however, this is another indication of the increasing movement of profes- sionals and public employees to union techniques of dealing with employers. Tips commenting on the New York strike states that the welfare workers are very poorly paid and so they went on strike.3 Based on two independent research studies, one with a group of bank clerks and the other with a group of scien- tists and engineers, Blackburn and Prandy developed a con- ceptual framework regarding white-collar unionization.4 They conclude that white-collar unions are similar to all other unions although their members do not always like to agree with this. The authors suggest that they are organized for the same basic reasons but that they differ in degree of lTime, 91 (March 1, 1968), 34-35. 2Douglas G. Cater, "The Chicago Social Workers' Strike," Christian Century, 83 (June 29, 1966), 842-43. 3"New York: Strike in a Welfare State," Time, 85 (January 22, 1965), 20-21. 4R. M. Blackburn and K. Prandy, "White-Collar Unioniza- tion: A Conceptual Framework," British Journal of Sociology, 42 unionization. They suggest that there is a continuum of the amount of unionization and that, "The conditions of unionism, that is, have not affected white-collar workers to the same extent that they have manual workers."1 They express the belief that in the future, white-collar unions will become more like unions of manual labor.2 Similar to the conflict between NBA and AFT is con- flict between independent public employee associations and unions. Krislov points out that such independent associa- tions are typically structured very similarly to unions and have a large membership among state public employees but rarely are the spokesman for local government employees. In Michigan for example, the Michigan State Employees Association and AFSCME hold positions with Michigan State employees similar to those held by Michigan Education Association and AFT with Michigan teachers.3 Similar to the United States, Strang says that white- collar workers' militancy is the best hope of the trade lIbid., p. 119. 2The writer of this dissertation suggests that this concept of a continuum of amount of unionization provides a productive way of looking at present day activities of NBA and AFT affiliates. Casting aside questions of alleged philosophical and theoretical differences, collective bar- gaining issues and techniques of the two groups appear very similar. Can the actual differences between the two groups be seen as a difference in the degree of unionization? 3Joseph Krislov, "The Independent Public Employee Association: Characteristics and Functions," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 15 (1961-62), 510-20. 43 . . . . 1 . 2 . union movement in Britain. The Economist states in one of its articles, " . . . British employers are generally scared stiff of white collar unions. . . ."3 British government encourages public employee unions, however. A comment on the militancy of white-collar unions is contained in another issue, "It is the custom of trade unions catering for minorities to proclaim themselves more militant than their big brothers."4 John N. Berry III presents information about a group of librarians asked to participate in a boycott as an adjunct to an ongoing strike. The St. John's University, New York faculty was on strike at the time the librarians annual congress was meeting there. The faculty union asked that the librarians boycott the annual congress. According to Berry, thirty five librarians responded favorably and marched in the picket line with university faculty; five hundred crossed the lines and attended their meetings. The author points out that attendance at the meetings was seen as support of the university. This may not have been the case; he suggests that the group could have boycotted the meetings and written a letter to the university explaining lArnold Strang, "White Collars Getting Dirty," New Statesman, 74 (December, 1967), 840. 2 301-02. 3 "Recognize Me!" Economist, 224 (July 22, 1967), Ibid., p. 301. 4"White Collar Unions; Sound and Fury," Economist, 216 (September 25, 1965), 1213. 44 why or could have attended and stated that their sympathy was with the faculty but that they could not cancel at such a late date. The author says that the situation forced individual librarians and therefore, the group into taking one side or the other.1 Smith and McLaughlin suggest that public employment is a neglected area in labor relations.2 It is their thesis that the problems of labor relations in public employment should be an area of research and training at the university level. In illustration, they cite Fred M. Hechinger writing in the New York Times, describing collective bargaining between the UFT and the New York City Board of Education, "' In industrial disputes labor confronts a management that knows what its assets are. Teachers bargain with a board of education, which lacks fiscal independence in the form of taxing powers. It is a kind of shadow boxing. At best, they can expect a promise that the board will recommend a certain amount to the city authorities. . . . Realistically, it might make more sense for teachers and school board to bargain on the same side of the table against those who control the budget.”3 1John N. Berry III, "Join the Picket Line!" Library Journal, 91 (April 1, 1966), 1782-87. 2Russell A. Smith and Doris B. McLaughlin, "Public Employment: A Neglected Area of Research and Training in Labor Relations," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 16 (October, 1962), 30-34. 3 Ibid., p. 33. 45 Nigro notes two major gains made by public employees through collective negotiations: improved salary and better upward communication which he equates with chasing some of the paternalism out of public management.1 The unionized teacher, other professional or other public employee is part of a larger union group. For this reason, the profile of union members announced on July 16, 1967 by the AFL-CIO is interesting. The profile is based on a poll of 1700 union members done by John Kraft a pro- fessional pollster. Among other things about union members, it showed that nearly fifty per cent live in the suburbs, 46% earn between $7,500 and $15,000 annually, twenty-five per cent are under thirty years of age and almost fifty per cent under forty, twenty per cent are women and 67% favored the AFL-CIO position regarding federal aid to education. Major problems needing national attention were listed as economic by 53%, Vietnam by 42% and civil rights and law enforcement by 33%.2 With all the interest and activity in collective bargaining or professional negotiations by teachers and other public employees, several people have begun to write about the basics of the bargaining or negotiating process lFelix A. Nigro, "The Implications For Public Adminis- tration," "Collective Negotiations in the Public Service," ed. by F. A. Nigro, Public Administration Review, 28 (March, 1968), 111-47. 2"A 'Profile' of Union Members: Who They Are, What They Think," U.S. News and World Report, 63 (July 24, 1967), 75. 46 as it applies to these specific groups. Some authors con- cern themselves with defining collective bargaining and discussing how to do it, while others comment on changes necessary to adapt the process for public employees and still others suggest solutions to the current problems facing teachers and others among public employees. For example, after the 1962 NBA convention in Denver passed a resolution calling for permitting professional negotiations, Ronald Daly defined professional negotiation in part as a means of effective communication.1 Further, he says that it comes about primarily because of teachers' wish to join with school boards in shaping educational policies. Professional negotiation, " . . . places new responsibilities upon teachers and their associations.", and, " . . . likewise increases the responsibilities of the superintendent or chief administrator."2 He states that, "All educational matters are negotiable." Daly says, "Implicit in the concept of professional negotiation is the recognition that teachers have a right to communicate with school officials and that agreements reached should be in written form."3 He also feels that the process pro- vides a foundation of good working relationship between lRonald O. Daly, "Professional Negotiation," National Education Association Journal, 54 (May, 1965), 30-3 . 2 Ibid., p. 30. 3Ibid., p. 31. 47 staff, administration and school board. In a subsequent article, Daly notes that since the first NBA resolution in 1962, the position favoring professional negotiation has been strengthened each year. He also comments that several states have begun to pass laws concerning teacher negotia- tions and to look at the question of what steps to take if negotiations break down.1 Carl Megel2 writes as president of AFT, "Collective bargaining does not mean strikes. It is the avenue by which teachers can resolve grievances with their employers and circumvent the need for a strike." According to Megel, "Historically, teacher strikes have occurred with almost equal incidence among unions, associations and the unorgan- ized."3 He feels that, "The establishment of collective bargaining means that teachers work with, and not for, their 4 This increases morale and efficiency school district." according to him and will lead to better education. As Megel summarizes, the union through collective bargaining gives the teacher a voice in determining his own employment, gives administration assistance in locating true grievances lRonald O. Daly, "New Directions for Professional Negotiation," National Education Association Journal, 55 (October, 1966Y7727-29. 2Carl Megel, "Can a Case be Made for Teacher Unions?" Nations Schools, 73, No. 2 (1964), 51-93, passim. 3 Ibid., p. 51. 41bid., p. 93. 48 and strengthening professional objectives and gives the community a more effective educational system. Newland provides a very concise definition of collec- tive bargaining and/or, professional negotiation.1 Writing on the applications of collective bargaining concepts in governments, he states, "Collective bargaining is a relation- ship between management and the representative of organized employees. It is characterized by periodic negotiations resulting in written agreement on a basic rule system to govern the work relationship and organized arrangements for resolving disagreements and problems as they arise day-to- day."2 He spells out the Taft-Hartley Law's five require- ments for collective bargaining: designation of speakers for management and employees with power to act, good faith bargaining, bargaining about wages, hours, terms and condi- tions of employment, written contract and bilateral adminis- tration, interpretation and enforcement of the contract. Newland feels that this definition of collective bargaining, is directly applicable to negotiations between governmental or public employers and employees. Moskow comments on the concept of exclusive recogni- tion of one bargaining agent in public education. He feels 1Chester A. Newland, "Collective Bargaining Concepts: Applications in Governments," "Collective Negotiations in the Public Service," ed. by F. A. Nigro, Public Administra- tion Review, 28 (March, 1968), 111-47. 2 Ibid., p. 118. 49 that this concept needs adaptation or supplementation in order to be pertinent to teacher negotiations. Pointing out that the State has a great deal to say in education, he states that exclusive representation at the local level must be supplemented by other things in order to handle decisions made at the State level affecting local level functions, but over which local governing units have no control. Likewise, since the area is one of public employ- ment, school boards have to hear minority representatives too; one group cannot speak for all as in private industry.1 While Moskow's thoughts have merit, it is of note that in Michigan, the tendency is for exclusive recognition with agency shop provisions which have been upheld in Court tests. It is also of note as Moskow points out, that in 1965, NBA advocated exclusive recognition as fundamental to professional negotiation and that the teachers' organiza- tion which has the majority should represent exclusively. The AFT takes the same stand regarding representation. Both organizations when necessary and clearly as a second choice, will accept dual or proportional representation.2 In a discussion about the rights and obligations of teachers to negotiate, Street and Ryan argue the merits of lMichaelM. Moskow, "Representation Among Teachers," Monthly Labor Review, 89 (July, 1966), 728-32. 21bid., pp. 728-32. 50 AFT versus NBA.l Ryan proposing AFT affiliation for teachers argues the merits of collective bargaining and the greater relative militancy of the union as Opposed to the educational association. He supports the teachers' right to strike as an integral part of the bargaining process. Street arguing for NBA affiliation says the teaching profession is unique in that it has responsibility to the Board of Education employer but also has responsibility to the total community as well. Stressing the commitment of teachers to the children of all people not just the children of union families, he says that teaching cannot be compared either with any other professional association or with anything in the labor movement. Street chooses to call the process of reaching agreement between employer and employee, nego- tiations rather than bargaining. Friggens2 says regarding the battle between AFT and NBA for teacher membership, "In the middle--and deeply troubled--is the teacher with the exception of a militant hard core, today's teachers are not, by nature, trade unionists." He states that teachers need better salary and more voice in the educational process and questions how these things can be obtained without a union. He feels that, "The public instead of the unions should be battling lMarion Street and John Ryan, "Airing the Issue-3," Instructor, 73 (February, 1964), 49 passim. 2Paul Friggens, "Should Teachers Strike?" Reader's Digest, 89 (November, 1966), 95-99. 51 for the teachers."1 "Small wonder, then, that our teachers are organizing. We've forced them to do what they never wanted to do, and now we are suffering the consequences."2 Friggens cites five things which he considers urgent to provide solution to teachers' problems: greater citizen participation in schools, new blood in school boards, a new breed of school superintendent, better school district financing and the practice of understanding and restraint on the part of all parties involved. Commenting on factors which further unionization, Lombardi and Grimes point out that personal specialization as opposed to task specialization leads to greater socioeco- nomic security and therefore, less tendency to unionize, e.g., doctors and dentists representing personal specialization are less likely to unionize than task specialists such as engineers and teachers.3 Teachers' substandard salaries and fringe benefits plus interference from two non-professional groups, PTA and School Board, leads to unionization according to the authors. Since white collar workers have a high threshhold level for unionization, things must get very bad for them to unionize. 1Ibid., p. 97. 2Ibid., p. 98. 3Vincent Lombardi and Andrew J. Grimes, "A Primer for a Theory of White-Collar Unionization," Monthly Labor Review, 90 (May, 1967), 46-49. 52 Willower discusses resistance to change in school systems and lists the following as leading to resistance to change: real or perceived threats to status, influence of group norms, informal norms and structure, change benefit- ing one part of an organization at the expense of another part, imposition of change from above and lack of informa- tion or skill. Certainly these factors which promote resistance can create problems in and for, negotiations between teacher groups and employer groups. Willower sug- gests that planned change within all open systems is important and must take note of potential sources of resist- ance in order to implement change.1 In order to minimize conflicts over collective bargaining, Combe says that both parties, school boards and teacher groups, must play by the well established rules of collective bargaining and must be realistic.2 In addition, he cites as necessary for both parties: continued rapport and discussion apart from col- lective bargaining, understanding of needs, objectives and ability to pay of the school district, caution and restraint in public discussion of collective bargaining negotiations, withdrawal of supervisory personnel from recognized teachers' 1Donald J. Willower, "Barriers to Change in Educational Organizations," Theory_into Practice, 2 (December, 1963), 2George W. Combe, Jr., "How to Minimize Teachers vs Boards Conflicts Over Collective Bargaining," American School Board Journal, 153 (August, 1966), 53-54. 53 collective bargaining unit and exercise of restraint in discussion and demands. Georgena Potts reports on a summer school session on teacher negotiations.l Discussing collective negotiations, a combination of collective bargaining and professional negotiation, she defines it as, " . . . a participative method of arriving at decisions on conditions of employment." Further, she states, "At its root is the palpable loss to the administrator of the right to make unilateral decisions in the negotiable areas."2 Collective negotiations is changing the roles of the principal, superintendent and school board. The group attending the summer class accepted that the right to strike was necessary to meaningful col- lective negotiation and most agreed that exclusive recogni- tion was the most workable system for negotiation. Potts quotes Albert Shanker, president of the New York City teachers' union as saying that power is the central factor in negotiation. She points out that many attendees did not like this but could offer no substitute. The opposition did raise questions about the professionalism of such a power motive and whether such techniques from the private employment sector were workable in the public sector. lGeorgena R. Potts, "A Summer School Short Course in Teacher Negotiations," Monthly Labor Review, 89 (August, 1966), 847-50. 2 Ibid., p. 847. 54 Lester Ball, an Illinois school superintendent says that, "Collective bargaining in education is here to stay."1 In his primer for superintendents, he says that they must give up the idea that everything must go through him because in collective bargaining the two focal groups are the teachers and the publics' representatives, the School Board. Describing these two as power groups, he says that neither will fully trust the superintendent because he is in the middle. He sees the superintendent as having an important role in pre-bargaining phases of establishing procedures and policies and a very minor role at the bargaining table, mainly to provide information when asked and to facilitate bargaining but not to act as mediator.2 He describes this new role for the superintendent as, " . . . a political rather than an administrative role."3 An interesting development which may be an omen for other teacher unions is the allegation by David Epperson that the California State Federation of Teachers has policies which are, " . . . dangerous to the concept of equal oppor- tunity for the children of workers."4 He says that policies lLester B. Ball, "Collective Bargaining: A Primer for Superintendents," Saturday Review, 50 (January 21, 1967), 70. 2Ibid., pp. 70-80, passim. 3Ibid., p. 80. 4David C. Epperson, "Teacher Heresy in the Union Move- ment," Educational Forum, 30 (May, 1966), 433. 55 of the union opposing group dynamics methods in the classroom and to training teachers to meet individual needs of students penalize children from lower class homes and maintain schools for middle class children. The author says this opposes what unions are usually for and therefore is hereti- cal.1 Thus, it can be seen that while employee negotiations in education made its debut at the turn of the century, the period of rapid growth began in the past decade. As noted in the preceding pages, a number of writers have discussed the problem of increasing employee negotiations in educa- tion. Throughout these writings there is a recurrent theme of conflict, sometimes implicit, often explicit. Several authors attempt to explain causation of the increased mili- tancy of the activity; others point out positive and nega- tive results. There is considerable material presenting various individual and group positions favorable or opposed to negotiations; similarly, a number of authors present value judgments, for example, judgments concerning the rightness or professional quality of the process. Others discuss the mechanics or techniques of carrying on employee negotiations. Overall, it seems clear that there is a problem of increasing employee negotiations in education and that this problem is accompanied by conflict. lIbid., pp. 433-38. 56 Need for Study Significant in its absence is information relative to the effects on the individual professional educator of his involvement in employee negotiations. In its essence, employee negotiations is a process engaged in by individuals and conflicts which accompany the process are relevant to these individuals. There is a need then to look at the individual professional educator and the consequences for him of his involvement in employee negotiations. It is the purpose of this study to look at one type of result of such involvement. The Pugpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the intra- individual conflicts occurring as a result of involvement in employee negotiations which a sample of professional educators will verbalize about in a personal interview. Definitions Employee Negotiations: As used in this study, employee negotiations is defined to include both the actual process of transacting an agreement between employer and employees regarding all pertinent items of employment and any or all side effects or accompaniments to such process. These side effects would include withholding of services, strikes, public statements in opposition to the employer, walking 57 a picket line, mass resignation threats and other activities triggered by and/or in support of, the bargaining process. Conflict: As used in this study, conflict is defined as that state of disequilibrium experienced by an individual because of a clash between two or more simultaneous incom- patible or antagonistic wishes, impulses, learned responses, role expectations, ends or goals and requiring decision or choice between the incompatible factors to reestablish equilibrium. It is by definition therefore, limited to intra-individual conflict. Sample Sample size was arbitrarily set at forty-six. Thirty- two were drawn randomly from the general membership of the two employee organizations for educators in the Flint Public Schools, the Flint Education Association (FEA) and the Flint Federation of Teachers (FFT). The remaining fourteen consist of the negotiations leaders of the two groups. These forty- six representing affiliated educators in the Flint public school system in the 1968-69 school year were those to be contacted for this study. Underlying Assumption The basic underlying assumption of this study is that the professional educator involved in employee negotiations is in a potential conflict-producing situation and that it 58 is probable that conflict will arise for individuals so involved. Instrument of Investigation The Employee Negotiations Conflict Interview (ENCI) was devised to elicit verbal expression of, and information about, intra-individual conflicts which individuals exper- ienced due to involvement in employee negotiations. Infor- mation regarding personal role and participation in employee negotiations also was sought. BNCI is a brief schedule of questions, open-end and largely unstructured, designed to allow maximum freedom of response to the interviewee. Areas of Investigation Since this is uncharted territory, the concept of exploration or investigation of obtained data seems most appropriate. Obtained interviews were submitted to a panel of independent judges along with definitions of categories of conflict constructed from those suggested in the litera- ture and by the writer's speculations in formulating this study. Thus the data are permitted to cluster into cate- gories of conflict allowing description and exploration of the concepts perceived as being in conflict. The variation if any, in the number and type of conflicts between subjects, between organizations and between general membership and leaders are explored. 59 Limitations This study makes no attempt to analyze the personality structure and dynamics of individuals in the sample; no attempt is made to gather personal history or background information or to ascertain why given individuals do or do not express particular conflicts. Similarly, no attempt is made to determine or analyze factors which may have affected selection of organization membership or choice of role with- in the organization. This study concerns itself only with intra-individual conflicts arising from involvement in employee negotiations which the subject will verbalize about in the course of a face to face interview with the writer. Summary The preceding pages have discussed the problem of increasing employee negotiations in education and the need to look at the effects of involvement in this process on individual educators. The purpose of this study, to investigate the intra-individual conflicts occurring as a result of involvement in employee negotiations which a group of professional educators will verbalize about in a personal interview, has been noted. It was indicated that the sample for this study was drawn from Flint public school educators affiliated with the education association or the union at the time of sample selection and that a personal interview schedule was devised as the investigative tool of the study. 6O Areas of investigation and exploration, limitations of the study and pertinent definitions for the study have been noted. In order to investigate intra-individual conflicts, it is necessary now to look at underlying theory of conflict pertinent for this study. Following this, subsequent chapters will deal with methodology and thence with analysis of data and conclusions. CHAPTER II CONFLICT THEORY The basic underlying assumption of this study is that the professional educator involved in employee negotiations as it is herein defined is in a potential conflict-producing situation; it is probable that conflict will arise for him. It is necessary then to understand something about the sub- ject of conflict and its effects in order to look at it as it occurs in the individual. The following selected liter- ature on the subject of conflict as presented to focus on theory important to this study. Pertinent Literature Role conflict appears as a distinct probability for the educator involved in employee negotiations since the role of educator as facilitator of formal learning is not necessarily commensurate in all aspects with the role of educator in employee negotiations. Kahn et a1, would label the foregoing, inter-role conflict, a situation in which role pressures from membership in one organization, i.e., classroom teachers, conflict with pressures from membership 61 62 in other groups, i.e., employee negotiations group.1 The authors' study, a national survey of 725 working adults, is concerned with objective role conflict. This is defined as role conflict in the environment of the individual and imposed on the individual from the external environment; it is also known as, "sent role conflict." Objective role conflict differs from experienced or psychological conflict which is generated internally. In addition to the inter- role conflict described, the authors define two other types of sent role conflict. The two are intra-sender conflict in which incompatible role prescriptions are received from the same person and inter-sender conflict in which pressures from two different role senders are in opposition. These three types of conflict often result in psychological con- flict for the individual. Further the authors state that, a combination of sent pressures and internal forces also can produce role conflict as for example, when role require- ments violate moral values. Contradictory role expectations impinging on the individual from whatever source produce role conflicts which yield for the individual, intensified internal conflicts, increased tension and reduced satisfaction, 1Robert L. Kahn, Donald M. Wolfe, Robert P. Quinn, J. Diedrick Snoek in collaboration with Robert A. Rosenthal, Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguipy (New York, London, Sydney: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964). 63 The authors conclude, "It is quite clear that role conflicts are costly for the person in emotional and interpersonal terms."1 In addition to their national survey, the authors conducted an intensive study using personal interviews with a small sub-sample of the total initially surveyed. In part their conclusions from this data state, "Indeed, evidence of inner conflict in response to strong role pressures is con- centrated among the more neurotic personalities in the intensive study, although dissatisfaction, tension, and feelings of futility occur among all persons under pressure. . . . The evidence urges the conclusion that 'neurotic' and 'non-neurotic' reactions to role conflict are substantially similar, and that sufficient environmental stress may produce neurotic symptoms even in those who show little predisposi- tion to neurotic anxiety."2 In a group of military officers who were also teachers, Getzels and Cuba studied role, role conflict and effective- ness.3 The study done at the Air Force Academy examined the relationship between the highly organized roles of officer and teacher in the military, the conflict between these roles when held by one person and the consequences of such conflict lIbid., p. 71. 21bid., pp. 261-62. 3J. W. Getzels and E. G. Guba, "Role, Role Conflict, and Effectiveness: An Empirical Study," American Socio- logical Review, 19 (1954), 164-75. 64 in effective management of the roles. The authors theoretical position is that, " . . . an actor's behavior may best be 1 They understood as a function of role and personality." state, "In certain situations role conflicts occur. . . . An actor is required to fill simultaneously two or more roles that present inconsistent, contradictory, or even mutually exclusive expectations."2 In such a situation, he must choose one role over the other, compromise between the roles or withdraw from both roles. Regarding degree of conflict the authors state, "The severity of the role conflict is dependent on two factors. One is the relative incompati- bility of expectations between roles. . . . The other factor determining severity of role conflict is the rigor with which expectations are defined within a given situation. How flexible or rigid are the limits set by the defining group within which their expectations may satisfactorily be met? . . . The extent to which conflict is felt is also a func- tion of differences in personality structure."3 The authors conclude that the greater the incompatibility of two role expectations, the greater the role conflict and that while the intensity of role conflict varied with certain person- ality characteristics, the greater the intensity of role conflict, the less was role effectiveness. They state that lIbid., p. 164. 2Ibid., p. 165. 3Ibid., p. 165. 65 while role conflict can be resolved by compromise or exclu- sion, exclusion was the most likely form of resolution in their study. "There seems to be a major role to which one must commit himself in order to determine his action at choice points, . . . An actor, therefore, placed in a role conflict situation, will probably choose as his major role the one that is most compatible with his needs and will assimilate other competing roles to it as the frame of reference. . . . If an individual chooses as his major role the one that is also the legitimate role in the situation he is less likely to be affected by conflicts or the threat of sanctions than when he chooses some alternate‘role."1 Nathan Ackerman agrees pointing out that the extent to which a role is successfully handled is a function of the degree of overlap between role expectations and the actor's own needs.2 Thus, roles chosen commensurate with personal needs and legitimite in the situation create less intra-individual conflict than other roles might, according to these authors. Illustrating role conflict problems of sociologists, Nelson states, "It is almost a truism that when various strategies (role playing strategies) conflict, the actual selection of a strategy often comes about as a result of l . Ibldor pp. 173-74. 2Nathan W. Ackerman, "Social Role and Total Person- ality," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 21 (January, 1951), 1-17. 66 serious compromise either between individuals or within an individual leaving the adherents to the compromise deeply 1 He suggests the possibility that a given dissatisfied." pattern of role conflict may be a feature of the inter- relationship of man, his organization and the external environment. Boulding discusses intra-individual conflict from the frame of reference of the Lewin-Miller theory of conflict.3 This theory is concerned with the positive and negative values of a goal, i.e., forces which attract to a goal and forces which repel from a goal. According to this theory which Boulding espouses, an individual is in a state of conflict when he is in equilibrium between two equally positive, attractive goals or between two equally negative, repelling goals. The first type of conflict is labelled approach-approach conflict and the latter, avoidance-avoidance conflict. Thus the individual in a position which is both unacceptable and stable is in conflict. A third type of conflict is approach-avoidance conflict in which a goal has both positive and negative values and the individual is ambivalent. Boulding states, "As long as the good in the 1Harold A. Nelson, "How Shall The Advocate Advocate? A Fictional Case Study in Role Conflict," Ethics, 76 (July, 1966), 241. 21bid., pp. 239—52. 3Kenneth E. Boulding, Conflict and Defense (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962). 67 goal certainly outweighs the bad, no psychological conflict is likely to arise, . . . "1 As part of a larger study of the role of the teacher done by the University of Kansas City, Twyman and Biddle report on role conflict of public school teachers.2 The underlying assumption of their study is that the teacher caught in conflicting pictures for his behavior was in a state of role conflict. Data were obtained in group inter- views using an instrument describing thirty different teacher behaviors and designed to measure expectations and pre- scriptions or norms for teacher behavior held by a sample of teachers, pupils, parents and school officials. One of the findings was that disparities between the role seen for the teacher by school officials and parents and the role seen for the teacher by teachers themselves caused the greatest amount of role conflict and the greatest general difficulty. The authors question that teachers are suf- ficiently aware of the amount of disparity in these various groups' perceptions of teacher role and point out that such disparity makes adequate evaluation of teacher performance difficult for in such cases, meeting the standards of one group must of necessity mean failing the standards of another group. lIbid., p. 90. 2J. Paschal Twyman and Bruce J. Biddle, "Role Conflict of Public School Teachers," The Journal of Psychology, 55 (1963), 183-98. 68 In another study, Getzels and Cuba investigated the structure of roles and role conflict in the teaching situa- tion.1 They developed a role conflict instrument after extensive interviews and used it with a sample of teachers to investigate the nature of expectations attaching to the teacher role. The extent of the conflict among these expectations and the differential effect of such conflict on the teachers as a function of certain personal and social characteristics was also researched. They concluded that many expectations, both general and common to all teaching, and specific, depending on the local school and community for their type, were in conflict and state, " . . . the teaching situation is in many critical elements char- acacterized by role conflict."2 They also found that the differences among teachers regarding the amount role con- flict troubled them as individuals were related to the personal characteristics of the teachers. Gross, McEachern and Mason report on studies of the school superintendency role.3 They were concerned with studying the individual superintendent exposed to conflict- ing and incompatible expectations and with developing a 1J. W. Getzels and B. G. Guba, "The Structure of Roles and Role Conflict in the Teaching Situation," Journal of Educational Sociology, 29 (September, 1955), 30-40. 21bid., p. 40. 3Neal Gross, Alexander W. McEachern and Ward 8. Mason, "Role Conflict and Its Resolution," in Role Theory: Concepts and Research, ed. by Bruce J. Biddle and Edwin J. Thomas (New York, London, Sydney: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966). 69 theory of role conflict resolution. Data were collected in individual, eight hour, personal interviews with a random sample of all Massachusetts school superintendents in 1952- 53. The resultant 105 subjects each were presented with alternative expectations which relevant groups might hold for his behavior in four different situations and asked to state which represented the expectation of each relevant group for his behavior. When a superintendent indicated that he perceived incompatible expectations held for his behavior by relevant groups as for example, teachers expect- ing one behavior while school board members expected a different and incompatible behavior of him in the same situation, the interviewer probed with open-end questions to discover the amount of anxiety created, how the conflict was resolved and what the subject thought were the sanctions or rewards and punishments which would accrue to him because of this behavior. To illustrate, 88% of the superintendents reported incompatible expectations from different, relevant groups on the issue of teacher salary, one of the situations used in this study. The authors also report on the determinants of indi- vidual choices in resolving role conflict; they define role. conflict as occurring when an individual perceives himself coo comp m>mn mouswww wocmsqmumaa .mtm mmusmflm Add new man» ma mane .emmva «ammma «gamma xqammm «seamed xz